The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Global Warming

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,298 times Debate No: 65707
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I recently saw a statistic that 1 in 4 Americans were skeptical of global warming and its damage to the world. TO be quite frank I found this disturbing and I would like to challenge anyone who believes Global warming is a farce to debate this prudent issue.


I accept, please state your case.
Debate Round No. 1


My case is that global warming, the phenomena in which greenhouse gases and ozone destroying chemicals, is a prevalent problem that currently affects the global health of the plant. It has led to more a more deadly weather pattern, stronger storms, droughts a rising sea level, a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. If steps are not taken to reduce the emission of green house gases and other destructive chemicals that cause acceleration of the greenhouse effect the climate will progressively grow hotter and will lead to further drought, storms, and eventually making earth a inhospitable place or humans to live. Good luck to your counter argument. You don't need to sight your sources but be aware I will fact check everything you say.


Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase.

Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels.
Fig. 2. C13 fraction variations contained in seasonal versus, interannual versus decadal variability, compared to known geophysical sources.
The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. ( This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming."
This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (
Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been.

Contention 2: Earth is cooling.
If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day?
I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. ( The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC.

How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (
Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (

Contention 3: Artic Ice.

First, I would like to state that Pro's claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus.
Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now.
Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (
Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity.
Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (
We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier this year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (
How about Al Gore. The man who brought Global Warming to our attention? In 2009, the man breaks down in tears stating how it's nothing, but hot air and how he fabricated everything just for the money! He said the arctic sheets are not melting and CO2 is not responsible for depletion of the Ozone. (
Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare.
1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice.
2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago.
3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (
Contention 4: Sea Levels

Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as Pro claims then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land.
The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. ( The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all.
This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend.( The source is the PDF within the link.

Contention 5: The Weather

My opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend.

As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. (

How about Tornados you may ask?


In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! ( But what about Hurricanes?

Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase.

Now I must end my argument here before I run out of my characters. On to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all I want to touch on your rebuttal that carbon levels have not increased drastically over the course of earths existence. Although it is true that earth had much more carbon dioxide several million years ago this was counteracted by massive amounts of plant life that photosynthesized to create the air you breath today and the oil you put in your car. thus the massive amount of Co2 drops that range from super volcano explosions from Yosemite national park or other cataclysmic events that caused the death of millions of plants and thus a spike in Co2 levels. It would be nice to imagine that this is natural but it is not. For as you see in his very first graph Co2 levels are going up at a faster rate than any other time period besides the late Cambrian period. Yet this increase is not due to any natural cataclysmic but instead a self made increase in Co2 which has increased by a factor of five in a mere 200 years. This time zone is a speck in your million year graph but is increasing at a exponential rate and has yet to slow. I would also like to answer your rhetorical question that you posed on how we survived such"absurd levels of Co2 and temperature on Earth" and the fact is we didn't have to because the Co2 fluctuation that you are describing happened hundreds of millions of years in the past were the earth would have not been able to support human life as we know it.
In your third graph you once again use data from hundreds of millions of years ago to set a standard for earths temperature. The two temperature shifts happened for very different reasons one being asteroid induced Apocalypse and the current Co2 increase due to human activity.

In relation to your arguments that global temperature readings are going down NASA would beg to differ as they have recorded a gradual increase in temperature

I am also curious when you are saying my opponents graphs or I disagree with both Al Gore and the IPCC on their global warming estimates but you continue to use a straw man argument and putting words in my mouth that I never said.

I also have problems with your hockey stick graph which does not have its y axis labeled and the line of best fit that was drawn on the graph after that because it is not accurate to NASA climate readings and thus I can only assume are based on land based climate measurement stations that can be quoted by both believers and skeptics of global warming due to their chronic irritability.

You have also miss quoted my statement on arctic ice which i did not say was melting but rather I said that the ozone layer is weakening above it. Although this hole is slowly repairing itself it is still weak to fluctuation and thus we are very lucky that it is repairing itself after decades of damage by CFC's.Scientists also have no clue as to why arctic ice is thickening and do not know how long it will last. Thus I o not believe that the melting of arctic ice will lead to a increase in sea level know due to the still unexplained thickening of arctic ice but if we do not do something this unexplained blessing may revert back to its original melting stage that will cause cities like New York and Boston to be more susceptible to flooding.

In relation to your data on storms I miss wrote my opinion for you are correct that their have currently been less storms than in the past. However, the storms that do get created have been far more devastating and have shown up in places that almost never receive a hurricane the most prominent example being New York and even further back hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Tornadoes have become less common due to reasons that scientists do not understand because we still do not fully understand how tornado are created.

