The Instigator
Derek.Gunn
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
wheelhouse3
Con (against)
Losing
50 Points

Global warming in not a ridiculous theory

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 8/8/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,695 times Debate No: 4950
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (21)

 

Derek.Gunn

Pro

There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that global warming not just a ridiculous theory.
Certainly there are a good many people who choose not to believe it because of their politics,
because it's not in their economic interest to do so, or because they'd rather not have to change anything.
Unfortunately, nature doesn't care about our petty affairs.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show that global warming is a ridiculous theory, perhaps just a figment of someone's imagination.
wheelhouse3

Con

It *is* a ridiculous theory made up by a ridiculous, washed up vice president who is wanting nothing more than the public's ridiculous fear of it because it gives him a face in a society that had almost let him fade out of their memories (heaven forbid that should happen!). Economic interests have nothing to do with that. The public is believing the lie of an old, hypocritical man. His own home emits 10 times the carbon emmissions as your average household. That's all overlooked though as soon as he says, " I planted 10 trees so that makes up for it." There is no sciece backing him up- none. The only scientists agreeing with him are biologists and zoologists who study what? ANIMALS! Not the atmosphere or even the enviroment for that matter, but A-N-I-M-A-L-S! They can't offer any sort of credibility to the subject other than saying,"Oh, the animal I'm studying has been sweating a lot more within the past 2 years." OMG Let us all panic and scream that the end is nigh because an animal is sweating more than usual!

Don't get me wrong- I think it's absolutely wonderful the public has become more enviromentally aware than ever. It's a great thing to be taking better care of what makes our lives on earth possible. Also, becoming more energy efficient is doing wonders for the economy and saving people tons of money as well as bettering the enviroment in which we make our homes. However, a washed up politian shouldn't be scaring the public into doing it so that he can have more power and more money. By believing his lie the American public has Al Gore and his cohorts on a pedastal of fame they never deserved. Someone who can't even recognize who his past presidents are should never be allowed to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and yet we handed it to him on a silver platter and said, "Thank you for showing us the light Almighty One."

Like I said- RIDICULOUS.
Debate Round No. 1
Derek.Gunn

Pro

Global warming was not first noticed by Al Gore. http://www.imdb.com... (2005/6)
People like James Lovelock (ex NASA), James Hansen (NASA) were first talking about global warming in the 1980's.
Two of the world's most eminent scientists in my opinion, and they are still talking about it today, though with a greater sense of urgency.

The best global temperature measuring mechanism there is, produced this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The upward nature of the graph indicates global warming.
The average screen temperature of the world at sea-level has increased more than 0.6 degrees C in the last one hundred years.

This is not a theory. This is a measurement.

I hold that global warming is neither ridiculous nor a theory.
wheelhouse3

Con

Ok look at your sources! Wikipedia? It's not a credible source seeing as any average joe can post anything they want on there. Imdb can be edited too therefore neither are credible sources. However, you were right in saying that Al Gore was not the first, but he *is* the one who it's revolving around *now*.
As for the .6 degree warming... of course it's warming! That's what the earth does- goes through warming and cooling cycles. How do you think the earth got out of the ice age? The earth warmed up. Did human carbon emmissions cause that period of warming too?
Besides there are thousands more credible scientists who disagree with the global warming theory than those who agree with it. Just look at this newspaper article.

CHICAGO — Some 31,072 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.

"No such consensus or settled science exists," said Arthur Robinson, founder and president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in the July issue of "Environment & Climate News."

"As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject" the hypothesis of global warming.

The institute, a nonprofit research organization, first published the names and credentials of about 17,000 scientists in 2001. The current list of 31,072 Americans with college degrees in science includes 9,021 with Ph.D. degrees in various scientific fields, according to an article published by the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit environmental organization that has challenged global warming theories.

Signers include more than 40 members of the National Academy of Sciences. Theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are among the prestigious scientists who have signed the petition.

Frederick Seitz, the first president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed before his death in early March.

Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and publisher of Environment & Climate News, said "claims by partisan and extremist organizations such as Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists that their views represent the ‘consensus' never should have been taken seriously."

