The Instigator
shwayze
Pro (for)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

Global Warming is all hysteria and a liberal hoax.

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: 2/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,153 times Debate No: 2972
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (27)

 

shwayze

Pro

Global Warming does exist but there is nothing we can do about it. It's natural. All the green technology in the world will only slightly reduce Global Warming because it is inevitable. In fact, there is more proof that the world is cooling, according to a source which I will site. Doesn't everybody remember or know that in 1972 on the front page of Times Magazine was "GLOBAL COOLING." Everyone was worried because there was an apparent ice age. Funny how all of a sudden our world is melting and we have a global crisis. Only liberals fall for this hysteria.
Tatarize

Con

Global warming is not hysteria nor is it a hoax liberal or otherwise.

Global warming is explained aptly by the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere by human sources. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes the Earth to retain heat. Earth is retaining heat and as a consequence is now causing the planet to become more heated than typical. The last few years have been the hottest years on record.
Debate Round No. 1
shwayze

Pro

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded.
-China has its coldest winter in 100 years.
-Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history.
-North America has the most snowcover in 50 years,
with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began.
-Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota,
Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa,
Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. ALL SHOW THAT OVER THE PAST YEAR, GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE DROPPED PRECIPITOUSLY.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to WIPE OUT nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 YEARS. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does DEMONSTRATES CLEARLY that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."

Thank you DailyNet. What more do you want? Only 44% of the people believe in Global Warming. It is still very controversial. Did you know that a cow lets out greenhouse gases (propane) when they birp and release gas which is worse for the environment than all the CO2 emissions COMBINED from cars, trains, and planes?? 100% fact. It's not our fault. And that is one ONE EXAMPLE. Maybe we should kill all the cows? But that would be completely silly because PETA, the ultra-extreme liberal animal rights group, will complain and the libs will be stuck in a mess they brought upon themselves.
Tatarize

Con

* 2007 tied for the hottest year on record.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov...

Your argument was largely cut and pasted from:
http://www.dailytech.com...

Global Warming is a general global heating trend, whereas Climate Change is changes in climate due to global warming. Heat changes things. Ocean and air currents are all driven by heat. These currents change as the heat changes. The weather is thrown completely out of whack. So we see things like Baghdad seeing it's first snow in all of recorded history, which in Baghdad, means a hell of a lot. We see extreme cold and extreme hot but we also see average weather as hotter than typical.

Global warming is about global average temperature rising. Not about heat waves of cold snaps.
http://www.globalwarming101.com...

This hasn't been the coldest 12 months in a long time by any measure. In fact, 2007 tied for the hottest year on record. Your cut and pasted claim is, rather measuring the difference between January 2007 and January 2008 and noticing the swing in temperature is massive. This is because January 2007 was HOT. It honestly was balmy and hot whereas this winter is fairly frozen. The weather is fairly random (any old timers want to point out how often you had unusual weather when you were young... about never? Now it's several times a year).

It's winter. It gets cold in winter. Last winter it didn't get cold. It was downright warm. Whereas this winter is cold. The difference between a really hot winter and a cold winter is a lot.

2007 is tied for the hottest year on record. Solar activity dropped back in 1985. It dropped and has stayed low... and we've had a decade of record high temperatures. For a few years the trend looked pretty close, but the graphs quickly diverged as the heat shot up and the solar activity dropped.

The number of people who believe something doesn't change anything at all. A massive amount of people believe in ghosts and aliens.

Cows do not burp propane. That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long while. Cows do fart methane and methane is a greenhouse gas. However the nonsense report that it is more responsible than the tons of CO2 is pathetic and wrong.

PETA is actually in favor of killing all the cows, and never breeding any more.

---

It took about five years for our arctic ice to melt to the feeble amount we have today. That's pretty fast. Suddenly we actually do have a north west passage, and can swim around the north pole.

Our climate patterns are haywire. And outside of the Bush appointed leader of NASA the real climate scientists are actual scientists and believe the data.

There have been a number of studies about other factors for warming, all of them have come up with only a fraction of what we need to explain the warming we are seeing. Though, there are warming factors like city island effects etc, they aren't crap compared to a massive blanket of CO2.

