The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Global Warming is a hoax

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,916 times Debate No: 32769
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)




1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

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

I am going to argue that there is no such thing as global warming, or at least there is nothing valid that proves such a thing exists.

No forfeits or concessions.
Argument must be serious. No limit to a specific aspect of Global Warming.

R1:Acceptance (Ask to modify rules in comments)
R5:Summary and conclusion. Maximum of 3000 characters.


i fully accept the conditions of my opponent and my position of the opponent i also will allow him to start the arguement
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

It [Global Warming] is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist

-Harold Lewis

Billions of dollars are spent every year in Global Warming research, another typical money waste if you ask me. I do not believe the people behind it actuallyve in this pseudo-science, they are fabricating it, and fabrication this big is not just a "scam", a fabrication this big wants to bring change. That change can range from a few political seats to some evo-fascism, something like what the UN's Agenda 21 would want.

Before I begin, ask yourself this question: What did the green movement accomplish? Collecting money? What is their biggest achievement? Does it involve getting mega-bucks?
Why do 1-percenter green movement powerhouses own oil companies? Why is Al-Gore's carbon foot print sky high?

I do find global warming quite silly. It predicts that heat will flow from the atmosphere to the warmer ground. And this violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Believe it or not, but statistics aren't on the Global Warming's side. The IPCC have been quite creative, but that ain't enough. I will get to it later.


Sure, there aren't many statistics comparing human and natural sources for the GHGs, but which side he billions of dollars invested in order to prove something exists?

It is no secret that nature's GHGs dwarfs man-made GHGs. The chart is accurate enough:

Currently general agreement is that 95% of GHG (Greenhouse Gases) are caused by water vapor, and 99.999% of that is of natural origin. We can do little about it.

The claim is: We are disturbing natural balance of the 4.5 billion years old planet and it won't be able to take it due to it's pathetically fragile system. A large portation of this claim may only need a ninth grader to debunk it.

Water Vapour: How big a facor is water? I mean the percentage of water in the atmosphere gets change constantly but we don't witness change in the temperature.

There is a reason it is added list of GHGs. Water is really good at reflecting and absorbing light & radiations. In fact, it blows CO2 out of the water (no pun intended).

Collection of quotes admitting it:


Bring me a source that claims CO2 have a better absorption ability than H2O. They imply that water have some kind of a cycle that makes CO2's effect bigger. Guess what? Water absorbs gasses, adding water to CO2 will create a vacuum. How do you think acid rains are created? How do you think sea creatures create shells? The effect is called "Carbon Sink". Read something about it.
Simple experiment above.

Acid rains take between hours to days to form. Not HUNDREDS of years for the GHGs to FINALLY react to water. It is all simple science.

Try standing on a scale with an ant. Thats H2O against CO2.
How does Global Warming pseudo-science explain that? I have no clue...

CO2:First thing you need to know is that carbon is at a State of Equilibrium. That is the point of natural cycles That is the basis of Carbon-14 dating method.
If it increases in the atmosphere, there is acid rain. If it increases in oceans, there is sedimentation. And eventually, volcanoes will release the carbonate as CO2.


Soil CO2:

It may even cause plants to reach their potential:

Second of all, it is heavy:

CO2 Mol mass: 44.01 g per Mol
CO2 Density: 1.96 KG/m3
Gravity: 1.5189

Air = 28 g per Mol
Air Density : 1.2 KG/m3
Gravity: 1

H2O = 18 g per Mol
H2O Density : 0.75 kg-m3
Gravity: 0.62

There is a reason there are no plants before there is no oxygen while climbing mountains. That is most of the CO2 is in oceans. Just look at the properties, it is a mess. I need an explanation of how CO2 can get from down here all the way up.

Where is the warming?

There is no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes global warming. Did the surface temperature warm yet? Oh! It didn’t.

The Venus argument:

Might aswell mention it here. Other than being a logical fallacy with funny counter-examples. It is completely incorrect and based on false assumptions.

