The Instigator
That.Guy
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
MilitantAtheist
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Global Warming is man-made

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
MilitantAtheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,811 times Debate No: 16874
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

That.Guy

Con

I am excited to go against a seemingly great debater like you (I saw seemingly due to your small track record). I was a bit suprised to see you as a global warming person

1st round- Acceptance
2nd round- Opening statement (If you wan to start rebuttal here, go ahead)
3rd - 4th rounds- Rebuttal
5th round- Final rebuttal and closing statements.

Pro must prove that global warming exists and is largely caused by man
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I accept my opponent's terms and conditions and wish you the best of luck. *Handshake*

May the best debater win!

I shall point out that as a Canadian, I may spell words differently than in America.
Debate Round No. 1
That.Guy

Con

Global warming is a major topic. It seems to be a topic thrown around as firepower to hurt incumbents (In America anyways, cannot be sure about Canada). Many people have pitched into the topic such as Al Gore, Roger Revelle, and Phil Jones. The response usually leans towards global warming existing. But I, for one, am skeptical. Much of the information has very little backing. In fact, I noticed that the popular movie about the subject, An Inconvenient Truth uses quite a bit of sketchy information, including the famous-

Hockey Stick Graph:

The hockey stick graph is one of the major tools of global warming advocates. It shows that CO2 levels correspond to heat. And I will not deny that it does... mostly. Take a look here: http://statesmansentinel.com... . If you look at the end, the temperature stops going up. From the looks of it, it is an logistic graph (I know, this term is used more when describing population, but it is fitting for this, too). The CO2 may be rising, but the temperature has slowed greatly. And the hockey stick graph leads me into my second point-

Phil Jones:

Phil Jones was once a major advocate for global warming. He supplied the data for the hockey stick graph(1). That data recently went missing(1). Much of the data that advocates of global warming used came from Phil Jones(2). Also, in that same interview with BBC, Phil Jones announced "the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now" (1) and that there has been no significant global warming (1). Even before this admission, a leak of his e-mails lead him to be accused of scientific fraud(1). This removes much of the backing for global warming.

The General Consensus:

Many advocates for global warming say that all scientists agree that global warming exists. That is simply not true. A petition has made it's rounds recently(3). 31,487 scientists agree that global warming exists, 9029 of which have PhDs And that is from a single country, only making up a small percentage of the world population. If this was a worldwide poll, it would go much higher.

I await your response

Sources:
______________________________________

(1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(climatologist)
(3)http://www.petitionproject.org...
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for this exciting debate! I never done a debate on this and hope it's fun and informative. I shall start by refuting my opponent's claims then moving onto my own.

1) Hockey Stick Graph

My opponent contends that at the very end the temperature stops going up. The problem is this graph does not have anything to do with temperature. The horizontal represents years before present and the vertical represents CO2 in parts per million.

My opponent took this graph out of context. Note as the year 1950 approaches, the graph starts going up a steep hill in CO2 parts per million.

This graph is easier to see and explains my point better http://climate.nasa.gov...

My opponent's argument fails miserably. In addition, he admits the CO2 is rising so we don't need to spend time arguing that.

2) Phil Jones

From same interview

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
http://www.skepticalscience.com...

3) General Consensus

I never said that all scientist agree. In fact, CNN reports about 90 per cent

http://articles.cnn.com...

My opponent has not shown compelling reasons against global warming,

EVIDENCE 1: SEA LEVEL RISE

I contend that global warming is real because sea levels are rising. Sea level rose 6.7 inches last century. The last decade is DOUBLE!

How is this possible? Well, it is obvious that the ice caps are retreating.

Also from NASA. Same page as the chart.

This is half the battle to show global warming exists. I also need to give a compelling reason as to why man is responsible.

Global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses. They act as vapors and as the sunlight enters, it cannot escape—Thus the term "Greenhouse gas"

Everyday, humans drive cars and emit CO2 into the atmosphere causing unnecessary CO2 emission. In addition, there are many MANY causes such as factories and pollutans that we deliberately put in the atmosphere.

EVIDENCE 2: GLACIER RETREAT

I contend that a compelling reason to show glibal warming exists is that the glaciers are retreating almost everywhere, this includes the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

What does this show? It shows that it isn't limited to one area.

http://nsidc.org...