"They are not scientific organizations, and in fact they have long records of misrepresenting science to achieve political objectives," Bast said. "This should go down as yet another case in which they were caught lying about science."

P.S. I just love Joseph Bast!
Debate Round No. 2
Derek.Gunn

Pro

You don't like Wikipedia?
Try Britannica: http://www.britannica.com...
The temperature measurements remain the same.

Given that the debate is: "Global Warming is not a ridiculous theory"
If you then say "of course it's warming" (as you have) this debate is over.
Nobody can now rightfully vote for you.
-----------------------------------------------

Still, I cannot resist your side issues

a) Global Warming revolves around Al Gore?
Is that really happening in the USA?
It certainly isn't in the rest of the world, where the central focus is the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch...
I recommend you read their reports. There is no greater authority.

b) Human emissions and Global Warming.
The problem with the current incidence of global warming is:
- "Our climate is warming at a faster rate than ever before recorded." NOAA Administrator D. James Baker 18-April-2000
- CO2 levels are also now higher than they have been for 450,000 years (ice-core data)
This massive increase in CO2 (and other green house gasses) has all occurred since the industrial revolution.
The 0.6 degrees of warming has also occurred since the industrial revolution.

c) Thousands of credible scientists disagree with global warming theory.
Really?
Well, they may be credible to you at the moment, but let's take a look more closely...
- It was published by the "Victorville Daily Press"
A tiny daily with nothing to lose (no offence about your hometown).
- No consensus man-made global warming exists or that the science is settled.
All it takes is for one anthropologist to disagree, and we have no consensus.
This is the norm in science, and the world in general.
- The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Is infamous for cherry-picking and misrepresenting data.
Here is a page of examples: http://www.realclimate.org...
- "their degrees are in 'various scientific fields'"
Like physics and medicine - notice only one climate scientist (Richard Lindzen) is mentioned.
Richard Lindzen also believes that "lung cancer isn't closely related to smoking"
He has also been paid a lot of money by ExxonMobil http://en.wikipedia.org...
- What about the other scientists, could they have been paid by ExxonMobil too?
Actually yes, they could have been: http://www.guardian.co.uk...
I worry that such corrupted scientists are confusing people on a grand scale.
Of course this suits big business (cars, oil, coal, gas and other big polluters) very well.

d) From the first four comments below, I think you and "Labrat228" might like to do a little experiment.
(i) Get an accurate thermometer and measure the temperature of a body of gas with broad-spectrum light shining through it.
(ii) Add 30% more CO2 to the gas than there was. (That's the increase we've had)
(iii) Measure the temperature again after a few hours.
This type of experiment was performed in the 1800s and was how greenhouse gasses were discovered.

As Labrat says... once you've shown it via experiment, it's no longer a theory.

P.S. Joseph Bast's "Heartland Institute" has accepted $560,000 from ExxonMobil
and over $200,000 from Philip Morris tobacco. Another remarkable coincidence.
Unlike you, he claims to not believe there has been any global warming trend. http://en.wikipedia.org...
wheelhouse3

Con

wheelhouse3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 7 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Very kind. I think this debate shows that people can agree with one side and yet vote for the other.
Posted by Dmorgen 7 years ago
Dmorgen
Con has poor conduct and poor Reason. All points to Pro.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Misinformation? Well, you certainly provided some PurpleMustard.
You can falsify data to back yourself up, but if you look at all data over the past decade you don't conclude that we're getter cooler.
Here watch an advert.
Or perhaps you shouldn't...
Posted by purplemustard03 8 years ago
purplemustard03
I think there is waaaay too much misinformation everywhere. I made my decision based on accounts of people that have lived in other times when it was not an issue.

For example: My dad is 60 years old. In the 50s and 60s, the biggest issue was not global warming, but global cooling! Everyone was worried that the next ice age was at our door. Consistently the 30s and 40s was about global warming. Like yearly seasons, the earth has consistent climate change over periods over 15-20 years. We slowly warm and cool over time, as reported by standard daily temperature measurements. I say give it another 5-10 years and we'll all have a different attitude.