If we use the IPCC’s (false) formula, CO2 may only heat it up by 38C, so how come it is hotter than Mercury and have a degree 482C? Because it is a different planet.

Infact, CO2 may even cool the planet since Venus have 30-40Km thick clouds that blocks most of the sun’s radiation. That’s why there is little difference in heat between day and night in Venus. Venus have a very weak magnetic field, it takes the planet 246 days to rotate on it’s axis, so all the molten magma is not suppressed and the thousands of volcanoes goes ahoy.

2-What does What again?

Global warming does whatever it feels likes. And I am not talking about the “scary” failed apocalypse prophecies.

Global warming does everything! It makes ice melt, it makes ice thicken. Decide on something already!

I might as well start a theory about “Global Cooling”… Ops… It was invented in the 70s…

Lets cut the hypocrisy already…

Cow Fart-Gas > Human transportation GHG

So we should eat less meat!

Heck, we should be like this woman:

We exhale CO2 (Shocker...)

3-The missing link:

Contrary to the popular belief, evolution isn’t the only one in the manhunt.

According to geological ice sample study, the earth is in a period of cooling and warming.


I am not a climate change denier (Ironic right?). There is nothing we can do against nature.

The recent history’s hottest period is 2000 years ago, which is before cigarettes were invented (So you may scratch that out as a cause).

Whats that? I’d almost say humans have nothing to do with it. The world was NOT flooded back then, and it won’t start flooding now.

4-The trustworthy IPCC:

Calling the IPCC trustworthy is a relative statement. But according to an average hillie billie’s standards, the IPCC is the furthest from “Trustworthy”.

The IPCC does not even do research, the fact they have been caught faking so many times is enough.


No comment needed…



before you start round 3 i recomend you watch an incoveinent truth also it is not global warming its climate change this is why some places get cooler and some get warmer.

yes 95% of co2 is not man made but the 5% that we do make is tipping the balance lits like having a scale and having 100kg on one side and 100kg on the other. that is what it is like in nature but because of man and our technolgy that its now 100k and 105kg and then 110 then 115 until everything crumbles.

the co2 level has never been above 300ppm (parts per million) until 1950
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position" "All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase"

Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

50 years ago nobody had to wear sunscreen.

During the 20th century, sea level rose an average of 7 inches after 2,000 years of relatively little change. The 2007 IPCC report conservatively predicted that sea levels could rise 10 to 23 inches by 2100 if current warming patterns continue.

self explanotory

According to the EPA, global sea level has risen by eight inches since 1870.

Read more:
Debate Round No. 2


I watch the "an inconvenient tr... lie...". That movie was full of lies that they

Al-Gore himself tells you to ignore him and keep believing in GW.
Leave the guy alone with the mega-bucks he earned, his oil company, and his gigantic carbon footprint.

The Co2 ppm is meaningless until you explain how Co2 does Global Warming. For example, during the Cambrian period, Co2 ppm was 18 times higher than today, the 7000 ppm did not invent Venus #2.

The early graphs of Co2 increase are a fraud, they doctored and selected data to make a scary graph.

If you don't start a graph from a zero, it will look sharp.

The glacier bubbles will have a lower concentration of Co2.

Not only do Global Warming alarmists defend the manipulated graphs, but they also claim that the Co2 level never rose above 300ppm for x0,000 years. But oops, fossils records proves you wrong...

How did the Co2 increase that much without humans?


Please show me how Co2 beats H2O.

How possibly can we cause a change of 350% by the end of the century when we only contribute a tiny 3.5% of the Co2? Is nature excluded?

How come BILLIONS of dollars are spent in order to PROVE something proved?
Because that thing was NEVER proved.

Is that the best result they could come up with? 0.12 Fahrenheit? OMG a disaster!
Dude... The earth was 20 Fahrenheit warmer than that... The earth did not flood...

Glaciers are melting and thickening:

As for the sea level, it is a myth (like global warming!), "Self explanatory":

1/3 of Netherlands rises above sea level!
Oops... That's an other IPCC mistake. The IPPC also added the area that could be venerable to flooding, that way the statistics would look more scary.

