The Instigator
padfo0t
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Cindela
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Global warming is NOT a phenomenon that is happening right now.

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: 1/11/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,244 times Debate No: 1682
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (15)

 

padfo0t

Pro

Thank you Ching-Kit for being my friend,

Thank you for debating and telling me about debate.org,

Thank you for teaching me good strategies.

Now prepare yourself.

Global warming is an inaccurate theory. As a part of my evidence I will present to you a situation. In the 1970's, many news groups and organizations that studied the weather had a strong belief that we were going to, soon, go through another ice-age. Thirty years later: here we are.

Earth has always gone through fluxuations in climate and temperature. You might present the fact that ice near the polar areas has recently been melting and breaking apart.

This occurance is brought by the changing in currents that brough warmer waters toward the ice. The warm waters that constantly bash into the ice cause it to melt. Let me assure you that in at most twenty years, the ice will be frozen solid again. Studies on weather are outrageously over-rated. They have only been going on for less than 100 years. There is no written history about the weather 150 years ago.

You might argue that we can do archeological digs to see what the climate was like, but who is doing those now. I agree, we could find out how much rainfall occured 200 years ago by studying old trees, but no one has done that yet.

Even then they wouldn't get a wide enough spectrum of earth's overall changes in climate.

"On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history."


He is right. I have researched on many websites (and one book) and the answers are consistant. He has a point//

You have no evidence that is good enough to prove that we are going through 'global phenonemon'.

You might also argue that we must conserve resouces, protect the environment, and lower green house gas emitions. Then I would agree with you. These problems do not contribute to what is happening now (which in no way I am saying is global warming). These problems are a result of mankind being careless about their planet home.

Many people believe global warming is happening because during their lives they have experianced constant warming temperatures. They also believe what Al Gore and other activists tell them. Most of these people say we must recycle, get more fuel-efficient cars, and prtect the environment. I am saying they are exactly right.

The question is whether global warming is happening or not, and what (if any) factors that contribute to it we can change and correct. I believe there is nothing we can do about our planet's NATURAL state of change. 'Global warming' is a imagined situation. Change is necessary.
Cindela

Con

Before I start my debate, I would like to ask everyone who is going to vote in this debate to vote based upon the debate itself, not your own opinion. Thank you

If I may, I would like to take a definition of Global Warming from the American Heritage Dictionary: global warming
n. An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change.

My opponent has been talking about global warming being a natural part of the Earth. He has been saying that everyone has been predicting that this is happening and there is nothing we can do. If you look back at my definition, you can see that all he has done is help me prove my point. He, as the Pro side of this debate is supposed to prove that Global Warming is not happening right now. My job is to prove that it is happening right now. Seeing as all my opponent has done is prove my point, I should win this debate.

>>The question is whether global warming is happening or not, and what (if any) factors that contribute to it we can change and correct.
No. The question is the topic, and nowhere in the topic do you say anything about factors of global warming. You can't add to the topic in the middle of your argument. The point about the factors is irrelevant.

>> I believe there is nothing we can do about our planet's NATURAL state of change. 'Global warming' is a imagined situation. Change is necessary.
But you still think that there is change going on. You still think that our Earth is heating up, and you have provided evidence. You are just proving my point. Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
padfo0t

Pro

No one can ignore the changing state of our home planet.

>>"My opponent has been talking about global warming being a natural part of the Earth."
I have most definately have not been talking about 'global warming' naturally occuring. It would be imposible for me to say that everything is alright, and everything is according to the usual. The planet is naturally foregoing changes that no one has seen drastically as now. You should not win the debate Chng-kt!

>>"No. The question is the topic, and nowhere in the topic do you say anything about factors of global warming. You can't add to the topic in the middle of your argument. The point about the factors is irrelevant."
I did not say that was the topic of the debate. I said that people around the world need to realize that 'global warming' is not happening, and they need to recycle, and replenish earth's resources before it is too late. The global 'heating' is a totally different theme and as littlelacroix says:

1. On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history.

2. Carbon dioxide emissions do not correlate with the higher temperature. Around 115,000 years ago, the Earth was in it's warmest phase on record, yet the carbon dioxide levels were among the lowest ever recorded. If that isn't enough to convince you, over the last 200 or so years, the carbon dioxide levels have sky-rocketed, mainly due to mankind, yet the temperature has only risen a half a degree Celsius. So, if we're in a period of warming and mankind has given off so much carbon dioxide, then why has the Earth's temperature only risen a half a degree Celsius? It just goes to prove that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and the temperature.