I also noticed how you left out my argument on droughts due to the definitive proof that the number of droughts have increased around the world from the Midwest to India these drought swill only get worse and slowly rising temperatures will only exasperate the problem

Finally I would ask that you research your graphs a little bit more for the Co2 graphs you found that spanned millions of years had almost nothing to do with global warming as well as not discounting a phenomena just because the scientific community does not fully understand it. Good luck in our counter argument


Firstly I'd like to point out that Co2 is not CO2, because Co is the element symbol for Cobalt not Carbon Dioxide. Please be careful. My opponent argues stating that the graphs of millions of years ago doesn't matter, but it does, because if the harms of Global Warming that my opponent says are true then we currently wouldn't be here, because as I have showed Earth has had CO2 levels and Global Temperatures way higher then we currently do. This shows that my opponent's case has no impact to it. Then he goes on to say that there's a spike in levels due to oil and such, but if you remember the chart that I have given you in my last round you can see that it has a negative slope with means that Earth is actually cooling. In my 4th Graph you can see that the IPPC is incorrect in there readings of Global Warming and that we are currently cooling and heading into another Little Ice Age. As for you EPA souce, I have already pre-refuted that in my last round with my hockey stick chart evidence showing that we have a negative slope in terms of the Global Temperature showing that we are cooling and not warming. My opponent drops my second graph showing that though we have had a major increase in the burning of focil fuels that it has had no effect on the atmosphere.

My Hockey stick Chart, if you click on the link that I had provided you, is from the Johannes Guttenburg University where the scienctists there conducted a study and that was their evidence. This study was conducted in the Artic Lattitudes and, you would think that if Global Warming exists that it would have an upward slope, but it has a down ward slope.

Last Decade the US has passed the Kyoto Protocol which banned the Production of CFC's from first world nation's, but will have no real impact due to it excluding countries like China and India.

You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium.

You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. ( Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section.

Though the world has been in a drought for hundreds of years the techonology has been picking up with new agricultural techonolgies like GMOs and factory farming.
Debate Round No. 3


First of all sorry for the CO2 typo spellchecker loves to hate on me

I am also a bit annoyed that you have misconstrued my point on the first few graphs you used which had a measurement of earths greenhouse gas levels over millions of years. To be clear these CO2 spikes happened due to mass extinctions that left a majority of plant life dead on the earth. Thus unless you are implying that massive amounts of plant life is dying the current spike of CO2 is man made.

And in relation to your graphs that earth is heading towards a cooing era the measurements used to take them were provably ground based temperature readers that tend to vary widely. For NASA's reading of global temperatures has read a stead increase in global temperature by a total of 1 degree

Though that fact may no seem scary that mere temperature change has huge ecological and weather ramifications. And if this trend continues and earths CO2 emission only increases than this temperature shift will increase at a quickening pace.

In relation to the hockey stick graph I looked into what the graph actually meant seeing as their was not labeling o the axis but what it does show is a 0.3 temperature drop per millennium. In the last 20 years the earth has had temperature increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Thus their is no way that the earth progressively moving away from the sun will effectively counteract climate change.

Also the effects of CFC's are very different than traditional greenhouse gases for this dangerous gas, for lack of a better term, eats up ozone and is largely responsible for the hole in the ozone layer that has slowly developed over the arctic circle. Thus it is a completely different and much more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2 and Methane.

In relation to your graphs on overall greenhouse gas contribution I have not seen repeated in ever source I looked at with the average impact of Humans on global warming to be between 3 and 5 percent. Although this may not seem scary this small percentage change is several billion tons of CO2 that affect the rates of the greenhouse effective and over time( and i'm talking about hundreds of years) will lead to exponential temperature growth. Right now it is linear but will only level out if mankind as a whole reduce carbon emissions or find some way to create balance between our CO2 creation and capturing. To see some of these solutions I recommend you watch the Nova special on global warming.


You see as the human population increases the number extintions for different animals also increase due to our need for resources and the human population is growing and when the resources are used up we move on like a paracite. Extintion rates have been increasing because of this. (

You have provided one graph while I have provided several that say the same thing done by different sources and not NASA and the EPA which can be bias to your case. (If you wish to debate on the EPA we could do so when this debate is finished) It's the steadiness in the graph that makes me question the validity of the information while mine so both increases and decreases.

You have looked up the hockey stick graph, but I have shown that in my graphs that the hockey stick graph does not exist and that it is unlikely that the Earth is warming at all as I have shown in several graphs that the Earth's temperature is decreasing. I have shown that it is cooling and that the IPPC is incorrect on their Warming Predictions.