Back to you!
Debate Round No. 2
That.Guy

Con

Well, first debate I've been in where my opponent didn't just want to debate the same points the whole time! I thank my opponent for mixing it up with his own points.

First, I will start with the rebuttal to the rebuttal, then to the rebuttal to your points, then to my new points

1) Hockey stick graph

I don't understand how my opponent states that the graph does not involve temperature. The graph has 2 lines, the red line corresponding to CO2 levels and the white line, which corresponds to temperature. That is the reason I chose the graph. To make it a bit more clear, I made proper edits to the picture: http://img850.imageshack.us... . This one has easier to read labels, some of them may not be exactly what they were in the original chart, but they mean the same thing. Now, direct the attention to the 2 yellow nubs. They correlate to the most recent temperature increase at the time of the graphs release. According to An Inconvenient Truth, the film I take this graph from. the temperature line and the CO2 line are supposed to directly correlate(1). But, hte white line seems to be topping out at a certain point. Look at the approximate 1900 mark, where the temparature begins it's dip. It has since come back up to the same point, but not much farther beyond that point. There could be many explanations for this, but I will get into those later on.

2) Phil Jones

Phil Jones does state that the globe is warming at a level that isn't significant in that same interview

3) General conensus

Although I could not predict my opponents opinion on this, this is a statement used by many global warming advocates, And polls on global warming, such as the one cited cited by my opponent, have been wildly different(2), which implies that he CNN poll is likely not completely accurate.


Now I will start on the rebuttal to your main points. They both intertwine, so I think I can get them both together. THis also ties in my new points

My opponent states that glaciers melting is proof that global warming exists. But, have glaciers not melted in the past? The melting of glaciers has been present throughout history, due to the natural heating and cooling of the Earth. And, also on that graph, you can see that (excluding the area between about 300,000 and 150,000 years ago, where the tempature stayed fairly similar) the Earth's heating seems to get more intense every time. And, it is likely that we are experiencing a similar pattern.

I found an article during my research on this subject last month, but I can't seem to find it this time. It was about the unusually cold year Britian had last year. Global warming would explain a cold winter, but not a cool summer. I really wish I could find it, but the file I put it in has evaded me

I await your reply eagerly
MilitantAtheist

Pro

Hello again and welcome back. I thank my opponent for his quick response. I’m sorry for the lousy opening argument. I did it fairly quick on my iPad and hopefully will have better refutations than last time.

I wish my opponent the best of luck as we advance further in the debate.

I will start by rebutting his rebuttals and work my way backwards. It appears he combined both rebuttals into 1.

My opponent states that glaciers melting is proof that global warming exists. But, have glaciers not melted in the past? The melting of glaciers has been present throughout history, due to the natural heating and cooling of the Earth. And, also on that graph, you can see that (excluding the area between about 300,000 and 150,000 years ago, where the tempature stayed fairly similar) the Earth's heating seems to get more intense every time. And, it is likely that we are experiencing a similar pattern.

First of all, it should be “Glaciers melting are” and “Temperature.” Just want to help you out there.

My opponent contends that it does not prove anything and it just has been a “cycle.” I challenge my opponent to this. Why? He has provided no evidence whatsoever and thus his points are invalid.

Even IF that were the case, I shall point out that there is no reason that, in the last decade, the sea level DOUBLED in height from last century. (1)

Furthermore, I shall point out that the rate that glaciers are retreating is astounding. The “cycle” theory does not explain why glaciers seem to be retreating everywhere—not just one place.

Rebutting my opponent’s points

2) Phil Jones.
My opponent has taken his interview out of context. I challenge my opponent to see what he really did say. (2)

Phil Jones recently examined the up-to-date data, and has now stated "If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level."(3)

My opponent also contends that it was Phil Jones that supplied the data. That is wrong. The hockey stick graph was published by Michael Mann.

3) Consensus

Opponent dropped this point. I shall point out that I will never use this argument to support global warming.

1) Hockey stick graph

My opponent contends that the hockey stick graph is the major tool to show Global Warming. In fact, it is not even included in the most recent IPCC report, the one issued 4 years ago. If my opponent wishes to argue against the state of science prior to the year ’00, then I am not interested. Even 10 years ago, the graph was NEVER used as proof, but merely as background.

The graph my opponent led me to was not the hockey stick graph that is used. The one that is mostly used is found in source 4

My opponent has not given a shed of sources to back up his claims.