My unbiased decision is that global warming is not ridiculous, but people that think we're all going to die and the world is being destroyed are ridiculous. Oh, and the polar bears are doing just fine! Antarctica has recently been reported to be colder than it was 20 years ago. We can all find our own data to back us up, but if you want to make the best decision become a scientist and measure it yourself..

Based on the ideas put forth by the debate, I'm Con on this one..
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mega_dez, If Lindzen must be dismissed for belonging to or contributing to any organization that is even obliquely opposed to CO2-crisis theory, then surely we must also dismiss any scientist who belongs to or contributes to any organization that supports CO2-crisis theory, right? The money that flows to those favoring CO2 theory is many hundreds of times that going to those opposed, so clearly those people must be the most corrupt on earth, right? This is all nonsense. Science works according to the peer review process. Lindzen, for example, doesn't get published unless review committees approve his work as being good science, and those committees are likely to be two-thirds CO2-advocates. Lindzen is a much-publish authority on atmospheric convection.

Singer is the only CO2-skeptic who testified for tobacco companies, and that was not about the harm of smoking, but on the statistical evidence of the effects of second-hand smoke.

The 2008 poll of scientists in the AMS showed that half believed that current warming was within the bounds of natural variation, and a quarter did not think CO2 was a primary cause. There are many scientific theories that have such a consensus that ultimately fail. For example, the scientific consensus until recently was that homosexuality was a form of mental illness. Skeptics persisted, and rightly so. The Steady State theory was once the strong consensus, but ultimately the Big Bang theory prevailed.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
wheelhouse3,

I was reading your profile, and would like to know were I could find information on the Church of the Latter Day Saints. I am a Reformed Christian, and am willing to change my belifes as long as what I am presented with is thoroughly and completely backed by the Word of God.

I believe that Mormonism is not backed Scripturally, but would like to do more reading on it nonetheless. Religion is a fascinating topic, and though I too am set in my beliefes, I love to listen and learn, and to understand why people believe what they do, and what scriptures they use to justify their position.

I think you know what I mean when I say I want to understand what you believe to greater understand what I believe. If you could provide me with some links that would be much appreciated!

Thanks!

Renzzy
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Roy, I forgot, I do agree with your assessment of the debate and concure, couldn't have said it better
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Roy, here is a list of 31,000 + scienists starting in alphabetictcal order who think otherwise.

http://www.oism.org...
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The resolution is ambiguous, so the debate is meaningless. "Global warming" is not a theory of any kind, ridiculous or not ridiculous. To make the a sensible debate, the resolution should be something like (1) The earth's climate is warming, (2) There is global warming and it is human-caused, (3) There is global warming and human causes are contributing to it, or (4) Current global warming is human caused and poses a crisis demanding strong government action. I think Pro thought the debate was about (1) and Con thought the debate was about (4).

When the word "ridiculous" is used in the topic it deserves a careful definition. I think Al Gore's film was certainly ridiculous, but scientific papers propounding CO2 theory are not ridiculous. The earth is certainly warming for some reason, I know of no scientist who doubts that. So that's not ridiculous.
Posted by mega_dez 8 years ago
mega_dez
"In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990's and had not received any money from these since. [23]
According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998..."

That's just one of the sources you use in your argument. Proof of bias, argument null and void.

A lot of these "scientists" are the same guys who are on record for saying tobacco smoking isn't so bad. So much for that argument and credibility of said scientists.

Searching all the names you provide and you'll find there's a common thread; big oil providing the big bucks to refute science with their junk science.

Fact is human activity is impacting the environment in several aspects (ie; mercury, pesticides, climate change, acid rain, deaths related to smog, toxins, water supply, depletion of sealife, mass extinctions).

Capitalism ideology makes no allowances for dumping toxins in your drinking water; and when you have "clean burning coal" commercials on your "news" channel, it doesn't surprise me people don't get the facts.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 Dmorgen 7 years ago
Dmorgen
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 pollocklady 8 years ago
pollocklady
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 Osiris 8 years ago
Osiris
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by purplemustard03 8 years ago
purplemustard03
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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 sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Derek.Gunnwheelhouse3Tied
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