My opponent now brings up one theory relying on the Ozone hole, but this is incorrect as the World Health Organization (WHO) has found that the Ozone is actually getting thicker and is expected to make a great recovery by 2025 due to the banning of Hydrocarbons. (


My opponent attempts to refute the last graph that I had provided in my last round, but even though we are dumping large amounts of CO2, methane, and CFCs into the atmosphere they are contributing little to Global Warming. The graph shows how much it contributes not the quanitity and it shows that Water Vapor by far is more superior than that of CO2, Methane, and CFCs combined!
Debate Round No. 4


Firstly I'm confused by your first graph which has nothing to do with the topic of global warming

I also don't think you understand my points on your graphs. Your graphs on temperature are either based on ice core temperatures which is imprecise when used as a measure of temperature especially over short periods of time which is what global warming demands as in order to study. Or your measurements are based on terrestrial based temperature readers which have been use by both anti global warming and anti global warming pundits because they are so chronically unreliable. The NASA measurements are the closest possible reliable source of information because they are taken from space which gives the the most complete view of the planet.

On the "theory" that the ozone layer has developed hole above the arctic circle is not a theory because it has happened. And the hypothesis that the WHO presented does not account for CFC's that are being made in china and India

And in relation to the fact that water account for the greenhouse effect than other greenhouse gases is correct however I believe you are underestimating how much greenhouse gases is composed of three percent of all greenhouse gases (the percentage that is man made). For this 3% accounts for several billions of tons of greenhouse gas such as CO2 and methane that humans are putting in the atmosphere. This increase upsets the natural equilibrium of the greenhouse effect and in time will lead to an exponential increase in temperatures. over 97% of scientists agree with this theory and distrust of general scientific theory is only harmful to the continued existence of mankind.


My first graph was showing the CO2 spike that Pro may be refuring to is from massive plant extintion and not from CO2 emmissions.

As for satellite readings I give you the second and 5th chart from Round 2. These both are satellite imagings and they both show the same thing. That CO2 levels do not affect the atmosphere Much like the 2nd graph in Round 3 we can see that CO2 and even man-made at that matter has no affect and doesn't contribute to Global Warming as Water Vapor does. It also shows that the IPPC is incorrect and many of the NASA scientists are in the IPPC and this actually discredits their sourcing.

The Ozonen hole is above the Antartic, not the artic. The graph does include the CFCs from third world nations.

As for the CO2 gasses contributing, I know that there are billions of tons, but it still doesn't contibute to the Greenhouse effect even comparably close to Water Vapor. This shows that there is no corrilation between Warming and CO2. Now as for those 97% of scientists that my opponent was talking about.

When it comes to scientists there are a total of 2,500 scientists that do believe in Global Warming, but when it comes to not believing in Global Warming there is a large amount that have signed a petition stating that they believe that Global Warming is a hoax. There is a current count of 31,487. ( and (

Thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
DTSmember, why don't you look at the facts before making assumptions? Ignorance, as well as denial, are the reason for our lack of progress on global warming.
Posted by DTSmember 3 years ago
The earth has been cooling and warming for 100s of millions of years. Global warming exists, but not man made global warming. Global cooling exists, but not man made global cooling. Welcome to the solar system that we revolve and rotate.
Posted by DTSmember 3 years ago
The earth has been cooling and warming for 100s of millions of years. Global warming exists, but not man made global warming. Global cooling exists, but not man made global cooling. Welcome to the solar system that we revolve and rotate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
Last winter there were a bunch of idiot global warming nuts that went to antartica to view first hand the effects of global warming. They got stuck in ice. And were in real danger . An ice cutter was sent to get them out and they got stuck. It took a real effort to save these people. All of them should have to pay for their stupidity.Their wages should be garnished till it is repaid what their dumb thinking brought on those who saved them.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
Global warming exists. Everytime the sun comes up. The sun has almost exclusive impact on the temperature of the earth. Even the angle of the sun causes seasons.Now that is what we used to call climate change back when people actually had a brain.All you little commies want to do is collapse America and any nation YOU deem not fit to have wealth.That is all that global warming, or , now that it is cooling down, you switched to climate change.

CO2 is plant food. They take it in, process it, and expel oxygen.Guess what we live on.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 3 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Impressive presentation by Con. However, Con did make a noticeable error by accusing Pro of claiming the north pole's ice caps were melting, something Pro did not say, so I give Pro conduct points. Con had a pre-prepared presentation I think and ended up assuming they would make points they did not as a result.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro drops more and more of con's points over time, and ultimately, he losses.