We've run computer models for years and so far they have pretty consistently under-estimated the damage. In fact, we keep underestimating the damage at every turn. The figures from a decade ago about the worst case scenario, which the deniers claimed were only added to make it look *REALLY* scary, are underestimates.

The UN report is conservative on most of it's numbers. And Gore point was that if Greenland melted it would release that amount of water. And he's right. He did not in fact say that it would, as the current predictions don't call for Greenland to break up and slide into the ocean.

Ten years ago, scientists were saying we would have a sharp rise in temperature. WE HAD A SHARP RISE IN TEMPERATURE! What models did they use for that? The same models which say we're in for more of the same.

In a general sense, don't you think that supporting position when the chief scientists in the field disagree with you, should set off a bs detector? Aren't the arguments against the proposition a heck of a lot like arguments for lies? The computers are broken, all the scientists are wrong, it's a conspiracy and they refused to fund the alternative science? I mean, the anti-vaxers, the HIV deniers, the creationists... really think about it... the arguments are pretty well the same. There is a massive conspiracy for some reason which results in the foremost scientists in the field being wrong, all evidence is explained away as being this or that, and a lot of anecdotal stories about some supposed flaws are tossed around.

In reality, the underlying science to the greenhouse effect is pretty clear.

* CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
* We are releasing huge amounts of CO2.
* Greenhouse gases work to retain heat (much like a greenhouse).
* The global temperature is rising.

--

Skeptical Inquirer, July/August, Volume 31, Issue 4 Pg. 40:

No scientist to date has made a strong case (i.e., one supported by a large number of his colleagues who publish in the refereed journals) for any observation(s) or mechanism(s) that can explain the current rapid global-warming trend by invoking natural causes. Arguments for solar forcing, for forcing by internal modes of the climate system (natural processes that operate within the Earth system itself), and for the urban heat-island effect, have either failed to offer hard evidence or have been completely discredited. Nor do Earth's long-duration, quasi-periodic, dynamical motions explain the current rapid temperature rise.
In contrast, global warming forced by a growing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, is based on sound science that refers to a mechanism that is well understood and universally accepted by the scientific community. Models that incorporate this and many other known processes support this conclusion, and the models themselves, while still in need of improvement, are becoming increasingly reliable for making global predictions.
The probability is extremely high that human-generated greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide as the major offender are the primary cause of well-documented global warming and climate change today.
Debate Round No. 2
shwayze

Pro

CO2 was just named a greenhouse gas in a 2006 court case, which to me was a very sketchy hearing. (Besides the fact that Al Gore was making back room deals to get this law passed.)

My bad, I meant methane not propane. And it is a fact.

"A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs. The world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
Unfortunately, the environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is a serious miscalculation. CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. It�s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth�s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. Methane is another gas that warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the major source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture. Cattle wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of methane."

http://www.greendiary.com...

A new report from FAO says livestock production contributes to the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. However, the report says, the livestock sector's potential contribution to solving environmental problems is equally large, and major improvements could be achieved at reasonable cost.

http://www.futurepundit.com...

Ya Al Gore is a great source of knowledge and credibility on global warming, especially with the fact that his "An Inconvenient Truth" has been largely debunked.

A few last words from the great Tom Deweese:

"DeWeese calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world, bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment," he observes. "Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth."

DeWeese describes the relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged over the past couple of decades. "The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists," he contends. "School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction."

DeWeese warns that the Climate Change Protocol is "a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels." He insists that "it doesn't matter" if the final version is somewhat modified. "Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation," DeWeese predicts. "To meet such drastically reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs."

Couldn't be more true. All liberals want is more control and more power.
Tatarize

Con

One doesn't name CO2 a greenhouse gas. The 2006 court case you are referring to was to force the EPA to do their job and fight pollution. The nature of greenhouse gases isn't a political one it's a product of the actual physical characteristics of the gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Quantum mechanics provides the basis for computing the interactions between molecules and radiation. Most of this interaction occurs when the frequency of the radiation closely matches that of the spectral lines of the molecule, determined by the quantization of the modes of vibration and rotation of the molecule. (The electronic excitations are generally not relevant for infrared radiation, as they require energy larger than that in an infrared photon.)"