3. Finally, during the mid 1990's, two Danish researchers, Henrik Svennsmark and Eigil Friis, had hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover, thus, more cosmic radiation, more cloud cover. Clouds actually cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about twenty percent of incoming solar radiation back into space. The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the sun's magnetic field which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures. The influx in cosmic radiation may have cause the recent spike in temperature in recent years and may have been a factor during the time when Earth had temperatures this high as well.
Thank you, I have won this debate.
Cindela

Con

Again, my opponent is not debating his side of the argument. The definition of global warming is simply: the earth is heating up. My opponent has put forth arguments that do not argue his side of the case. He is arguing that global warming is natural. HOWEVER, he agrees that it is happening. He has basically conceded to this debate.

My opponent has tried to change the topic of this debate so that the debate would be about the factors of global warming. This is against the rules. My opponent cannot just choose a different topic in the middle of a debate when there is a topic already set in the debate.

In this debate, we are going by the American Heritage Dictionary definition of global warming. My opponent has done nothing but prove it. I do not have to put forth any arguments, but I will.

Experts all over the world agree that global warming is a phenomenon that is indeed happening right now. In other words, they all agree that the earth is heating up. For instance U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." In other words, there are 11 National Academies of Science agreeing on the same thing: the world is heating up. It does not matter if it is mankind's fault or if it is natural; that is not the debate. The debate is whether or not the earth is heating up, and scientists all around the world say it is. This is my only argument for now, but if you want more, look at my opponent's arguments. They all help me to prove that global warming is indeed happening.
Debate Round No. 2
padfo0t

Pro

Experts have probably lived 50 years. To truly study the earth's weather we need to record it over the course of hundreds of years. We have only been tracing the weather for -100 years. Experts have the point of view of 100 years. Earth will(and has) live much, much more.
Second,
I AM NOT AGREEING WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never said the earth was heating, but only have explained what it what mean if it were present. I clearly stated what was wrong with the planet and what we could do about it. Can you read? I have NOT tried to change the topic of this debate, experts do not have to be right, you said the experts are concerned about green house gas emmisions:not global warming.

I have presented far more valid arguement than you have, You have just tried to sway the decision of the voters and not focused on actually arguements. you think you can just say that I am against the rules instead of proving me wrong. You are playing the whole debate wrong. Please learn to argue. I am right. If the voters project the opposite theory then too bad for them. As you will some, some voters are smart, they know who is trying to weed out of arguemnets. Sorry for the flare of anger, I can't help it, bye.
Cindela

Con

>>there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. <<
This is a point that my opponent has taken from another person's argument, littlacroix. By taking it, my opponent has basically accepted this point as his own, meaning that he is using this point for his debate. Now, this point is saying that the world should be heating up before every Ice Age. Also, according to this point, we are well overdue for another one. Therefore, the earth should be heating up like it is now. My opponent, by using this point in his debate, has just said that he admits that the world is heating up.
What is my job in this debate? To prove that global warming, or a heating up of the earth, is happening right now. What has my opponent done by saing the previous point? Help me prove that global warming is happening right now. I rest my case.
>>Second,
I AM NOT AGREEING WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<<
If you look above, I think that you have, and if you want more proof, I shall put down some quotes from your arguments.
>>planet's NATURAL state of change.
In his first argument
>>No one can ignore the changing state of our home planet.
In his second argument
>>The planet is naturally foregoing changes that no one has seen drastically as now.
Also in his second argument
>>On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history.
His second argument
>>The influx in cosmic radiation may have cause the recent spike in temperature in recent years and may have been a factor during the time when Earth had temperatures this high as well.
His second argument
Here are some quotes from my opponent's debate that show that he is accepting the fact that global warming is happening. It seems that we agree on this. The only difference is that he is arguing that global warming is natural.
In you last paragraph you made several personal attacks upon me, and I am disgusted that you would stoop to insulting me and making a personal attack on me. Please, you should know better.
My opponent has also made the claim that I am not making any arguments. However, I have made a argument that experts all around the world agree that global warming is happening. They all agree that the earth is heating up. It is the reason the earth is heating up that sparks such a large debate between scientists. If you want proof, here is a direct quote from MY arguments.
>>Experts all over the world agree that global warming is a phenomenon that is indeed happening right now. In other words, they all agree that the earth is heating up. For instance U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." In other words, there are 11 National Academies of Science agreeing on the same thing: the world is heating up. It does not matter if it is mankind's fault or if it is natural; that is not the debate. The debate is whether or not the earth is heating up, and scientists all around the world say it is. This is my only argument for now, but if you want more, look at my opponent's arguments. They all help me to prove that global warming is indeed happening.