Listen... When the first island sinks, give me a call.

The sunscreen was a nice touch (Assuming it was invented millions of years ago), I like the use of the word "Have". People don't Have to wear sunscreen, people choose to wear sunscreen.

I also would like you to confront the political (And commercial?) aspect of Global Warming.
Are people doing this to make money? Why do oil companies love GW policies? Why are people behind it getting richer rather than doing something useful about pollution? All that money is getting on the pockets of con artists, people keep buying expensive green products, but that is not science.

The fact that the GW movement was caught making frauds is enough to remove any legitimacy to superficial reports.

The real hockeystick graph:



with the Co2 ppm it was 7000ppm in the Cambrian but it should be decreasing not increasing
"Even if greenhouse emissions stopped overnight the concentrations already in the atmosphere would still mean a global rise of between 0.5 and 1C. A shift of a single degree is barely perceptible to human skin, but it"s not human skin we"re talking about. It"s the planet; and an average increase of one degree across its entire surface means huge changes in climatic extremes.

Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert. It suffered a short reprise during the dust- bowl years of the 1930s, when the topsoil blew away and hundreds of thousands of refugees trailed through the dust to an uncertain welcome further west. The effect of one-degree warming, therefore, requires no great feat of imagination.

"The western United States once again could suffer perennial droughts, far worse than the 1930s. Deserts will reappear particularly in Nebraska, but also in eastern Montana, Wyoming and Arizona, northern Texas and Oklahoma. As dust and sandstorms turn day into night across thousands of miles of former prairie, farmsteads, roads and even entire towns will be engulfed by sand."

What"s bad for America will be worse for poorer countries closer to the equator. It has beencalculated that a one-degree increase would eliminate fresh water from a third of the world"s land surface by 2100. Again we have seen what this means. There was an incident in the summer of 2005: One tributary fell so low that miles of exposed riverbank dried out into sand dunes, with winds whipping up thick sandstorms. As desperate villagers looked out onto baking mud instead of flowing water, the army was drafted in to ferry precious drinking water up the river " by helicopter, since most of the river was too low to be navigable by boat. The river in question was not some small, insignificant trickle in Sussex. It was the Amazon.

While tropical lands teeter on the brink, the Arctic already may have passed the point of no return. Warming near the pole is much faster than the global average, with the result that Arctic icecaps and glaciers have lost 400 cubic kilometres of ice in 40 years. Permafrost " ground that has lain frozen for thousands of years " is dissolving into mud and lakes, destabilising whole areas as the ground collapses beneath buildings, roads and pipelines. As polar bears and Inuits are being pushed off the top of the planet, previous predictions are starting to look optimistic. Earlier snowmelt means more summer heat goes into the air and ground rather than into melting snow, raising temperatures in a positive feedback effect. More dark shrubs and forest on formerly bleak tundra means still more heat is absorbed by vegetation.

Out at sea the pace is even faster. Whilst snow-covered ice reflects more than 80% of the sun"s heat, the darker ocean absorbs up to 95% of solar radiation. Once sea ice begins to melt, in other words, the process becomes self-reinforcing. More ocean surface is revealed, absorbing solar heat, raising temperatures and making it unlikelier that ice will re-form next winter. The disappearance of 720,000 square kilometres of supposedly permanent ice in a single year testifies to the rapidity of planetary change. If you have ever wondered what it will feel like when the Earth crosses a tipping point, savour the moment."

every 1 degree gained at the equator is 12 degrees gained at the poles

"the end of the world is nigh. A three-degree increase in global temperature " possible as early as 2050 " would throw the carbon cycle into reverse. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, vegetation and soils start to release it. So much carbon pours into the atmosphere that it pumps up atmospheric concentrations by 250 parts per million by 2100, boosting global warming by another 1.5C. In other words, the Hadley team had discovered that carbon-cycle feedbacks could tip the planet into runaway global warming by the middle of this century " much earlier than anyone had expected. "

we may be only 3.5% of the problem with our output but our output is also making nature output more
by 2100 north America will have the same water problem as Africa war will break out for the last bits of fresh water

with the water rising they measure the water level at the equator and water flows from the equator to the poles and water is rising 7m there. Rome is in danger of flooding.

