The Instigator
Smarticles
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
jerkfacemcgee
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Global Warming

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
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: 1/12/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,775 times Debate No: 1744
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

Smarticles

Con

Global Warming is bad because many animals die cause there habitat is getting destroyed. It is also slowly destroying our ozone with pollution. I don't understand how people can even not care about these animals because they want to have higher temperatures and more beaches.
jerkfacemcgee

Pro

With all due respect, your argument is fatally flawed. Even if I momentarily disregard the factual errors, the way you have set it up makes it impossible for me to effectively debate. By taking the pro stance on this debate, it appears as if I am affirming that I want "higher temperatures and more beaches". For the purposes of this debate, I will from now on assume that we are debating on whether global warming is a true phenomenon or not.

Personally, I am all for environmental protection. And I understand that there are definite problems with today's' environment. But are these issues a direct result of global warming? I strongly disagree. There are numerous other factors, which I will outline throughout this debate, that cause higher global temperatures.

I will begin this round by specifically responding to each of Smarticles' contentions. The first contention made was "Global Warming is bad" This statement was made with absolutely no proof to back it up. Empty words do not win debates. Facts do. According to Timothy Ball, who has a PhD in Climatology, "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification." A person with a PhD in Climatology obviously would be a much more reliable source than someone with no such qualifications who makes a factless claim.

I will now move on to the second contention which was "many animals die cause there habitat is getting destroyed". Again, a factless claim. I agree that innocent and defenseless animals are killed everyday by those who disregard their habitats. But is global warming causing their deaths? There are numerous other factors that go into destruction of habitats. New construction of subdivisions and office buildings, ocean oil spills, wet land draining, dam building, parking lots, and diverting drainage are all ways to destroy habitats and subsequently cause animals to die. Smarticles cannot possibly claim that global warming is the chief cause (or causes any for that matter)of habitat destruction. By no means am I saying that these habitats should not be protected, I am merely pointing out that resources that would be used on global warming prevention should be used to prevent habitat destruction. We should focus our resources on actual problems that are grounded in fact.

"It is also slowly destroying our ozone with pollution." was the next baseless contention made by Smarticles. If Smarticles had researched prior to making this claim, they would have realized that ozone layer depletion is caused by the release of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, into the atmosphere. Global Warming does NOT cause ozone layer depletion. In the 1970's it became evident that CFCs were destroying the Earth's protection against ultraviolet rays, the ozone layer. CFCs were gradually phased out over the next twenty years. The Environmental Protection Agency offers this proof that the ozone layer is currently healing. "Because of measures taken under the Protocol, emissions of ozone-depleting substances are already falling. Based on measurements of total inorganic chlorine in the atmosphere, which stopped increasing in 1997 and 1998, stratospheric chlorine levels have peaked and are no longer increasing. The good news is that the natural ozone production process will heal the ozone layer in about 50 years."

The last claim made by Smarticles was this gem "I don't understand how people can even not care about these animals because they want to have higher temperatures and more beaches." This contention will not even require evidence to rebut because it is so ridiculous. People do not address Global Warming because it has been proved not to exist. They do not do it because they want more beaches. Warmer temperatures do not magically melt grass, create sand, and make beaches. Years of weathering by oceans and other bodies of water creates beaches. Additionally, there is no way to prove that the majority of people want higher temperatures. Why would they want higher temperatures anyway? Couldn't they just move to a place closer to the equator? This claim is ludicrous to the extreme.

In conclusion, I have effectively rebutted all of Smarticle's baseless claims about global warming. To the voters, I understand that global warming is a controversial issue that may be close to your hearts. Please consider your choice based not on the issue, but on the way the issue was debated. Thank you for taking the time to follow this round.
Debate Round No. 1
Smarticles

Con

When I said animals habitats are being destroyed I did not mean other animals I was speaking of animals that live in places with glaciers like Antarcica or the Arctic. However,the effects of climate change on forests in the U.S. and other parts of the world will depend not only on climatic factors but also on stresses from pollution (e.g., acid rain); future trends in forest management practices, including fire control and demand for timber; and land-use change. It is difficult to separate the influence of climate change from these other pressures. Climate change effects on forests are likely to include changes in forest health and productivity and changes in the geographic range of certain tree species. These effects can in turn alter timber production, outdoor recreational activities, water quality, wildlife and rates of carbon storage. Its bad for humans and animals. It could also be slightly good for the environment, but at the same time, not really. Increased areas of tree growth in the Arctic could serve to take up carbon dioxide and supply more wood products and related employment, providing local and global benefits. However, tree growth would mean absorption of additional sunlight (as the land surface would become darker and less reflective) and add to regional warming. Climate change is taking place within the context of many other ongoing changes in the Arctic, including observed increases in chemical contaminants entering the Arctic from other regions, overfishing, land use changes that result in habitat destruction and fragmentation, rapid growth in the human population, and cultural, governance and economic changes.

