The Instigator
EggsAndSam
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
John_C_1812
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Global Warming is primarily caused by humans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 98459
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

EggsAndSam

Pro

Structure
R1 - Acceptance only
R2 - Each side presents their claim
R3 - Rebuttals
R4 - Closing Statements

Rules
1.) Use Reliable sources
2.) List sources at the end of the text
3.) No trolling
4.) No forfeiting
5.) No "K's"
6.) Keep it civil

Failure to follow these rules will result in the automatic loss of my opponent

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate
John_C_1812

Con

I accept your challenge.
I accept the conditions unto which it has been made.
Begin when ready.
Debate Round No. 1
EggsAndSam

Pro

Point 1- There is an undeniable spike in CO2 levels in our atmosphere.
To deny this is just simply foolish.In a matter of roughly 50-60 years, Co2 levels have spiked from 280 parts per million to over 400. To put that into perspective, in the past 800,000 years, Co2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppm to 280 ppm. A change of 100 ppm would usually take 5,000-20,000 years, however, the current spike took a mere 120 years. While Co2 levels have certainly been higher than this previously in the history of the Earth, never before has Earth experienced such a rapid spike in Co2, the current increase is 100 times faster than at the end of the last ice age [2].
Image result for nasa co2 levels

Point 2 - There is a human fingerprint on the carbon that we release.
Carbon from different sources has different amounts of neutrons (called isotopes), for example, Carbon from the ocean is "0" (normal) while atmospheric carbon tends to be from -5 to -9 (meaning 5-9 neutrons removed). However, carbon from fossil fuels is an even lighter form of carbon; -20 to -35 [1]. Using this information, scientists can accurately identify the source of carbon that we find in our atmosphere. It is not coincidental that there’s a rapid spike in Co2 while humans are polluting the air with tons upon tons of fossil fuels, the problem with this is, unlike plants and the ocean, factories don’t take Co2 “back in”. The natural cycle balances the Co2 level by constantly adding and removing Co2, while humans are simply just adding Co2 without removing any [3] as shown by this chart.

Point 3 - Using computers, scientists have shown that natural factors simply can't account for the changes we have seen.
As shown by the following charts, without accounting human activity, these simulations can’t explain the data we have been receiving.


Point 4 - Since Co2 is inevitably a greenhouse gas, such a rapid spike in Co2 will cause temperature changes throughout the Earth.
These temperature changes can provide a variety of consequences that scientists and the general population have observed; from rising surface temperatures to rising sea levels to the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere shifting up in recent decades. I won't go to the trouble to prove each of what has been observed for this debate is not about whether or not climate change is real, but whether or not it is caused by humans; both Pro and Con agree that climate change is real.

In conclusion, scientists have recorded one of the biggest Co2 spikes in Earth history. Using the fingerprints that come with burning fossil fuels, scientists are able to record how much of the Earth's atmospheric carbon comes from the burning of fossil fuels. While the carbon cycle creates more carbon than factories, the carbon cycle is just that... a cycle, meaning it's constantly balancing the concentration of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere. However, factories, cars, and humans as a whole are just adding carbon to the Earth's atmosphere without ever using atmospheric carbon like the carbon cycle does. On top of that, recent computer simulations have shown that in order to get the type of changes we are currently experiencing... human activity has to be included or else the data we get back is not the one we have observed. The absence of human activity in these simulations results in completely wrong data, while the presence of human activity brings back accurate data; meaning human activity plays a large role in the climate of the earth. Since Co2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and is proven to be directly correlated with temperature (as Co2 goes up so does temperature), a rapid spike in Co2 means rising temperatures across the globe, leading to a variety of consequences that we have recently observed. If not dealt with, these problems can only escalate and cause severe problems/destruction.

Links
[1] http://www.ucsusa.org......
[2] http://globalwarming-facts.info......
[3] https://www.skepticalscience.com......
John_C_1812

Con

Point one:
Radiation warms the earth surface and all surfaces in space.