Lastly, my opponent claims that global warming accounts for abnormally hot winters and summers, but not cold winters. Again, my opponent is wrong and hasn’t even brought sources to prove that. To help him out, I have. In source 5, there is information about how global warming effects cold winters.

I eagerly await my opponent’s response and challenge him to bring up sources. If I missed anything, I would request my opponent brings that up so I can touch on it.

Source
1.
http://climate.nasa.gov...
2) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
3) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
4) http://www.skepticalscience.com...
5) http://www.skepticalscience.com...

Debate Round No. 3
That.Guy

Con

I am sorry for the late response. I had some other things I needed to do. I also wish my opponent the best of luck as we advance into round four. I am also sorry that I forgot to add my sources for my previous round, I have lost them at this point.

I will go in the same order as my opponent

My opponent contends that it does not prove anything and it just has been a “cycle.” I challenge my opponent to this. Why? He has provided no evidence whatsoever and thus his points are invalid.

Even IF that were the case, I shall point out that there is no reason that, in the last decade, the sea level DOUBLED in height from last century.

Furthermore, I shall point out that the rate that glaciers are retreating is astounding. The “cycle” theory does not explain why glaciers seem to be retreating everywhere—not just one place.

I see my opponent has challenged the cycle idea. Here's a list of sites that back my claim

These sites and many more show the cycle. And that cycle is on a global scale. It's why we have ice ages. Almost any scientist will agree that cycle exists. And between each ice age the heat has been getting harsher. And that cycle is on a global scale. Not any one continent or area experiences an ice age, it's the hole world. The same is true for the heat in between. And my opponent said himself that the oceans are rising due to glaciers melting.

My opponent has taken his interview out of context. I challenge my opponent to see what he really did say.

Phil Jones recently examined the up-to-date data, and has now stated "If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level."

My opponent also contends that it was Phil Jones that supplied the data. That is wrong. The hockey stick graph was published by Michael Mann.


I will agree that the Daily Mail took it out of context, and I used that source without checking other sources alongside it. My opponent also states that the hockey stick graph was published by Michael Mann, it was supplied by the UEA's Climate Research Unit(2). This was suspected to have been modified by Phil Jones, due to leaked emails(1). Phil Jones and Michael Mann did publish a report together, that's how I got confused

I agree to dropping consensus

Hockey Stick Graph

First of all, the graph my opponent is using is also called a hockey stick graph(3). It uses information from Mann and Jones. The Mann graph I am using says very similar things, but has a longer time frame than the IPCC.

I am sorry I can not provide the sources, I use SeaMonkey, which sorts history terribly. I am sorry about it. I eagerly await your response

Sources
_______________________________________________

(1)http://www.climateaudit.org...
(2)http://www.chacha.com...
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
MilitantAtheist

Pro

Hello there, thank you for your response.

Dropped contentions 2 and 3 along with admitting to taking the Phil Jones out of context.

I thank my opponent for backing up his claim with sources. There is nothing worse than giving an argument without sources.

Therefore, I can now properly respond to this challenge.

CO2 emissions are increasing. In 1870 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 290 ppm. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen to 390 ppm. As explained below, very carefully calibrated measurements have confirmed that human activities are the primary cause of this increase.

There are 3 main carbon isotopes: 14C, 13C and 12C. CO2 produced from burring fossil fuels and clearing/burning forests has a unique isotopic composition. This is because plants prefer lighter isotopes, that is they prefer 12C vs. 13C. Thus, plants have low 13C/12C ratios. Fossil fuels are derived from ancient plants; therefore, they also have a lower 13C/12C ratio. When fossil fuels are burned, CO2 from these ancient plants is released into the air, thereby lowering the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. Evidence indicates that the current 13C/12C ratio is lower than it used to be.
http://mgg.rsmas.miami.edu...;
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu...;

Increased CO2 will, in theory, lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Measurements from satellites and ground stations both indicate that the greenhouse effect has intensified recently.
http://ams.confex.com...;

Hockey Stick Graph

As I stated before, my opponent is WRONG in stating that the hockey graph is a major tool. It is not.

back to you.
Debate Round No. 4
That.Guy

Con

I am glad to see my opponent has gone with original points here. I plan to use little rebuttal and focus mostly on my closing statement. I will begin on saying that CO2 increases tend to lag increases of heat(1), which may mean that, while same of the CO2 is ma made, much of it is natural.