And this also effects sea levels. Rising sea levels inundate wetlands and other low-lying lands, erode beaches, intensify flooding, and increase the salinity of rivers, bays, and groundwater tables. Some of these effects may be further compounded by other effects of a changing climate. Additionally, measures that people take to protect private property from rising sea level may have adverse effects on the environment and on public uses of beaches and waterways. Some property owners and state and local governments are already starting to take measures to prepare for the consequences of rising sea level. Throughout the world, the prevalence of some diseases and other threats to human health depend largely on local climate. Extreme temperatures can lead directly to loss of life, while climate-related disturbances in ecological systems, such as changes in the range of infective parasites, can indirectly impact the incidence of serious infectious diseases. In addition, warm temperatures can increase air and water pollution, which in turn harm human health. Human health is strongly affected by social, political, economic, environmental and technological factors, including urbanization, affluence, scientific developments, individual behavior and individual vulnerability (e.g., genetic makeup, nutritional status, emotional well-being, age, gender and economic status). The extent and nature of climate change impacts on human health vary by region, by relative vulnerability of population groups, by the extent and duration of exposure to climate change itself and by society's ability to adapt to or cope with the change.

All regions of the world show an overall net negative impact of climate change on water resources and freshwater ecosystems. Areas in which runoff is projected to decline are likely to face a reduction in the value of the services provided by water resources. Changes in temperature, precipitation patterns and snowmelt can have impacts on water availability. Temperature is predicted to rise in most areas, but is generally expected to increase more in inland areas and at higher latitudes. Higher temperatures will increase loss of water through evaporation. The net impact on water supplies will depend on changes in precipitation (including changes in the total amount, form, and seasonal timing of precipitation). Generally speaking, in areas where precipitation increases sufficiently, net water supplies may not be affected or they may even increase. In other areas where precipitation remains the same or decreases, net water supplies would decrease. Where water supplies decrease, there is also likely to be an increase in demand, which could be particularly significant for agriculture (the largest consumer of water) and also for municipal, industrial and other uses. Higher temperatures, particularly in the summer, earlier snowmelt, and potential decreases in summer precipitation could increase risk of drought. The frequency and intensity of floods and droughts could increase, even in the same areas. Sea level rise may also affect freshwater quality by increasing the salinity of coastal rivers and bays and causing saltwater intrusion, movement of saline water into fresh ground water resources in coastal regions.

Changes in temperature due to climate change could affect our demand for energy. For example, rising air temperatures will likely lead to substantial increases in energy demand for air conditioning in most North American cities. On the other hand, energy needed for space-heating may decrease. The net effects of these changes on energy production, use and utility bills, will vary by region and by season. There may also be changes in energy consumed for other climate-sensitive processes, such as pumping water for irrigation in agriculture. Rising temperatures and associated increases in evaporation may increase energy needs for irrigation, particularly in dry regions across the Western U.S. Depending on the magnitude of these possible energy consumption changes, it may be necessary to consider changes in energy supply or conservation practices to balance demand. Many other factors (e.g., population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency changes and technological change) will also affect the timing and size of future changes in the capacity of energy systems.
jerkfacemcgee

Pro

To start my part of round 2, I would first like to point out that Smarticles only specifically rebutted one of my attacks, and even then that was a simple clarification. So we can assume that all of my other attacks on Smarticles' contention stand as accepted fact until Smarticles rebuts them.

The rest of Smarticles' argument was directly copy-and-pasted off of one website.

http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...

While the EPA is a trusted and unbiased resource, it cannot be used as the entire argument without conclusive summarization. Also, Smarticles attempted to pass off this argument as her own by not citing any part of the argument. This is fundamentally wrong and undermines the fairness of debate.

I will look past these flaws for the moment and continue attacking Smarticles' claims.

1. Rising Sea Levels Destroy Habitats

Yes, we can all understand that rising sea levels would have adverse effects upon the habitats that are vulnerable to increased water flow. But are the habitats already being affected? For the answer to that question, I turn to www.agu.org, which works in partnership with the National Oceanographic Data Center. "...it is not possible to uniquely determine either a global rate of change of sea level or even the average rate of change associated with the existing inadequate data set.' This evidence is stating that current technology that measures sea level changes cannot determine whether or not the changes in sea level are attributed to global warming or not. Also, it is impossible to determine whether global sea level changes are directly related to climate change. According to www.agu.org, "From these considerations it is clear that simply obtaining a value for global sea level rise in the past, or detecting an increase in the future, is not enough for sea level rise to serve as an unambiguous indicator of global climate change. Global sea level, whether observed to increase, stay the same, or decrease, must be analyzed and understood in terms of all of the factors that affect it for meaning to be attached to it. " It is impossible to assume that climate change is to blame for the tiny changes in sea level, because so many other factors go into sea level changes.

2. Impact on Forests

"The effects of climate change on forests in the U.S. and other parts of the world will depend not only on climatic factors but also on stresses from pollution (e.g., acid rain); future trends in forest management practices, including fire control and demand for timber; and land-use change. It is difficult to separate the influence of climate change from these other pressures."