just plain terrifying
Debate Round No. 3


Please note that my opponent have failed to respond to any of my arguments or challenges, I gave him the option to defend and create arguments against different aspects of criticism on Global Warming, and yet. We still have the Co2 weight problem, the thermodynamic laws problem, the water vapor percentage and absorption problem, the history problem, the fraud problem, the corruption problem. Cramming those up objections against the theory and putting them aside, like our friend here did, shows failure to respond and defend. Which brings us to these annoying emotional argument.

And you want the Co2 ppm to get lower than this? You do realize plants can't preform photosynthesis with 150-200 Co2 ppm right?
I'd say the concentration is quite balanced since there is no gument that the current Co2 concentration is harmful.

1-Law of thermodynamics:
1- The warm earth surface radiates heat to the cooler atmosphere.
2- The cool body (uphysically) re-radiates the heat it got back to the warm body.
3- This continuous process's net result causes the warmer body to become warmer.

The earth is not an isolated system, the earth is not flat. The cooling happens at night, the rate of 240 W/m^2 is not going to change because of 0.000390 Co2. Just bring me one thermodynamic text that mentions "Back/reflected heat radiations", it is impossible for a cooler body to warm the source of it's heat.
It is true that all bodies releases radiations, but the earth surface's radiation is 10 times stronger than the atmosphere's radiation. Result: The earth cools, not get 11 times the atmosphere's radiations back.

2-Co2 weight:

CO2 Mol mass: 44.01 g per Mol
CO2 Density: 1.96 KG/m3
Gravity: 1.5189

Air = 28 g per Mol
Air Density : 1.2 KG/m3
Gravity: 1

H2O = 18 g per Mol
H2O Density : 0.75 kg-m3
Gravity: 0.62

Gravity is almost constant at your everyday heights. What I want to know is how Co2 is going to get down here all the way to the atmosphere. Why do ocean hold the majority of Co2?


Water absorption infrared radiations MUCH more than Co2, how can GW be man-made if such a thing exists?
Not to mention that it is 24,400 ppm.

I was planning to watch a horror movie soon, but what the hell. I have that article Con copy pasted. *Brings popcorn*


We first kick it off with a temperature lie. Nice try associating a weather extreme to GW, I mean they never existed in the past n'all... Oh wait...

The second paragraph is so full of logical fallacies.
According to the Overseas Development Institute, Finland was covered by broadleaf forests 6000 years ago. Therefore, I conclude that an increase in 1C is going to fill the earth with forests! Point?
The author pretty much admits that Anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist here. And nice of him to point out that this article is solely based on imagination & lala land fantasy.

*Fictional Scenario Begins*!

Omg! The Amazon flooded! Nature extreme! GLOBAL WARMING!
Oh wait... That is the opposite of the article... Does this mean it is GLOBAL COOLING!
1/3 of fresh water will freeze! The end is nigh!

I am not too sure about "no return"...
It shrinks and then... Grows right up! Maybe GW is taking breaks?
The Polar bears trick is still being used? Wicked.

Who cares about what water absorbs, there is man-made Co2! And wow! I never knew the heat water absorbs become sustainable!
Humans sheds 4 kilograms of skins per year! OMG we are dying!

Yay! An other Global Warming/Cooling dooms day prophecy!

And by Hadley you mean the center that leaked the climate gate emails?

I love how he mentioned Rome. Why just Rome? He wants to band Catholics in order to protect the Vatican or something? lol.

Global Warming have none, zero, nada proof.

Removing 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler?
Tampering with data?
Not cool. (And definitely not hot because of GW)

I am not sure the heck that is. But it is not science.

Please bring me something useful next time. Thank you!


this website would be pretty stupid if everyone just called each other liars without proof

so... all of your websites and facts are as fake as evolution. no proof needed
Debate Round No. 4


Is that *gulp*... a forfeit!!??
If it isn't, then the argument isn't serious. I admire attempting to follow a rule, but you did not follow the rules.

