The Instigator
Con (against)
9 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Global warming is a myth

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 96078
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing that global warming is NOT a myth.

1st round will be acceptance

Thank you and good luck


I accept your challenge. The real debate here may be misstated though. The idea that the Earth has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, is not really in question.
But perhaps, the debate should more properly be titled, "Is Man Made Global Warming Is A Myth" because that's actually what we will be discussing, is it not?
Does humanity have anything to do with the average temperature of the Earth?
Debate Round No. 1


I'm glad you pointed that out! In fact we will be discussing the anthropogenic changes to the environment as global temperature rise has been proven true since the late 1800's.

1*According to, 38.2 billion pounds of CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere in 2011 (which was a record high at the time). So the question is where is all this carbon coming from? We know that cars produce carbon monoxide (CO) as a byproduct which can turn into C02.

2*Take a look at this graph which represents the global temperature difference since 1880 taken by NASA. It is clear that the temperature has increased well above average in recent years.

3*Now take a look at the vehicle production since 1950. There is a noticeable correlation in the production of automotive vehicles and the rise in global temperature.

The extraction of carbon-based fluids such as oil and natural gas from the Earth that would have been left in its natural sediment far below the surface is where all the carbon in our atmosphere is coming from. These carbon structures are known as greenhouse gases. 4*Carl Sagan was the discoverer of the cause for Venus’ extremely high temperature known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the positive feedback loop of rising CO2 levels which causes the sun’s heat to get trapped, which increases the global temperature exponentially.







Great charts, I'm new to this site and didn't know you can do that.

Because politics is undeniably involved in this matter, any discussion of Global Warming usually devolves quickly into a shouting match where both sides do not hear a word the other is saying.

So, before you and others who agree with you tune me out. Please hear the vision of the future I propose. As it probably very closely resembles the future you would choose if given the chance.

I believe that all new cars should be the size of Smart Cars and be powered by electricity.
I believe that all new homes should be required to have Solar Panels and Vertical Farms.

That may be hard to believe coming from a Right-Wing, Bible Believing, Global Warming denying Republican, but my reasons for wanting to obtain those goals are very different than yours. If more clean water and air is a happy side effect. I"m O.K. with that.

Imagine a world where the sun powered your vehicle and your home for free. Imagine a garden in your house that could provide a substantial amount of your food.

This would largely remove us from the grid, and the need for a large central government. This would also remove us from spending about $300 billion a year on foreign oil and then spending about a trillion dollars a year on the military, just to keep the word safe. So the people who would happily kill us all, can just price gouge us instead.

Believe me, if they had our military and we had their oil, we wouldn't be around to have this conversation.

The reason we should give up our SUVs isn't because of Global Warming, it's for freedom and economic prosperity.

All the hundreds of billions we would no longer send overseas; would stay here and create jobs. If only half the money we currently spend on what now would be a largely unnecessary military, was redirected to lowering the cost of healthcare; wouldn't we all be better off?

But this is all a pipe-dream that will never happen.

Because, politics is what really lies behind the Global Warming. And the people, who have ridden the Global Warming bandwagon to power, will never let the controversy go away.

If there was a way they could dramatically reduce emissions, they wouldn't do it.

If you don't believe that, then maybe you should ask yourself why we build cars here that can only be sold overseas - which get significantly better mileage than the cars sold in America.
in the fall of 2010 a BlueMotion Passat set a world mileage record in Europe, recognized by the Guinness Book of Records, achieving 1,526.63 miles (2,456.87 km) on a single tank of fuel, which equates to 74.8 miles per US gallon (3.14 L/100 km; 89.8 mpg-imp). This is equivalent to travelling from New York to Los Angeles on two tanks of diesel.[6] BlueMotion vehicles are not available in North America.
Video Link -

Why do cars built is 1986 get better mileage than cars built today?
1986 Chevy Sprint - 53 MPG
2016 Chevy Spark - 41 MPG

We built cars in the 1950's that got 50 MPG

Perhaps, it's time to question the real motives of the people who are behind the green movement and whether or not they deserve your blind support.

World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.
Page 13

ERIC PIANKA " (UT PROFESSOR) the Earth would be better off with 90 percent of the human population dead. "Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,"

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion

Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime
Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet (p.166)

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental
"We humans have become a disease"the Humanpox.