>>you said the experts are concerned about green house gas emmisions:not global warming.
If you look at the quote above, you will see that they do not only have a call to reducing greenhouse gases. They also acknowledge that they have enough proof of climate change, and therefore they want nations to do something. You can ignore the second part of that statement. All you need is the part with them saying that they understand that there is signifiganct climate change.

In conclusion, my opponent has given arguments that support my side of the topic, and I have given substantial arguments that also support my side of this debate. Therefore, I have won. Thank you, and please vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
First of all, I'm not REALLY your friend. The ice things are the chunks of ice floating in the water that the polar bears stand on in the "save the polar bears" commercials.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
What are YOU talking about?

Why do you completely out of the blue start a discussion of polar bears?

"Ice things"?!!!!!!! What, my friend is an "Ice thing"?
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
to Harlan:

What are you talking about???

P.S. Please vote in my other debates.

P.P.S. If you believe in global warming, its not true. The polar ice caps are re-freezing again.

P.P.P.S.

I think it is halarious to see a ploar bear standing on a 'melting' ice thing, acting as if he is scared of the water. Polar bears can swim! They can go somewhere else.
Those ice things aren't even melting. They are just fragments that broke off the larger one.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Another reference was made here:

http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk...

(scroll too bottom)

It says:

"Funny you mentioning the La Scala, Hubert It was two streets down the hill from Crown Avenue and was a fairly new oicture house before the war."

They make yet another reference to the war with nikonia. They are obviously reffering to a house in New Oicture which was typical oicturian architecture.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Praise be to New Oicture! A reference was made to new oicture on this website: http://www.photolectic.com...

Its in the like second sentance. It clearly states:

"New oicture controls are aiming to emulate the color reproduction of the previous Nikon flagship DLSR D2x."

Yes, Nikonia has unfortunately waged a war against the great New Oicture. The leaders or "controls" of New Oicture are, indeed,as stated aiming thier color emulation ray at thier flag ship; the flagship "DLSR D2x".

The Nikon traitors shall not prevail!
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
No, New Oicture is where I live.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Ok. What is the 'new oicture'? Did you mean to type "picture"?
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I do not have a fighter jet there because of thier association with war, but only because I like fighter jets. Ill probably change it, however, because on this site, it will probably misunderstod for its war implications.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
I liked the gloe too, and was very dissapointed to see that antipatriot had the exact same one. I discovered this a day after making this new pic. This new oicture is temporary, I just didn't want to be confsed with antipatriot.

The old one was a hamsa. Very, very old symbol. I don't know THAT much about the history of it. I saw it every where in israel. It is a common symbol used by Jews and Muslims that wards off the evil eye.

PS. don't worry about me, I didn't vote at all.
Posted by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
I think I have played a better debate, whether you believe in global warming or not. Cindela wasted his time saying how I was somehow technically agreeing with him, which of course I wasn't, so please don't vote on your beliefs...coughcoughharlan...but on the actuall debate. Once again, not the topic and which might be true, which I am positive I am correct while I am debating.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
padfo0tCindelaTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 indicolts 9 years ago
indicolts
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 Cucumber 9 years ago
Cucumber
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 ZedLoch 9 years ago
ZedLoch
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
padfo0tCindelaTied
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 King_Jas 9 years ago
King_Jas
padfo0tCindelaTied
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