The Instigator
RTN1994
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Global warming a "Human cause?"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,448 times Debate No: 24061
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

RTN1994

Con

Debate will start off with me stating my position (In short) then the PRO will put in his/her position in short. The position should be like a quick thesis statement.

My position in SHORT: Global warming is a natural process with little to no influence from Humans.
16kadams

Pro

I am devils advocating.

Opinion(devils advocate): global warming is driven by certain factors, and currently those factors are human related ones.
Debate Round No. 1
RTN1994

Con

Interesting: Now I am going to start with the "meats and potatoes" of the debate!

Global Warming does exist:

-The earth has cycles and those cycles have been changing consistently during periods of history and then
dramatically during other periods(like ice ages, which have been documented).
-Global warming makes up part of these cycles, specifically when there has been devastating droughts.

There is more than just "WARMING"

-There is such a thing as Global cooling, in which ice ages can be represented. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Global warming= the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

-C02 levels have been considered by scientists as the cause.

My argument

Since the earth has been changing and has had Global warming periods without man's influence with C02 and industry
like being warned about today as the cause, there must be more of an influence on the Earth's natural cycle than
it being based off of a HUMAN INFLUENCE!
Also, some of the coolest temperatures ever recorded throughout the world has been during the 20th-21st centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org...

here is an explanation about the C02, since currently they are high.
-http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

My next position after answering the next response by 16, will be to talk about the false data being presented
in order to make Global warming seem worse than it is and pinning it on HUMANS! should be interesting...
16kadams

Pro

My opponents first points are observations which we agree on, now to the fun part.

1. Past climate cycles

My opponents argunment is cycles change in the past: it is natural now.

Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans. Our climate is very sensitive to heat, something this argunment proved ( my opponents). Co2 is known to be able to trap heat and therefore increase heat in the earth, increasing temperatures. (http://www.skepticalscience.com...)

2. Cooling of 1940-70

This is based on the argunment of look it cooled when Co2 rose. As seen in the global warming swindle. This is true, but easily refuted. Co2 is still capable of a warming effect. The reasons tempertures dropped was due to high areosols. Volcanic activity ruled over our Co2 increase. The warning stopped when we passed clean air acts that lowered aerosol amount.

So the cooling was man made, and that forcing overrided co2. Meaning co2 drove the bus after that as no known natural forcing exists today. http://www.newscientist.com...

3. Co2

They have been increasing at unnaturally high rates meaning co2 is high due to unnatural forcings, in this case it's human emissions http://co2now.org...

Conclusion:

As 97% of scientists beleive we cause global warning, (http://www.skepticalscience.com...) my opponent holds the bop as he is against the science status quo.

His points are refuted, and I have proven co2 forces modern warming
Co2 is rising due to unnatural causes
The cooking of 1940-70 was areosols defeating co2, and co2 as areosol emissions fall take over and heat

Vote pro (2000 limit is hard)
Debate Round No. 2
RTN1994

Con

"Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans."-My opponent

-answer:no. Climate change is both natural and human. It can in no way,shape, or form be just humans because
the Earth has natural cycles, which is what both Global warming and Cooling are; cycles. The climate is ALWAYS changing not yearly, not weekly, but every second of the day.

-The link provided was a mere match up in opposition to what I stated, it included nothing to support the claims, like where the received data is from. I could state anything statistically but SHOULD be able to provide where the statistic or model/piece of data came from. Especially, since scientists have been "caught" much too recently messing with data in order to prove global warming is a Human-made cause strictly. http://www.paulmacrae.com... this link on its first page when opened shows where data came from and out it was altered or misinterpreted, it also included analysis on alarmist theories.

2. Cooling of 1940-70

"Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding."

and yet you are using the aerosol issue to (attempt to) definitively explain the cooling of the 40s-70s?

*shakes head* This has never been scientifically backed up. It was mere experimentation.