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it

I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world.
At 19:58

BILL GATES - explains the financial benefits of exterminating the elderly by denying them healthcare

TED TURNER - (CNN) explains the need to have less people on Earth

Warren Buffett Gives Millions to Pay for Abortions
Warren Buffett Has Secretly Given Millions To Support Reproductive Health

So now you see the true agenda of the Green/Progressive left - which is the extermination of most if not all of the human race.

What do you do about it?

Do you just sit there and blindly accept everything that people who just said they want to kill you, claim is science?
Do you think that people, who clearly would exterminate most of the human race, if they felt they could get away with it; wouldn't lie to you as well?

In my next post we'll examine the data regarding Global Warming.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent fails to provide evidence to support his claim that global warming is not caused by man. I will refute the topics at hand relating to global warming only, if you wish to debate overpopulation, economics, or anything else send me a challenge!

5* Enough sunlight reaches the Earth in one hour to power our world for a year. Let us do a little math here:

All we have to do is harvest a fraction of a percent of the sun’s rays. This does not even include geothermal, wind, and other energy sources. However, this is a bit off topic, the main point of emphasis was to illustrate that the cars have not been getting more fuel efficient for extraneous reasons. It’s not difficult to make a car fuel efficient, it’s difficult to engineer it to be economic, go a decent speed, and pass safety inspections. When I mentioned cars were becoming fuel efficient I was referring to the change in slope of Figure 1 (in the previous argument) beginning around 2008. This just indicates that the ratio between vehicles and carbon production per vehicle has changed.

Automotive vehicles play a big part in adding carbon dioxide and increasing the greenhouse effect, however it is not the only contributor. 6* Concrete production, the natural gas burning process known as flaring, deforestation, controlled forest fires, industrial processes, and of course electricity and heat production. 7* In fact, scientists and climatologists agree (97%) that humans play a big impact on global warming. See Graph Below.

8* Thanks to Willard Libby and the discovery of radiocarbon dating in the 1950’s, we are capable of seeing hundreds of thousands of years into the past. This means the data taken by earth scientists using radiocarbon dating has further added to my argument that climate change is indeed man-made.

9* Take a look at the graph below. The red line represents carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 600 thousand years ago to today. Big difference, right? The green line represents the nitric oxide in the environment today opposed to 600 thousand years ago, and the blue methane. That massive spike around the zero is around the same time the industrial revolution began. Is it just a coincidence that methane, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide have all spiked around the same time humans started burning fossil fuels? The answer to that question is a resounding NO.







If Con is expected to claim that someone is selling you a myth, wouldn't exposing the motivation behind the myth of paramount importance?

Exposing what someone has to gain from deceiving you, calls into question every bit of data they might offer in support of that myth - doesn't it?

Choosing to ignore the money and the politics behind the Global Warming Hoax is naive at best and dangerous at worst.

However, since my opponent cannot answer the questions that were put forward earlier such as -

Despite the fact the BlueMotion Passat was manufactured in America, and achieved approximately 50% better mileage any other car on the market at the time.

Why would an environmentalist president, not allow that car to be sold in America?

12 MPG Ferrari..Sure - 75 MPG Sedan"No Way; that makes a lot of eco sense doesn't it?

Little wonder my opponent is afraid of a legitimate debate. I don't blame him though, if your beliefs are impossible to defend, why try?

Instead of dealing with the real world implications of the Global Warming Myth, my opponent has instead chosen to try and steer the debate towards "stuff he reads on the internet."

OK, we can start there.

If what you think of as scientific fact comes from sources such as ", and opinion polls posted on Wiki, all I can say is good luck with that.

Further, I wonder if my opponent has bothered to check the dates on any of the information he has provided thus far. Does he realize how antiquated his charts are? Or, could there be a reason he doesn't want to share accurate and up-to-date information?

This after all, is the very heart of the matter.

How valid is the data the Global Warming Hoaxers are providing?

Is the United Nations a credible source?
World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

Is NASA a credible source?
Not even a US Congressman can force NASA to obey the law and release the real climate change information.

Is the EPA a credible source?
Judge rules EPA lied about transparency, tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives

Is NOAA a credible sorce?
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA"s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been "adjusting" its record by replacing real temperatures with data "fabricated" by computer models

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming
Quote -
Homewood was then able to check Giss"s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

How many times can the scientists involved in the study be caught falsifying that data? How many times can the boy cry wolf before you catch on?

Look, I can go on providing links indefinitely, but what difference does it make to a Hoaxer?