Absorption and reflection

In conduction, heat is transferred from a hot temperature location to a cold temperature location. The transfer of heat will continue as long as there is a difference in temperature between the two locations. Once the two locations have reached the same temperature, thermal equilibrium is established and the heat transfer stops.
The first variable that we have identified as affecting the rate of conductive heat transfer is the temperature difference between the two locations.
The second variable of importance is the materials involved in the transfer.
Another variable that affects the rate of conductive heat transfer is the area through which heat is being transferred.
A final variable that affects the rate of conductive heat transfer is the distance that the heat must be conducted.

Solar Radiation "" Solar radiation is radiant energy emitted by the sun, particularly electromagnetic energy.
The mean radius of the sun is 432,450 miles, 1.3 million earths could fit inside the sun. The Sun Contains 99.8 % of the mass of the solar system. The sun is only rated as a medium size star in the Milky Way.

Point two:
The actual overall temperature of space itself is an unknown. The Earth is moving freely in outer-space it is not fixed in one position. If it moves faster it creates friction. If it moves slower it is experiencing drag.
Friction creates heat, heat causes all things to expand. If the earth was to increase/decrease even slightly in its orbit around the sun, or if the speed of the solar systems motion across the Universe increases/ decreases. This action would either slightly cool or heat the earth. A change triggers a different size due to expansion or contraction.
The density of any particles in space act as an insulation only motion and known laws of physics can already establish that speed through an isolation marital directly effects temperature. This is scientifically proven by technology, the convection ovens cooking much faster than a conventional oven. In fact a convection oven can cook almost as fast as a micro-ware oven.
"And if you travel out far way form everything in the Universes, you can never get lower than a minimum of just 2.7 kelvin or -270.45 Celsius."
***Clouds of gas and dust between the stars within our galaxy are only 10 to 20 degrees above absolute zero.***

Point three:
The effects gravitation has due to pressure effects the formation of ice directly. Even in a slight change in pressure can increase or decrease Ice formation.

What is Gravity? We don"t really know.
The gravitational equation says that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the two masses. The weight of all people alone is simply not enough to create a climate change. This means that humans must to be manipulating the climate, using something else as a tool to achieve this goal.

If the entire human population stepped on a scale, the weight would be 316 million tons, or 632 billion pounds, a new study finds.
World population 7,361,300,000 12/26/2016
Male 87 "" 72.7 kg 19 1- 160 lbs.
Female 74.4 "" 62.5 kg 164 "" 138 lbs.

So what does Earth weigh? Earth"s weight is 5.972 sextillion (1,000 trillion) metric tons, and it is actually gaining weight. That"s 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons and gaining! Scientists refer to this measurement as the Earth"s mass instead of weight since weight is the result of Earth"s gravitational pull on another object, and the Earth cannot pull on itself! As the Earth orbits the Sun, it is weightless.

Q: The earth gets heavier each day with the meteors and space debris that lands. Does Earth ever lose weight? If not, wouldn't Earth eventually get so heavy so as to affect its orbit?

NOAA
The launch of GIROS I, the the first weather satellite, in 1960

A: Earth does indeed get heavier with landing space debris "" several tons of dust and micrometeorites, alone, hit Earth's atmosphere each day. When you include the big rocks that actually impact Earth, this debris adds up to 40,000 metric tons a year. Does Earth throw off weight at anything like this rate, you ask. The two ways Earth might are: hot atmospheric molecules escaping Earth's gravity or launched space vehicles. I asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) how much atmosphere do we lose each year.

The world"s current population weight is added to the earth about every eight years. The addition of this weight is not due to birth of more people. The age of the earth is about 4.543 billion years.

Point four:
The use of melting ice has already been proven to move rapid amounts of heat very quickly. With the invention of the old fashion ice-cream machine. It has a precedent of being used by science to manipulate climate for a short period of time to make ice-cream. Which then melts in the heat of the sun on a warm day.

