The Instigator
Cindela
Pro (for)
Losing
40 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happenening right now.

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
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: 1/7/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,483 times Debate No: 1494
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (29)

 

Cindela

Pro

Before I begin this debate, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and I would like to thank everyone who will eventually vote in this debate.

Also, I would like to ask everyone who will vote to vote based upon who made the better argument, and rebutted their opponent's arguments better. Please do not vote in this debate based upon your own opinions and beliefs. Thank you.

Now to the debate:

Global warming is a true phenomenon recognized by experts all around the world. For instance, the US National Academy of Sciences once issued a report with 10 other National Academies of Science with a quote saying, "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." In other words, they accept that global warming is happening, and we have to do something about it.

This is my only argument for this round, and I await my opponent. Thank you.
littlelacroix

Con

Before we can really begin this debate, I must set the grounds for the argumentation. Even though the topic just states global warming, in my opponents argument, he mentions that we must cut the emissions of greenhouse gases and thus, my entire argument will be based on whether global warming is due to human or natural causes.

I will now argue my three main points:

1. On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history.

2. Carbon dioxide emissions do not correlate with the higher temperature. Around 115,000 years ago, the Earth was in it's warmest phase on record, yet the carbon dioxide levels were among the lowest ever recorded. If that isn't enough to convince you, over the last 200 or so years, the carbon dioxide levels have sky-rocketed, mainly due to mankind, yet the temperature has only risen a half a degree Celsius. So, if we're in a period of warming and mankind has given off so much carbon dioxide, then why has the Earth's temperature only risen a half a degree Celsius? It just goes to prove that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and the temperature.

3. Finally, during the mid 1990's, two Danish researchers, Henrik Svennsmark and Eigil Friis, had hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover, thus, more cosmic radiation, more cloud cover. Clouds actually cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about twenty percent of incoming solar radiation back into space. The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the sun's magnetic field which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures. The influx in cosmic radiation may have cause the recent spike in temperature in recent years and may have been a factor during the time when Earth had temperatures this high as well.
Debate Round No. 1
Cindela

Pro

Throughout your entire first argument, you never debated about the topic. The topic is "Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happening right now." The topic is NOT "Global Warming is caused by mankind." You have been arguing about a totally different topic.

The grounds for argumentation were stated in the topic. You must argue that Global Warming is not happening right now. You have not done that. All you have done is help me with your arguments showing that global warming is happening, and therefore I have nothing to refute. Thank you
littlelacroix

Con

The first argument in any debate sets the ground for the debating to take place. As you stated, "...climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." Because you mentioned that mankind needs to take prompt action to prevent this phenomenon, you argue that it is mankind's fault and that we need to do something about it. The topic of the debate doesn't set the grounds for the debate, it just presents an idea. I merely had refuted your argument and you have just wasted an argument trying to be stubborn. If you really want to start a good debate, watch your beginning argument a little closer. Thank you.

PS - There is nothing that mankind can do to prevent such a monumental event.

Vote littlelacroix in the voting period! :-)
Debate Round No. 2
Cindela

Pro

>>The first argument in any debate sets the ground for the debating to take place.
That is what the topic is for. The topic is a very clear statment, saying that global warming is happening right now. As the Pro, I have to say that it is. As the Con, you have to say it is not. That is what a debate is. The Con cannot just redefine the topic any way they like it. That is what I do, and the topic is very clear.
>>you argue that it is mankind's fault and that we need to do something about it. The topic of the debate doesn't set the grounds for the debate, it just presents an idea.
You claim that I am saying this. However, no where in my first argument did I say anything about Global Warming being man-kind's fault. I was quoting the US National Academy of Sciences when I said "...climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." This is what the US National Academy of Sciences and 10 other academies of sciences say. That quote is in not saying that global warming is our fault. It is saying that Global Warming is happening and we have to do something about it. This debate is only about whether or not global warming is happening right now. It is not about whether it is man-kind's fault.

Again, just in case my opponent did not understand me, the topic is: Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happening right now. It is NOT Global Warming is mankind's fault. My opponent is arguing the latter topic, but this debate is about the first topic. Therefore, throughout this entire debate, my opponent has not been debating the topic. For my argument, go to the first speech. Thank you
littlelacroix

Con

Well, congratulations! You have once again wasted another one of your speeches. Just to briefly win my point once more, we debate a topic, not the wording of the topic. Ultimately, we argue the speeches that are given. And, since you have yet to attack any one of my arguments from my first speech, I win there.

As far as your last argument, you are so far from being wrong that it's not even funny. You have said twice, "...climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." Now once again seeing it, why would we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if global warming is natural, as you tried to claim in your last speech? Your argument is flawed and you have wasted a perfectly good debate by changing the topic. And by the way, even if I was "off topic," which I still don't think I am, you still had lost your first speech because you never argued my points.

Since I have proven that you have gone way off topic yourself, I have proven that you believe that global warming is mankind's fault, and you haven't argued anything, this debate is essentially over and I hope that people who vote for this debate will see that my opponent has lost due to his lack of global warming argumentation. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Alright, you've convinced me.
Posted by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
yeah really, u cant say co2 emmissions arnt doing anything
, they are and you are the cause of it like every 1 else
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
How was the topic unclear???
Global Warming Is a Phenomenon that is Happening Right Now.

Global Warming: I think we all know what that is.

Is A: Self explanatory

Phenomenon: If you don't know what it means, use a dictionary!

That is: Self explanatory

Happening: Use a dictionary if you don't know what it means.

Right Now: The day and age that we live in.

Is there anything unclear about this?

I don't understand how I am losing this deebate. Con had to prove that global warming is not happening, and all he did was prove that it was not mankind's fault, which is not the topic in this debate. Someone, enlighten me as to the reason I am losing, please.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Topicality issues got in the way of me voting for Pro. The topic was unclear, and Con was based off of what was said. Had a strong response came from Pro, it would have been winnable, however not enough was said.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I agree with mikelwallace, and understand littlelacroix perfectly when he says he is setting the grounds for the debate. so far, con has my vote.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I think that littlelacroix has a much stronger argument, and given the topic, he has much more evidence at his disposal, despite what MSNBC or CNN might tell you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com...

http://science.slashdot.org...
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 8 years ago
Excessum
CindelalittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 9 years ago
burningpuppies101
CindelalittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 9 years ago
littlelacroix
CindelalittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 dfhahadfh 9 years ago
dfhahadfh
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 Insene 9 years ago
Insene
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 ahole 9 years ago
ahole
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 kykrebs 9 years ago
kykrebs
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 simplyme 9 years ago
simplyme
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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