When the "scientists" involved in highest level of climate study write things like this "

Jones writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

And you are gullible enough to believe these people can produce accurate and truthful data, I need to stop this debate immediately and tell you about some wonderful investment opportunities I have to offer.

I have a wonderful condo on the oceanfront in Nevada. Well, it"s not really oceanfront yet but as soon as those polar icecaps melt. You"ll be living the highlife.

This property will be worth ten times what you"ll pay for it.


I know it"s true because I saw a chart on and then Wiki said the same thing.

Dude..If it tell's you what you want to hear and it's on the internet it must be true.
Debate Round No. 3


“If Con is expected to claim that someone is selling you a myth, wouldn't exposing the motivation behind the myth of paramount importance?”

First off I have never said anything about someone ‘selling a myth’, this is a delusion of yours.

Secondly, the motivation behind ‘selling a myth’ is indeed NOT of importance when discussing this topic simply because they are different topics.

As I’ve stated previously, challenge me in a debate on economics, on abortions, on overpopulation, evolution, or whatever in ANOTHER debate, not this one. I have a lot of data for each of these topics as well.

Since you have failed to provide any evidence to support the idea that climate change is not anthropogenic I must be the concluded victor.

I’m sorry your conspiracy theories haven’t come to fruition. I’m not here debating this because it’s what ‘I believe’ but because I can provide substantial data to back it up.

Here are some definitions:

Positive Feedback Loopcaused by a self-amplifying cycle where a physiological change leads to even greater change in the same direction.

White - of the color of milk or fresh snow, due to the reflection of most wavelengths of visible light.

Photon - a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.

Energy - power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.

Here lies the theory of the positive feedback loop that can and will tip the scale of the Earth’s global temperature. The white snow that reflects the photons which contain energy which provide heat (which is the amount of jiggling a molecule undergoes) is what allows our ice caps to stay cool. When a large imbalance of different chemicals (with different properties) in our atmosphere ensue over a short period in time, our planet begins to change. One of the characteristics of carbon dioxide is that it has the ability to trap photons or energy or heat in this case, not allowing this heat to leave the planet. The positive feedback loop is when it gets hotter because of carbon being pumped into the air which causes the snow to melt (where it normally doesn’t) which causes the ground to be exposed (not white) which causes the ground to get hot which causes the surrounding area to get hot which causes the surrounding snow to melt and continue on.

The other positive feedback loop involving the anthropogenic climate change is that when the snow melts it turns to water which flows towards its lowest point following gravity and usually causes weathering to occur in the nearby rock structures, which also releases carbon dioxide into the air furthering the effect.

In conclusion, I have taken this debate seriously while my opponent has decided to provide little to no data to support his wild ‘theories’. He rants and raves about other issues that do not relate to the topic at hand. You have to be pretty good to tie global warming to Warren Buffet donating money to abortion clinics.

Thanks for accepting my debate and may the best man win! Good luck!



Honestly, I don't know why I bothered to join this debate.

It was easy enough to predict everything that was going to be said.

Step 1 - You present data showing global warming.
Step 2 - I present evidence proving the people who produced that data are lying.
Step 3 - You ignore the corruption and claim the globe is warming, no matter what. Because that is what you want to hear.
Proven Fact - Case Closed - End of Story.
Step 4- Doesn't make a bit of difference what I say.
Step 5 " Doesn't make a bit of difference what you say.
Rinse, Lather, Repeat

BTW, I'm writing this at the same time as my last post. Well before you have replied.
Why? Because what you have to say is so sadly predictable.
At first, you'll try to say, "Don't you know that was investigated -blah, blah, blah. Yes, sure I do, people who lie about global warming for a living investigated other people who lie about global warming and guess what the result was? If you really get really desperate, you will try to find grammar or spelling errors in what I've said. Anything to avoid answering the questions I've asked. Why?

Because, you can't answer them.

After all, the big question is -

There wouldn't be any hacked or deleted emails in the news, there wouldn't be any violations of the FOI Act, there wouldn't be any Congressional Hearings, there wouldn't be any headlines at all.
And you ignore this fact.

I've showed you evidence that the people you vote for are dishonest and corrupt and don't give a damn about the environment.
And you ignore it.

I've showed you evidence that the money behind the people you vote for - want to depopulate the Earth.
And you ignore it.

I've showed you evidence that the most respected environmentalists in the world want to exterminate at least 350,000 people a day.
And you ignore it.