This piece of evidence is from www.epa.gov. It was used in Smarticles' last argument. However, it contradicts the very point she is trying to make. It proves that the dire state of the environment is due to a number of factors, not just the relatively new theory of global warming. It is impossible to separate these factors, so it global warming cannot be the culprit of these discrepancies.

3. Impact on Humans

To respond to this claim, I will first ask, if something isn't there, then can it hurt you? To use a crude example, I will turn to the Boogie Man, the bane of our childhood existence. We were afraid of the Boogie Man, but of course he wasn't real. So why should we be afraid of something that isn't real? The same logic can be applied to global warming. According to www.heritage.org "Scientific facts gathered in the past 10 years do not support the notion of catastrophic human-made warming as a basis for drastic carbon dioxide emission cuts." Case in point, global warming does not exist. Yes, humans are, and have been for many years, destroying the environment. But are we increasing global temperature? Conclusive scientific evidence says we are not.

4. Water Availability

"Furthermore, the global pattern of multi-decadal trends in streamflow that was observed during the 20th Century bears a striking similarity to the average pattern simulated by the climate models forced by estimated historical drivers of climate (both anthropogenic and natural)." -21st Conference on Hydrology

This evidence is largely self-explanatory. It states that water availability in the twentieth century followed trends similar to ones exhibited in previous years. This goes back into the most recent point I made:global warming is not a threat nor does it exist.

5. Energy Conservation

May I respectfully point out that energy conservation is not directly related to global warming? Energy conservation is a way to preserve our environment, not a cause or effect of global warming.

In conclusion, I have rebutted all of Smarticles' evidence that was copy-and-pasted off of one website. She failed to rebut any of my attacks lined up in the first round, so therefore so far I am winning this debate. However, I understand that the true winner of this debate must be determined by the voters and I respect their decision. Thanks again for taking time to follow this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Smarticles

Con

Wow your really good at debating! How did you find out I copy and pasted some of that stuff???? Wow I think I'm going to forfeit nice debate!
jerkfacemcgee

Pro

Thank you ;). Are you officially forfeiting? If you are that's fine, I think we've covered our points effectively. Thank you for debating me and to the voters, thanks again for following this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Smarticles

Con

yes i am but how do i forfeit??? cause i really dont know... and i have to keep saying stuff til i get to 7,800 there we go okay...
jerkfacemcgee

Pro

jerkfacemcgee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bestcbstore 8 years ago
bestcbstore
Fat Fighting Foods: lose weight with the foods that burn fat diet
Posted by Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
The one problem with that point is that Cloroflorocarbons (CFCs) caused the hole in the ozone layer...therefore they are NOT global warming related. The flooding land is a byproduct of the natural warming that the earth has gone through. Regardless, if you looked at the world temperature over the past million years, you would notice that the world temperature is actually DECREASING, which amounts to global cooling. So... the entire global warming argument is bogus when more data is considered.
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
it may be copy and pasted but it is still true. global warming has been happening for a while and has created a hole in part of the ozone layer... and is flooding land..if it keeps happening it could flood islands and low land..sure some of you may not believe me but if you just payed attention to school and the news....
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
o i see sorry i copy and pasted that stuff i could of just read it all the way and put it in my own words...didnt tho i sprained my wrist the other day and i didnt feel like typing but that isnt a reason anyways.... o i c...
Posted by jerkfacemcgee 9 years ago
jerkfacemcgee
Thank you. I'm a freshman but I'm really into our debate team and like I said we're going to state somehow. Not really sure how that happened. ;) About the copy and pasting thing, I thought the information was great, but just sounded really polished and professional. I entered some of the sentences into google and figured out where they were from. Oh and my name is just a really pathetic insult my friends and I use all the time lol.
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
o sorry i didnt know just figured your name and everything.....
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
dang your really good! and how did you find out i copy and pasted some of that??
Posted by jerkfacemcgee 9 years ago
jerkfacemcgee
Lol Weirdkp326 I'm a policy debater and we're preparing for state so I'm in a debating frame of mind. Nothing personal was meant by my attacks, it's just how a round goes when you have to go negative on the the issue. I probably sounded kind of mean but it's how a typical debate round goes.

Smarticles, I'm a girl too btw. And I won't stab you ;).
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
because im a girl and if stabs me i'll slap him haha
Posted by Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
holy crap, jerkfacemcgee! Why don't you just stab Smarticles while you're at it!?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
SmarticlesjerkfacemcgeeTied
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 jerkfacemcgee 9 years ago
jerkfacemcgee
SmarticlesjerkfacemcgeeTied
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 aredcard4u 9 years ago
aredcard4u
SmarticlesjerkfacemcgeeTied
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 Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
SmarticlesjerkfacemcgeeTied
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 libertyforall 9 years ago
libertyforall
SmarticlesjerkfacemcgeeTied
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 smelll4545 9 years ago
smelll4545
SmarticlesjerkfacemcgeeTied
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 olympianfootball73 9 years ago
olympianfootball73
SmarticlesjerkfacemcgeeTied
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