My opponent also neglects to answer why then were their ice ages? Whaaaa? Climate change? Yes. but wait.. there were no humans to cause it with their excess amount of c02? CORRECT.

My contender has not refuted anything and has yet to come up with a legitmate argument as to why we are the reason if their were far greater changes without the high c02 levels back millions of years ago!

As 97% of scientists beleive we cause global warning, (http://www.skepticalscience.com......) my opponent holds the bop as he is against the science status quo. Back to this website again...sigh

-This statistic is negated due to the fact that that cannot possibly be measured!
16kadams

Pro

1. Humans forcing climate change?

My opponent has no correlation or scientific evidence, here is a graph:


We see a direct correlation, and this means CO2 likely has an impact.

Is it the sun?



As I have now proven no natural (the sun) changes are occuring. Also as tempertures rise at alarming rates, the sun is cooling (see graph). Sun spot levels are decreasing



2. Climate gate

My opponent is sorucingclimate gate saying it makes all alarmist evidence invalid, which is false. That is like saying one worm in an apple means all the apples have worms. Citing "fraud" once does not make any of my evidence invalid, as my edivence does not use IPCC data. Meaning this is a red herring.

**Note my opponent claims the temperture is driven by natural factors, but a reader would notice what atural factors are these? As he has not shown any, his point is a mere assertion and therefore the only natural factor (the sun) has been refuted. CO2 is the answer. With this pro should already win.

3. Cooling (1940-70)

I would like to note areosols have been proven to be a factor. My opponent ignores my analysis that areoso are more pwoerful then CO2, therefore he admits this as true as it is dropped

As climate scientists have said: "The post-1940 decline in temperatures appears to be linked to increasing emissions of atmospheric aerosols - another man-made pollutant emitted alongside greenhouse gases - which serve to "mask" the latter's warming effect. When Europe and the US clamped down on aerosol emissions, temperature rise resumed." [http://bit.ly...]

As areosols cool and where more plentiful then CO2 back then, areosols had a cooling effect. Once the US cut areosols CO2 became more plentiful, and then was able to remain in control and rise temperture.
Climate cycles have been refuted. See graph.

Uprecidented warming = unnatural



unprecidented CO2. Its not natrural.

BOP

He never denies this, he has the BOP. Never explains his "cant prove it", therefore his analysis is a moot.

PRO wins this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
The funny thing is that I showed no natural factor accounts for global warming
In this debate
Posted by RTN1994 5 years ago
RTN1994
I never said humans were not a cause, in fact I said we were a part but not the main! Forget this site, you guy don't debate you gain up and pick on the little things instead of the main argument!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/
and the ore-ele poll for official results shows almost everyone right libertarians
Posted by RTN1994 5 years ago
RTN1994
Everyone I have looked are anarchist, liberal-democrat, global warming supporters, and atheists. but its whatever
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
This site has mostly conservatives actually
Posted by tyler90az 5 years ago
tyler90az
Global warming is not human caused per se, rather human quickened.
Posted by RTN1994 5 years ago
RTN1994
Since this site has mostly atheists and liberals you don't have a chance in the voting process. Although 16 did this for mere argument and is actually against global warming, it is easier to go with the "majority"
Posted by RTN1994 5 years ago
RTN1994
If you have a good enough following like 16, people like microsuck will vote, especially being friends on here. But I have learned that is the way to win on here have CONNECTIONS. lol if they did away with voting this site would improve.
Posted by RTN1994 5 years ago
RTN1994
And yet you can find data that shows the exact opposite. O well, atleast I have yickyack where voting does not determine a winner.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
You can post now
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
RTN199416kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro because he proved humans are behind this heating cycle, even though not every one and his evidence was of higher quality.
Vote Placed by tyler90az 5 years ago
tyler90az
RTN199416kadamsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought 16kadams did a nice job playing devils advocate and I also enjoyed the graphs.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
RTN199416kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to meet his burden of proof; therefore, 16kadams won. Sources to pro because of the cool graphs and reliable sources.