Common salt, sodium chloride, is the primary deicing chemical used, with up to 12 million tons used in the United States each year. - See more at: http://www.clm.com...
The Chlorides
When deciding between chemicals, Dale Keep, owner of Snow and Ice Technologies Inc., Walla Walla, Wash., notes that chlorides are more corrosive than acetates, but cautions that no chemical is 100 percent non-corrosive.
" Sodium chloride (NaCl)
This chemical, commonly referred to as rock salt, is the most prevalent deicing chemical, and in general, has the lowest price tag of all deicers. Sodium chloride, when mixed with water, works best at a 23.3 percent mixture, which has an associated freeze point temperature of ""5.8 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the practical working temperature of the product ranges between 15 and 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
" Magnesium chloride (MgCl2)
Keep says that Magnesium chloride"s optimum solution for freeze point protection is 21.6 percent. The solution has a freeze point of ""28 Fahrenheit. However, Magnesium chloride is usually sold in a 30 percent concentration that has an associated freeze point of 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

The way in which Magnesium chloride melts ice the best illustrates that the freeze point isn"t necessarily the most important number to know, says Keep. "The important thing about a deicer is not how cold the freeze point is, but the important things to know are will it work in my temperature range and how much moisture will it absorb (performance) before it quits working? What"s important is your dilution "" or the strength of your chemical "" and how long the application is going to last. That is determined by the product"s ingredients, concentration and melting capacity."
" Calcium chloride (CaCl2)
Calcium chloride is typically sold at a 30 percent concentration with a freeze point of ""60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, the product"s practical melting temperature is typically considered to be around ""10 degrees Fahrenheit.
" Potassium chloride (KCl)
Another chloride, Potassium chloride, is similar to fertilizer products, Don Walker, professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison says. "Some people like to promote its use because of the fertilizer aspects of the potassium, which can be beneficial to plants," he explains. "It comes in a solid material, but it"s a deicer that doesn"t work unless temperatures are in the mid-20"s or higher, and it"s very expensive."

Walker says he typically sees this chemical used in blends. "Often they put some of that in and then they make claims that their blend is good for the plants." "" L.G.

The Acetates
" Calcium magnesium acetate (CMAc)
Purchased as a solid and liquefied prior to use, Calcium magnesium acetate, commonly known as CMA, is typically used at a 25 percent concentration, which has a freeze point of 1 degree Fahrenheit. At a 32 percent concentration, CMA has a freeze point of ""18 degrees Fahrenheit. The practical working temperature of CMA is about 18 degrees Fahrenheit.

Don Walker, professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, notes that CMA sells for about 20 to 30 times the cost of salt, but offers a low-corrosion value. "It is used under some conditions where environmental problems dictate that the chloride-based chemicals can"t be used," Walker explains. "Where I see them are in areas like parking garages. In parking garages, there can"t be a lot of damage to concrete floors due to salt or calcium chloride. Some owners choose to avoid the corrosion and deterioration of concrete slabs by using CMA."
" Potassium acetate (KAc)
This is another non-chloride product that usually has a 50 percent concentration and has a freeze point of ""76 degrees Fahrenheit. "It"s very expensive compared to the others and it"s typically used in areas where they"ve got to have extreme cold-weather performance and they"re willing to pay the price," says Dale Keep, owner of Snow and Ice Technologies Inc., Walla Walla, Wash. "Airports are a good example." "" L.G.
- See more at: http://www.cleanlink.com...