I would also like to say that I told my opponent that the graph he prefers (the one on Skeptical Science) uses similar information from the original hockey stick graph(2), and says very similar things. The reason the hockey stick graph you are using isn't in the most recent report is because it has suffered much controversy. They have also admitted that the graph preferred by my opponent may be inaccurate(3)

Now, onto my closing statement. First, I would like to say that my opponent has yet to make ample claim that the globe is warming due to man. While he has stated we have been putting carbon in the air, he has yet to dispute the claim that the globe is warming due to a natural cycle. Furthermore, I feel that he has used wording that can confuse the viewers of this debate. While I am not calling my opponent a liar, I do believe he is deceptive. For example, "the sea level DOUBLED in height from last century", or "They act as vapors and as the sunlight enters, it cannot escape." Corrected, that would be "The rise per decade has doubled since last century" and "They act as vapors, and as the sunlight entries, much of the sunlight cannot escape." This deceptive practice can cause much confusion. I suggest to my opponent that he attempt to avoid this n later debates. I am not the greatest at conclusions, so I will leave it here.

I am sorry about the short final ending, I am running out of time. I wish my opponent the best of luck in the future, and thank him for his time to participate in this debate. I enjoyed myself, and I hope he did to. I hope that you vote based on the debating, not on sides.

I urge you to vote pro. Thank you to everyone for taking your time to read this

Sources
_____________________________________
(1)http://mind.ofdan.ca...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)http://www.ipcc.ch... Page 9 right column, bullet 1
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate. I greatly enjoyed myself.

My opponent not only took interviews out of context, but admitted to it as well as admitting to dropping contentions (A big no-no)

My opponent accuses me of being deceptive with stating stuff like double. I will contend that NASA would also agree and if you want to check out my source on the NASA page, I encourage you to do so.

As for sources, I had a lot more reliable sources such as from NASA and NOAA.

My opponent has stated "I urge you to vote pro..." and I urge you to do the same.

I am requesting a part two to this debate to just look at how man is contributing to it

Do as my opponent said and VOTE PRO. That's all for mt closing argments. Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by That.Guy 3 years ago
That.Guy
Oops, I said vote pro, I meant to say con... That' m bad
Posted by That.Guy 3 years ago
That.Guy
No, I'm sorry, I've just been busy
Posted by MilitantAtheist 3 years ago
MilitantAtheist
Thanks...but are you forfeiting from the last round?
Posted by That.Guy 3 years ago
That.Guy
Very good
Posted by MilitantAtheist 3 years ago
MilitantAtheist
How do u feel I'm doing?
Posted by MilitantAtheist 3 years ago
MilitantAtheist
Sounds good.
Posted by That.Guy 3 years ago
That.Guy
I wont be posting my argument until tomorrow morning
Posted by MilitantAtheist 3 years ago
MilitantAtheist
i'm talking about the 3rd contention on the general consensus. I don't even use that in arguing. Consensuses do not prove anything.
Posted by That.Guy 3 years ago
That.Guy
Do you mean round 3? I already answered. Waiting on you at the moment. If you mean main points, I threw them in with my counterarguments at the end
Posted by MilitantAtheist 3 years ago
MilitantAtheist
Did you drop contention 3?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 3 years ago
Aaronroy
That.GuyMilitantAtheistTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to have really brought his guns on this debate..
Vote Placed by Dmetal 3 years ago
Dmetal
That.GuyMilitantAtheistTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's sources were bad. His arguments were weak, and he never really backed up any of his claims.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
That.GuyMilitantAtheistTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate really should have started with Pro making the first arguments, rather than Con. By having Con go first, it seemed that several arguments, of which Pro wouldn't have done himself, got mixed in the argument. Though through dropped contentions and mis qoutes, Pro gets the arguments points, though Pro could have done a better job. Con gets sources, because some of Pro's sources are not opening. Con did have one of those, but it was just a graph that was already posted.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
That.GuyMilitantAtheistTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This was hard to follow on both sides, it would be nice if there were headings or at least a summary of major arguments. I would give this to Pro mainly as Con openly admitted to mistakes in argument and simply thus appeared rushed. 3:2 Pro.