I've showed you evidence that the scientists who claim global warming is real have been caught repeatedly falsifying the data.
And you ignore it.

What more is there to say?

They say they plan to kill you, and you say, So what?
The people I vote for have told me what I think. And I refuse to question their motives or their actions.

It's sad that so many of us are just pawns on somebody else's chess board, happily waiting to be sacrificed.

The Global Warming Myth is a path to power.

And the people who road that gravy train to power, know that Global Warming is a fairy tail.

That's why Obama is Fracking everything on Earth-

Obama quietly approves hundreds of offshore fracking drills in Gulf of Mexico
President Obama"s Climate Legacy: Thanks to Fracking
Hiding the Fracking Boom in Obama"s "Legacy"

That's why Hillary Clinton tells environmentalist groups one thing in public and then gives speeches to corporations behind closed doors telling them to burn the environment to ground.

Clinton to environmentalists-
So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place," Mrs. Clinton said in a March 6 debate as transcribed by Mother Jones

Clinton to business -
Emails: Clinton tried to export fracking at State
Hillary Clinton Tried to Push Fracking on Other Nations When She Was Secretary of State, New Emails Reveal
"My view is I want to defend natural gas," the former secretary of state said in a transcript of a private meeting with a union that was sent to her campaign.

And not a word matters to a Hoaxer....
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Heirio 1 week ago
Whining about a vote?
You earned it, mate.
Posted by toocoolblue 1 week ago
I didn't believe in parallel universes, until I visited this site.

This is a strange place where the most respected newspapers and journalists in the world aren't a credible source but is..LOL

This is a strange place where direct quotes from the scientists involved in recording the global data aren't a credible source but an 10 year old opinion poll from Wiki is.... LOL

Jones writes "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick... TO HIDE THE DECLINE."
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind

the original data showed not a rise BUT A DECLINE.

the fact that the Earth's temperature HASN'T RISEN IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS.

There does seem to be a recurring theme there... I wonder if actual scientists with real degrees working for real universities are credible nah... Wiki is better

Strange place where ancient info is "credible" I wonder why accurate and up-to-date info wasn't presented?
U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2015 are 12% below their 2005 levels
a 7 percent decrease since 2005

Nah that old data is way more credible....
Posted by Heirio 1 week ago
He accuses Con of not including things like abortion in the debate about manmade global warming, because the two are related (hint: this was to further his delusion that all progressive libs want global genocide).

After all this, he mocks Con one final time.

I'll summarise the points here:

Conduct goes to Con.

Arguments goes to Con.

Sources goes to Con.
Posted by Heirio 1 week ago
Both parties were able to cite sources well, but Pro's sources consisted of no scientific papers nor were they of scientific origin. His sources were based off of newspapers (that which were related to the topic that is). Con's sources however were from reliable sites, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, Con wins the sources.

In the second round, Con gives a detailed argument towards CO2 levels increasing and provides a strong argument for how this can lead to global temperature rises.

Pro tells us how this is all political and the progressive left yearns only for global genocide, not really responding to anything Con says.

In round three, Con points out how the levels of green house gases and other toxic chemical has risen exponentially in recent years, not matching any previous records. He also notes how things apart from motor vehicles can cause this. All that he mentions are things that humanity does, which heavily supports his case.

Pro lovingly responds by further pushing that the "myth" is dangerous and political in nature and then proceeds to insult Con by stating he is "afraid of legitimate debate". He loses the point for conduct, which is given to Con, who only presents his arguments, sources, and logic. Pro then actually gets onto the topic at hand and provides links to newspapers in order to try to debunk Con's sources. No science papers or any studies, but newspapers. His other sources are of the same reliability.

He then proceeds to mock Con, again.

In the fourth round, Con states - truthfully - that none of his arguments nor sources have been properly refuted. He doesn't add any more graphs, as the ones he previously put were kindly ignored by Pro. He then explains the process of global warming - in detail.

Then, Pro proceeds to lightly mock Con yet again and commits some serious intellectual dishonesty. He then mocks Con again.
Posted by tytheguy 1 week ago
Challenge me in another debate foo. My degree specializes in geology and petroleum engineering anyways.
Also I didn't correct your grammar. I'm a mathlete not a grammar nazi.
There's nothing I would want more than to debate fracking with you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 1 week 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided evidence for his case whilst pro just concceded and said that we should reduce CO2 emmissions!
Vote Placed by Heirio 1 week 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments.