The Instigator
Crayzman2297
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
gizmo1650
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Global Warming; real or not?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 6/1/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,358 times Debate No: 12200
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

Crayzman2297

Con

I maintain that Global Warming is not brought about by man, and cannot be reversed by man. The statistics are grossly inflated by the fact that they are predictions made by computers and not historical facts. Computers today are nowhere nearly accurate enough to predict the future climate change, and many people seem to be ignoring the fact that our world is still emerging from an ice age.

?
gizmo1650

Pro

Below are cons arguments listed in a numbered order to make responding easier.
1. The statistics are grossly inflated by the fact that they are predictions made by computers and not historical facts
2. Computers today are nowhere nearly accurate enough to predict the future climate change
3. many people seem to be ignoring the fact that our world is still emerging from an ice age.

my response:

1. what do you mean by historical, human records or traces left in ice, soil etc.., i'll address this once you clarify
2. actually, you are right on this, computer modules are not accurate enough to precisely predict climate change, but
A) this is irrelevant, as we are only predicting a general increase in earth's temperature and
B) Global warming can be shown without computer modules
3. Actually we are entering an ice age
if anyone knows how to embed an image please post in the comments
http://www.ourworldfoundation.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Crayzman2297

Con

1. I am saying that if meteorologists cannot even get the forcast for the weather right how the hell can they predict the next 100 years? History is set in stone, and can be easily used to state truths. The future is unknown, and data about something unknown does not come across as good data to anyone who knows what they are doing.
2. Global Warming has not yet been shown without computer models. The melting of glaciers may very well be the tail end of the ice age leaving us. Many scientists are also finding the correlation between the hole in the ozone with sunspots.
3. I maintain that the graph you posted is but a computer simulation. A General direction of temperature would only mean something if it were constant; however, temperature cycles and fluctuates in ways that scientists still do not understand.
gizmo1650

Pro

i must admit, your last post confused me a little
1. this one i understood. And i respond with the question, "what is the average weather in winter compared to summer", What do you mean cold, you can't even tell me tomorrow temperature and you are predicting 6 months from now.
Climatology is more or less a statistical science, short term predictions are left to meteorology, which i admit is inaccurate, but over even one year we have more than enough time to make climatology accurate, and over 100 years we definitely do.
part two of your first statements as i understand is, the future is unknown therefore predictions about the future are invalid. please correct any mistakes i made before i respond

2. In round one didn't you argue that global warming is an artifact of inaccurate computer simulations?
When did i mention the glaciers, or ozone layer? you are debating me, not the scientific community, also are we entering or exiting an ice age

3.Make up your mind, do computer simulations show global warming or not, also actually read the graph, the CO2 level at 2009 is a measured, fore the moment i will ignore the future prediction of CO2 concentration.

General direction does not mean constant it means a general increase, it is essentially a line of best fit of the future temperatures, or some non-linear equivalent.

Let's take a closer look at the graph which predicts global warming using measured quantities not computer simulations (which you might or might not be against) You can easily see a direct correlation between CO2 and the TEMP. Seeing cause and effect is a bit more tricky. If you zoom in with your browser to the first full bump, second peed you will sea that the CO2 jumps slightly earlier the the temp, scrolling over to the next bump you sea the same thing, it is true in all of the bumps.
Using measured quantities, not predictions we sea that CO2 is at a record hight, fare beyond the range of natural fluctuation, and since increase in CO2 leads to Increase in temperature, global warming is clearly real.
Debate Round No. 2
Debate Round No. 3
Crayzman2297

Con

Many scientists have found evidence that the earth's climate goes through a 1,500 year cycle of warming and cooling. Did you know that? Using a combination of fossils and tree rings they have found evidence on every continent to support their theory. I would recommend reading this article. (the whole thing)

http://environment.ncpa.org...

The data, gathered by studying the PAST, is much more concrete than anything suggesting a man-made global warming. Every single piece of data predicting that global warming will have tragic negative effects is based on speculation. It is ALL unreliable.

Lets ask a question;
The ice shelves and the glaciers are melting, as they have been for over a century. Where did they come from? the ice age!
Every single physical example of global warming can be explained as our emergence from the ice age. The glaciers were not always there, they were formed when conditions got cold enough. It is more than just as likely that now the earth is returning to its normal temperatures.

Do the scientists backing YOU up have any MORE claim than the scientists backing ME up.
Who is right? It is entirely a matter of personal belief.
gizmo1650

Pro

numbered responses correspond to paragraphs

1. I read the article you linked, and all i saw was that Rowman and Littlefield wrote a very convincing book to support you claim, i do concede to the natural fluctuations in temperature.
2. My entire argument is based on the past fluctuations, and our current state, i don't get what gives you the idea i'm using computer modules. Also i never said, nor is it relevant, that global warming will have a negative impact.

Con seems to have mis-understood some of the article in his question section. His article, agrees that there is a large 'ice age' cycle of about 90,000 years, and a smaller cycle of 1,500 years. i would like con, and the gallery, to look at the data itself and see what it shows. again this can be found in the link at my first p
That timeline clearly shows that we are ENTERING an ice age on the large scale.
again, when did i mention the glaciers?

in the last paragraph Con demonstrated perfectly his lack of knowledge in science. No scientific fact can be personal belief, Was the earth flat 1,000 years ago because everyone thought so? Scientific fact cannot be a matter of personal belief.

to offer my own arguments based on actual data i can show people. (which i admit are the same as round one, but con didn't attempt to argue them) We see a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature. We also see CO2 going higher than it has gone ever before, note the thick red line near the bottom is our current levels, the other one is a prediction of 2100 levels. Even so we are much higher than the previous peaks through the last three ice age cycles. It than stands to logic that human activities are artificially warming the planet.

Throughout this debate con has argued against points that i didn't make, without attempt to negate any of my own arguments, he has also offered no data to back up his claim. In fact his only source basically sais, read this book to see why global warming is fake.

Before you vote, read over the debate again. Look at cons arguments, are there any that i didn't negate (other than the ones that negate arguments i didn't make)
Look at my argument, Does it logical show global warming is man made.
And did con even attempt to counter it.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
gizmo, So if we are entering an ice age and humans are causing CO2, then CO2 does not cause enough global warming to affect climate. But if CO2 correlates with temperature rise, then CO2 causes global warming. Which is it? It seems that maybe you think CO2 is not causing the current global warming, right? In a debate in which no resolution is stated, it is really helpful to say what you think the resolution is and what side you are on.

I think CO2 causes the amount of warming that physics predicts, which is relatively minor. CO2 crisis theorists claim that CO2 warming is greatly multiplied by water vapor effects, and that theory is in very deep trouble, as we have now been running for 15 years way below the theoretical predictions.

Historically, the correlation between warming and CO2 is that CO2 lags global warming by 800 years. Warming drives CO2 out of the oceans, so warming cases CO2 rather than reverse. The global warming hockey stick has been completely disproved, per Montford's book "The Hockey Stick Illuion." It was a product of an error in the statistical methods. Putting random numbers into the methodology produces a hockey stick graph.
Posted by gizmo1650 7 years ago
gizmo1650
@royLatham i was useing historical evidince to show a correlation to CO2 and temperature, and citing humans as the cause for the sudden rise in CO2. also, i was the one saying we were entering an ice age in the natural cycle
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con said that "Global Warming is not brought about by man." therefore Pro must be on the side that says "global warming is bought about my man." Pro then argues that we are entering another age, based upon historical climate patterns. It seems both sides were supporting the Con position. Did I miss something?
Posted by TT 7 years ago
TT
its a proven fact that global warming is a trick to bankrupt countries
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
@gizmo:

You can't actually embed images on here as far as I am aware, merely post links to them. The only real embedding feature is that if you paste a YouTube web link, it automatically embeds the vid. So I guess if the pic you wanted was the thumbnail of a YouTube vid then you could show it in your argument that way.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
pbplk58 (catchy name) No, there is nothing dirty about CO2. Plants depend upon it, and greenhouse operators artificially increase CO2 levels to make their plants grow faster. Obsession with CO2 take resources away from useful enterprises and wastes them on pointless non-productive ones. It redirects attention away from real environmental problems (e.g. the big mess of plastic in the middle of the Pacific) to fake ones.
Posted by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
Even if global warming is false, we can all agree that dumping our trash and waste wherever we please is bad. Therefore, if the notion of global warming were to be false, it still gets some people to "clean up their act" if you will, and therefore benefits society.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by DylanDraper1993 7 years ago
DylanDraper1993
Crayzman2297gizmo1650Tied
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 Officialjake 7 years ago
Officialjake
Crayzman2297gizmo1650Tied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Crayzman2297gizmo1650Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
Crayzman2297gizmo1650Tied
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 Digamma 7 years ago
Digamma
Crayzman2297gizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 7 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Crayzman2297gizmo1650Tied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
Crayzman2297gizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11