18% is worth noting and worth fixing, but the numbers are total footprint rather than just the cows themselves. A lot of that is clear cutting forests for grazing and environmentally unfriendly practices, transport of the meat, transport of the grain, etc. Beef is a massive industry and as a result uses a massive amount of energy. That isn't 18% of all greenhouses gases are cow farts. Methane, as far as gases goes, isn't very stable. It has a pretty high energy content and breaks down to good old CO2 pretty easily. We do not find massive amounts of methane in the atmosphere.

Methane is aptly described as the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas. That hardly sings praises to the topic in question that Global Warming is all hysteria and a liberal hoax.

Just because some people believe in global warming (Al Gore) or don't (Tom Deweese, whoever the hell that is) has no bearing on the issue. What does the science say? The science largely favors the theory of global warming. A fact which should not surprise anybody who understands how science works. In science, the theories are made to incorporate and explain the facts. The theory was crafted specifically to explain the data. That the facts should support the theory should be an obvious consequence.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We are putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. It currently stands at 385 PPM and has not exceeded 300 parts per million in at least the last million years.

The data behind the temperature trend is showing that there is a massive warming effect occurring with a sharp rise in temperature in the last decade. Last year tied for the hottest year on record.

- Greenhouse gases cause an atmosphere to retain heat.
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
- We are putting a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
** We are putting a large amount of gas which will cause an atmosphere to retain heat.
- We are witnessing a heating trend which is best explained by the aforementioned effect.
- We are not aware of any other mechanism which *COULD* be responsible for such an effect. The only one you mentioned was solar activity but that dropped about 20 years ago before the massive heating trend.

The science is sound. The verdict is clear. Climate scientists are in agreement. The science backs up their verdicts. On top of this, the fact that there exists a fantastic amount of evidence and a good amount of sound science goes to crush your claim that global warming is all hysteria and a liberal hoax.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
and cirlce gets the square?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
There's a difference between spending a massive amount of money and printing a massive amount of money.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
tatarize you're just flat out wrong. read a book or something.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I have had this debate and any evidence I provide will automatically be dismissed because it would contradict the global warming theory.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Shwayze, 5% of previously trapped carbon. Counting other emissions as emissions is a joke. Sure, trees recycle carbon and reemit it later. That's not important. The fact that I breathe in O2 and exhale CO2 it doesn't really change anything. But, digging up carbon rich fossil fuels and releasing the CO2 that adds the total amount of carbon in circulation. That's the entire point.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
do you realize that man-caused C02 emissions ARE ONLY 5% of the TOTAL C02 emissions emitted into the air? How do people fall for this global warming hysteria? It is pretty astonishing.
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
What makes you think it won't increase? Do you have any evidence that would buck a 35 year trend? What makes you think a warm planet is better for humans than a cold planet?
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Why should it be logical to think that the increase will continue? What makes you think the levels of Co2 are bad right now. What makes you think higher levels of Co2 wouldn't be better for the planet. A warm planet is far batter than a cold planet. You haven't got a single shred of evidence to prove your statement other than to assert that. "It should be logical" That is worst case of the miss use of the scientific method I have ever read.
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
According to studies, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising, on average, by 1.2 ppm per year in the past 35 years.

http://www.elmhurst.edu...

Now, the PPM varies depending on the time of year, due to seasonal changes in the amount of vegetation. However, on average it is still increasing.

This should logically mean that something is off in our balance between what is being put out and what the earth can reabsorb. So as more and more nations start hitting major industrial strides, like China and India, the balance is going to get farther and farther off.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
What makes you think the earth can't deal with it? What conclusive evidence can you show me that it can't.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 Alex 8 years ago
Alex
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 zach12 8 years ago
zach12
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 KokeAndSoup 8 years ago
KokeAndSoup
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 cool_rad_b 8 years ago
cool_rad_b
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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 jsonn5 8 years ago
jsonn5
shwayzeTatarizeTied
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