Point five: fixing a position is important when describing where anything is actual located. The most actuate way to find a position is to Triangulate. To do this we need three visual references.
Navigation: Fixes and Triangulation

When lost or slightly misplaced while kayaking or canoeing, if you have a view of a couple of landmarks you can get a fix, which is the navigational term for finding an "X" that marks the spot. The "X" is your location. The process is a quick and easy way to find your location. For a more exacting needs, finding your location with triangulation involves only one extra step.
Point five:
The emissions of volcanic activity far exceeds any human release of CO2.
Eruptions in 2015 example
The most widely accepted scientific database for volcanic eruption data is Simithsonian's Global Volcanism Program (GVP). For example, 43 confirmed and one uncertain eruptions are listed here for 2015, a rather typical (if not below average) year of volcanic activity:

Masaya, Nicaragua (2015 Dec 11)
Etna, Italy (2015 Dec 2)
Momotombo, Nicaragua (2015 Dec 1)
Kanlaon, Central Philippines (2015 Nov 23)
Marapi, Sumatra (2015 Nov 14)
Tengger Caldera, Java (2015 Nov 12)
Lascar, Northern Chile, Bolivia and Argentina (2015 Oct 30)
Rinjani, Lesser Sunda Islands (2015 Oct 25)
Turrialba, Costa Rica (2015 Oct 23)
Copahue, Central Chile and Argentina (2015 Oct 6) - VEI 2
Alaid, Kuril Islands (2015 Oct 2)
Michael, Antarctica and South Sandwich Islands (2015 Sep 30)
Telica, Nicaragua (2015 Sep 23)
Asosan, Ryukyu Islands and Kyushu (2015 Sep 3)
Lokon-Empung, Sulawesi (2015 Aug 30)
Klyuchevskoy, Kamchatka Peninsula (2015 Aug 28)
Cotopaxi, Ecuador (2015 Aug 15)
Kick 'em Jenny, West Indies (2015 Jul 24)
Gamalama, Halmahera (2015 Jul 16)
Sabancaya, Peru (2015 Jul 9)
Sirung, Lesser Sunda Islands (2015 Jul 7)
Hakoneyama, Honshu (2015 Jun 29)
Cereme, Java - Uncertain Eruption - (2015 Jun 24)
Asamayama, Honshu (2015 Jun 16)
Cleveland, Aleutian Islands (2015 Jun 14)
San Cristobal, Nicaragua (2015 Jun 6)
Kuchinoerabujima, Ryukyu Islands and Kyushu (2015 May 29)
Wolf, Galapagos Islands (2015 May 25)
Lokon-Empung, Sulawesi (2015 May 20)
Telica, Nicaragua (2015 May 11)
Bulusan, Luzon (2015 May 1)
Axial Seamount, Pacific Ocean (northern) (2015 Apr 23)
Calbuco, Southern Chile and Argentina (2015 Apr 22)
Ruiz, Nevado del, Colombia (2015 Apr 22)
Tungurahua, Ecuador (2015 Apr 6)
Ubinas, Peru (2015 Mar 17)
Turrialba, Costa Rica (2015 Mar 8)
Chikurachki, Kuril Islands (2015 Feb 16)
Fournaise, Piton de la, Indian Ocean (western) (2015 Feb 4)
Raung, Java (2015 Feb 1)
San Miguel, El Salvador and Honduras (2015 Jan 26)
Karymsky, Kamchatka Peninsula (2015 Jan 19)
Soputan, Sulawesi (2015 Jan 6)
Klyuchevskoy, Kamchatka Peninsula (2015 Jan 1)

Notes:
For example, Klyuchevskoy and Lokon are listed with two eruptions each, so the number of volcanoes with confirmed eruptions would only be 42 according to the above list.
However, we quickly realize that some of the most known active volcanoes are missing: Kilauea, Stromboli, Yasur and many others. The reason is that in addition to the above list there are about 20 volcanoes world-wide in near-constant (persistent) activity, which are not listed because the start of their eruptions is back in the past and not considered a new eruption in this list.
Kilauea has been in ongoing eruption that started in January 1983. Stromboli has been in eruption since at least 2000 years (when first reports are available), Yasur on Vanuatu has been erupting ever since its first sighting by a European (J. Cook) in 1774 and so on.

Point six: Electromagnetic fields of the earth"s poles, the flow of electric, into the solar winds from the sun. The relationship between electrical flow and heat and Co2 as an insulator to improve the flow of electric is described in the welding process.
Interaction of the terrestrial magnetic field with particles from the solar wind sets up the conditions for the aurora phenomena near the poles.

The problem with that picture is that the Curie temperature of iron is about 770 C . The Earth's core is hotter than that and therefore not magnetic. So how did the Earth get its magnetic field?

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the most common of the reactive gases used in MIG welding and the only one that can be used in its pure form without the addition of an inert gas. CO2 is also the least expensive of the common shielding gases, making an attractive choice when material costs are the main priority. Pure CO2 provides very deep weld penetration, which is useful for welding thick material; however, it also produces a less stable arc and more spatter than when it is mixed with other gases. It is also limited to only the short circuit process.

http://www.bernardwelds.com...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com...
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com...
http://www.cleanlink.com...
http://www.clm.com...
http://www.ebay.com...
http://www.paddlinglight.com...
http://www.physicsclassroom.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
http://www.ecology.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.theaveragebody.com...
http://www.census.gov...
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://www.universetoday.com...
www.sciencedaily.com/terms/solar_radiation.htm
http://www.space.com...
Debate Round No. 2
EggsAndSam

Pro

If Con is implying that conduction between the Earth’s atmosphere and space causes temperature changes while they are trying to maintain equilibrium, that would be false since conduction is not possible when one of the sources is a vacuum [1] (space is a vacuum).
It is true that radiation from the Sun warms the Earth, but it is also true that greenhouse gases, such as Co2, trap this radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere instead of reflecting it back into space resulting in the warming of the Earth’s surface.

While it is true that friction creates heat… there are so little particles in the vacuum of space that any source of friction would not produce noticeable heat since there is little to no friction whatsoever in space [2]. This means, friction can not produce a change in orbital speed or orbit as Con has said. Space has roughly only 1 atom per cubic inch [3]. So while there is friction is space, there is very very very little of it due to the low density of space.

We are faced with yet another lie from Con, that the Earth is getting heavier daily. When in reality, it was calculated that the Earth LOSES 50,000 tons of mass annually [4]. While it is true that roughly 40,000 tons of mass accumulate annually, Con forgot about the fact that about a combined 96,000 tons of Hydrogen and Helium are escaping from Earth’s gravity , resulting in a net loss of mass instead of a gain as Con implied [4]. Before Con argues that this net LOSS can also result in a change in Earth’s orbit, the net loss is a mere 0.000000000000001% every year, not even close to being large enough to provide a significant effect on Earth’s climate or any factor whatsoever.

Con yet again misleads the reader with the unreliable statement that volcanoes emit more Co2 that humans do. However, it has been shown that volcanoes give off between 65-319 million tons of Co2 annually. While this is quite a large number, it is dwarfed in comparison with the amount of Co2 humans emit… humans emit roughly 100x as much with approximately 30 BILLION tons of Co2 [5].

Con implies that auroras seem to disturb weather patterns on Earth, however, this is completely false for they do not disturb weather patterns on Earth [6]. The only things that auroras have been shown to disturb are radio waves, electricity, and satellites [7].

As I have shown, the vast majority of Con’s points have been shown to be false and are incredibly misleading to the reader. I also apologize for the rather short rebuttal for I tried to keep it clear and to the point for I tend to ramble at times.

[1] https://www.quora.com...
[2] http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...;
[3] http://hypertextbook.com...;
[4] http://scitechdaily.com...;
[5] https://www.skepticalscience.com...;
[6] http://www.unc.edu...;
[7] http://www.suntrek.org...;
John_C_1812

Con

Stipulation:
" If Con is implying that conduction between the Earth"s atmosphere and space causes temperature change while they are trying to maintain equilibrium, that would be false since conduction is not possible when one of the sources is the vacuum [1] {space is a vacuum]"

Rebuttal:
Yes, I agree as mentioned a [ Vacuum ] pardon the pun full of dust. How much dust is this vacuum full of? Point three, fourth paragraph on. The amount that accounts for the addition of volume of the world"s total mass. 40, metric tons a year + -.
This issue creates two possible problems. A) Additional overall mass weight = greater gravitational conversion to energy = more energy proceeds more heat. B) The added temperature of dust and meteors combines as these material are supper heated from the solar energy of the sun. C) Adding conversion of materials from liquid "States" to a "gaseous States" due to a minuet difference in volume pressure. Which now pro confirms with the introduction of gas elements leaving Earth"s atmosphere. (Thank you)
The extremely large number of forces that we are deal with here puts are most sophisticated tool known to humanity, the 5 cent pencil to the test, as this information is well outside the detection range. P.S. I hate math. So when I put forth effort you are dam sure it"s not going to be to find fixed outcome. As that number is manufactured and not proof of intelligence used to solve and find solution. A declaration of personal preference and not an accusation of any kind, to anyone. There is a mathematical contradiction to use a fixed outcome to learn an unknown like mathematics.
So how much volume does 40 + - metric tons of hydrogen and/or Helium two of the more light-weight elements account for. I"m not going to use my pencil, but I bet the earth does not hold enough mass in those materials to lose 40 metric tons since its creation. 0. 454 kg 2.68 Cubic meters 96.65 cubic feet.

http://www.airproducts.com...

Stipulation:
"Con yet again misleads the reader with the unreliable statement that volcanoes emit more Co2 than humans do."
Rebuttal:
Yes misleading is true. I"m sorry. It is not all information for the reader to understand alone. It is a lot of data to take in, to see, I could not load pics or charts, it overall amount needs to be listed to be seen, so we know just how much extremely hot activity is taking place around the world.
As all volcanic activities also creates earthquakes. Let"s go on a treasure hunt, because you are treating nature like it is human and can"t hide its emissions from science. Why would the most Co2 activity be at the volcano themselves? Science already knew all the action is deep underground. Carbon emissions are on a moving plate not standing still, this car is not parked. Scientist would be logically looking for a much closer to the source creation of fossil fuel Co2. Yeah, science already knew the only things coming out of the lava there will not in any way show the contamination at that point, the majority of carbon would be crystallized.
Debate Round No. 3
EggsAndSam

Pro

In conclusion, Con has essentially failed to prove the points I provided wrong. Instead, Con used his/her rebuttal to reply to my rebuttal. On top of that, I have shown that a fairly large chunk of the so-called "facts" Con has provided are in fact no facts but inaccurate information/lies. This ranges from "volcanoes emit more Co2 than humans" (when in reality humans emit 100x as much as volcanoes) and "the earth is gaining mass" (when it is, in fact, losing it). This means that not only has Con failed to prove my points wrong, he/she has failed to provide accurate as well as reliable information that backs their own point up. Regardless, I thank Con for their hard-worked arguments, but I advise them to structure their points more clearly, put citations, and next time don't reply to your opponent's reply... instead reply to the points they provide.
John_C_1812

Con

Pro wants us to believe that we are the only reason the world can become warmer. Pro wants to directed complete control over idea, and resolvable solution. An equation using a fixed outcome has only one solution. This is basic math principle and is what needs to be disproved in pro"s argument.

Pro is not lying, I am not lying, and the only reason some-one needs a lie in this debate is to fix the equation, to fix an outcome, only humanity. By doing this the forced answer becomes fixed as the only problem. We all hate word problems, we all know how complicated they are, not all of us can use word problems like Science, when left inside the fixed bias equation they can be used to create the answer wanted.

"Climate manipulation", if science had been sure the Title of this debate would be Climate manipulation. It is being done here by witness account, is it being done by only by nature for the plants course, or is mankind now a play for human course.

"All the Titles of this topic are focusing public attention on the event and not an investigation into cause." That is not a natural course of non-biased understanding.

The rest of this is added to simply to clear misdirection of a fix equation. Reading is not required but welcome.
Volcanoes are one large vent you may see on the surface it is not the complete system. It is only a very small part of a much larger network of vents, lava, and "gases." The deeper underground we explore hotter it gets, ground traps Co2, and cook out of crude oil before humans can ever touch it. Volcanoes are simple just a part of a process of circulation which gives us gauge globally of how rapidly it can move, then be released at one times. (Note the earth also has ways to naturally scrub Co2 out of our air, the earth surface proportionately is covered of this scrubber two to every one unit.
"Earth is a dust magnet." And space is nothing but a dirty vacuum filled with dust. Science knows this is fact. Space dust has been used in models to show what has formed many plants including earth. If Dust cannot accumulate mass there would be no plants at all.

Pro, Con may simply not be ready to exclude Co2 emissions entirely yet. There are a number of ways in which mankind can benefit by rising Co2 levels. Concern is a word a person might use, it provokes a look into expressions such as Intentional or unintentional, long term short term.

We are products of our understanding. When understanding is fixed our understandings become fixed. Not all solutions that are given to the public fix result in positive outcome. This is not a problem which will benefit humanity with a fixed outcome.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
I just want to point out a danger described by basic principle. Humanity could never scientifically change the earths. It can only manipulate it for periods of time. When you describe that there is to be a "return to a known temperature" There is a hidden application of a fixed equation by what is to be presumed.

Humanity not science has only ever used the fixed equation to destroy evidence. Science has very limited use of the fix equation. Very limited.
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
EggsAndSam
Actually, we are supposed to be heading into an ice age, however, we are clearly getting warmer currently. So, I wouldn't call us "returning to a known temperature" for we threw off the climate cycle.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
In the sake of debate there is the possibility they are not recognized to be scientific fact in this matter.
As some of this information is represented by abstract mathematical fact. A math fact, when plus or minus of a number takes place in one part of the equation, then this action equals a plus or minus seen in the outcome, period. This is basic principle.

The exception to this rule is the law of a mathematical fixed equation, because of the complex nature of this debate, I am more than will to conduct some portions in comments.

I have not even used the scientific fact that the earth is actual returning to a known state of temperature or climate. As winning this debate is not the point of my representation to the United States Constitution. Climate manipulation is still a non-biased description like change climate change, and global warming. Keeping this in mind we could just as easily agree with all things you have written. With the exception of just one primary point mathematically we would need to prove that humans can exist long enough to be a primary cause.

This is a manufactured argument that does not match our basic fear directly. It is just close enough to provoke the need to move away from non-biased applications of reason. Simple question did you create this argument or simple pick it up this cause?
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
EggsAndSam
Well, not facts for some of them are certainly not true... statements. I submitted my argument, I tried to keep it condensed to not overcomplicate things
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Are they fact? Are there any you wish to dispute? Would you agree that any if not all can cause climate change?

Sorry this is a complex issue dealing with a massive amount of information. You are providing one line of thought to with two points to follow CO2 emissions temperature. These two point only have two ends and now I have offered a possibility of twelve ends with twenty four points. Yes it does make it much easier to see why science like to use fixed equations does"t it.
You can pick any one or two you like or cite how the data used has ruled them out? The information was to establish a point in is not a test. You are doing well continue please.
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
EggsAndSam
I don't know how to do my rebuttal for I don't understand half of what you said. It's just random facts which you never connect with global warming. I can sorta see on some of the points which direction you're headed, but next time, explain your claims fully so your opponent can do their rebuttal without problems
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
It is an abstract EggsAndSam. The information is limited to demonstrate that humans are not the primary reason for climate change. As this is the terms of the debate. To be perfectly honest I had nice charts that where to be placed and well?? Things do not always go as planned, they did not show up.
To brief you on my strategy of debate was not a disqualification in your rules. I am prepared to give you any of the information or links here in the comments if you need them. Or the direction I am planning on going. I feel it would make for a much more open and informative debate.
Posted by EggsAndSam 1 year ago
EggsAndSam
John, next time, could you be a bit more clear on how the information you presented is linked to global warming, also, make citations so I know which link goes with what
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Great points creating the abstract. I shall be done once I finish work.
No votes have been placed for this debate.