Oh God... And we also have an other set of logical fallacies...
I can't but chuckle at how you called "facts" "fake"... How'd you manage that?

Fact n.
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

You seem to actually acknowledge what I wrote as facts. Yet, when acknowledging facts you do not falsify them. And what do you mean by fake websites? I have nothing to do with them! I swear!
Unfortunately for you sir... Proofs are not only needed, they are also required. Fail attempt at sarcasm haha. The funny part is that most formal structures are legitimate in case all conditions are true, but yours goes like this:
  • In case all argument presented in this website were made of personal attack and accusations of lying, it would be pretty dumb...
Dude... Where is the connection? What does what have to do with anything?

Also, Evolution is a controversial issue, which means not everyone agree with it. So you seem to suggest that people who believe in evolution should give me their vote on "Who used the most reliable sources". While people who don't should vote a tie. (It is not like you give actual resources...)
I should probably accept this proposal. But I agree not with it's fairness (for you!). So I need you to confirm that you really want to cut this deal first in the next round.

I already presented proofs In an other notice It also seems that the word "proof" sends all the dots right next to the word "so"... (See!)

Vote Pro!
I have no idea how will you do it. But pray to God that you catch up.


The_argueonator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Dragonfang 5 years ago
Whether heating is a normal cycle or not. Global Warming means that atmosphere "reflects" the heat energy back to the warmer earth causing a warmer body to get warmer, which is a scientific absurdity.
The world is not going to be destroyed, and the hundred of millions years old system is not fragile. If it started as a scam, then almost everything is probably untrue. Climate Gate emails shows that the said researchers themselves have a hard time explaining it.
A better name is a "heating cycle" like the Medieval Warm Period. Which was apparently very difficult to make it go away in Greenland.
Posted by zezima 5 years ago
whether global warming is true or not, i dont believe it is by humans.
Posted by Dragonfang 5 years ago
Sample from climate gate emails:

I really wish I could be more positive about the " material, but I swear I
pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that."
I don"t think it"d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics
any more than I already have"they just are what they are " I think I"ll
have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible
for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media
is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going
to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the
prominent ones, but that is a different story.

I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years

and co-workers" and Mann and co-workers" results? We would need to put
in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics would have a field
day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence
these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the "estimates from
paleological data. I don"t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I"d
hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!

please get rid of the ridiculous "inconclusive" for the 34% to 66%
subjective probability range. It will convey a completely different meaning
to lay persons"read decision makers"since that probability range
represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like
"quite possible" is closer to popular lexicon, but "inconclusive" applies as
well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be
misinterpreted on the outside.

Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical
processes? Where did the heat go? "
Posted by Dragonfang 5 years ago
Science does not lie as it does not have a concious of it's own. Science is completly neutral.

However scientists can lie.

"Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." - Lewontin, R., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, p. 13, 22 October 1981

When a scientist really believes in something, but he doesn't have enough evidence, he can fake evidence in order to make others believe what he believes, in hope that this will result in real evidence.
It is an interesting case that relates to human psychology.

For example: Check what this guy said:

"It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

That is his excuse to spread the false information that the Himalayas will melt by 2035...

Billions of dollars are spent every year to global warming research, no scientist is going to say: "Ok, there is no evidence of Global Warming".

There are 2.5 billion people live on 2$ a day. It is another case of greed, money and power. Some people make a lot of money out of it. Carbon trade stuff makes rich companies get richer.
Posted by missmedic 5 years ago
anwser why would science lie?
Posted by Dragonfang 5 years ago
Sorry for posting late.

There is a problem with picture uploading, I get some 500 server error. So I left #*number* to indicate where a picture is supposed to be:






The only one that is neccessary really is #2.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 5 years 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Smithereens 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Massive dumps unjustified vote. Pm me if something changes.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 5 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, that just happened.
Vote Placed by Pennington 5 years ago
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: Con offered something and then FF'd two rounds. Therefore, my vote is valid.