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

Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,625 times Debate No: 25346
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




4,000 characters max
I will be arguing in favor of this issue.
First round: acceptance only
Round 5: No new arguments may be presented
If your oppnent asks for a source, it must be provided.
You may not use Fox News, MSNBC, or other biased sources.
You must cite your evidence as much as possible.


I accept but just because you think my source is bias doesn't mean it is or that your isn't.
Debate Round No. 1


Watch this as part of C2 --->

C1: The temperature of the earth is increasing because of CO2 increase.

Using models tracking only natural sources of CO2 output and heat generation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently failed to accurately described observed changes in temperature over the past century (2). Only by factoring in human carbon output have scientists been able to effectively describe observations about climate change. Over the past century, an increase of 1 degree Celsius has been observed with the majority of the increase being in the last 20-30 years (again, 2) which lines up perfectly with when the majority of CO2 increase occurred (1).
C2: The problems that will face us with increased temperatures.

Berkeley professor Bill McKibben has become very vocal in warning about the dangers of the 450 parts per million threshold (We are currently at 394.29 ppm which increases at over 1.5 ppm per year) "If we do not return quickly below 300-350 ppm, the breakup of ice shelves... already underway will accelerate and sea levels will rise fast and high enough to devastate life and wreck civilization The challenge to humanity is immense, with roadblocks of power, desire, and inertia difficult to imagine overcoming in the short time left, but humanity has... the means to avert cataclysm" (7).

C3: What America can do to help

In order to understand what we can do to stop global warming, we must first understand what the major contributors to climate change are. Making up roughly 60% of CO2 emissions, the use of energy is by far the leader in CO2 emissions with much of this energy being used in homes, transportation, and industry. It is therefore prudent that America should increase its efficiency in these areas. The first step would be to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies which cost America $4 Billion per year (4). This would make coal power almost uncompetitive and cause a huge shift to cleaner sources of energy. This would not necessarily make heating your house more expensive, as the government has already starting weatherizing homes to make them more energy efficient (5). This project has met with brilliant success, and the weatherizing of a million homes each year would add roughly 78,000 jobs to the economy at a time we desperately need it and would not be a significant drain on our budget deficit. "...[F]laws that let the air inside a house go through a full exchange with the outdoors twice an hour, instead of once every two or three hours" (5). Weatherizing households not only saves households energy, but by extension, it saves them money as well. Saving households money would also provide a boost to the economy and increase consumer spending at a time we desperately need it. All estimates indicate that government aid like this would make energy efficiency and clean energy much cheaper when compared with coal.
In addition, there is a major difference between subsidies for oil and gas and subsidies for solar power. Oil and gas companies enjoy subsidies in the form of tax-write offs and oil depletion allowances. Solar power companies, by contrast, receive loans from the Treasury and the Fed. This is a much more economically sustainable way to give subsidies, as the interest that is paid would pay for a majority, if not the entire subsidy, which would ultimately make much more sense economically than government hand-outs.

  2. xD



First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming[1], and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth's seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward[2] revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10�C. National Geographic News reported[3] that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars' carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, "the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun". They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn,[4] which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune's largest moon, Triton[5]. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun's temperature[6], meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter[7] than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

'An Inconvenient Truth' very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. Nonetheless, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. As Al Gore's popularity grows the issue is spiralling into a massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore's film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is "a sham".[8] In Gore's movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However,warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels, therefore a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions.


I ran out of space to type more. 4000 too low.
Debate Round No. 2


Yeah...I agree. 4k is definitely not enough. Sorry about that :(

Refutation to 1st paragraph:
The sun doesn't effect the seasons in a significant way, the rotations of the planets do. Pluto and Triton's global warmings may be due to the fact that they have a much longer orbit time than we do and, as their eliptical orbit brings them closer to the sun, they start to heat up.
The graudual increase of the sun's temperature would likely increase the surface temperature of the earth by much more tha 1ºC over a century. This "heating of the sun" theory also leaves the corrolation between increased temperatures and increased CO2 levels completely unexplained, and is thus an incomplete explaination for the data we have observed in relation to climate change.
To illustrate my point, here's a quote from your 6th sources "Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and 'that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,' he said.
So although the sun MAY BE getting hotter, the increase in the temperature of the sun does not adquately explain the global warming we have experienced over the last century.
Refutation to 2nd paragraph:
I will ignore your "scientists claim Global Warming a 'sham'" because your scientists do not present evidence, and they do not represent a majority of the scientific community. Nor is it likely that they possess the tools necessary to carry out experiments on the scale that would DISPROVE global waming.
"However,warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels, therefore a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions."
This argument...makes little sense. Not only is it not sourced, it doesn't say that there SHOULD be a relation between CO2 levels and temperature levels. Prior to the advent of heavy industry, the earth has not experienced a bombardment of CO2 on such a scale as now, and so it makes no sense to say "Temperatures rose and 800 years later, CO2 levels rose, therefore CO2 does not cause temperature to rise." Increase in temperature could be due to many other factors, like methane emissions, or (if your sun temperature increase argument stands) the increase of the temperature of he sun, or just the general unpredictability of weather.


Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”.[1] Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling[2] by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth[3] and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article[4] in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussedhow skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”.[5] The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors.A NASA funded study[6] in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”


Again. 4000 too low.

Debate Round No. 3


There's a huge difference between some Czech poltician saying the IPCC is a political body and it actually being one. I am unconcerned about a Czech politician being convinced that global warming is a myth specially because he doesn't exactly cite any evidence, does he? And actually, I wasn't going to ask why American politicians don't think so because they do. 11 senators and 36 House members newly elected believe in the so-called "myth" of climate change (1). In addition, the "evidence" you have provided to support your claim is very inadequate since you only actually list two cases in which science skeptics have been "silenced." Furthermore, in your Oregon example, this climateologist's free speech wasn't being infringed upon, he wasn't banned from ever speaking out against
This also destroys your argument that skeptics are pariahs. If four dozen lawmakers are skeptical of science, how can you possibily claim that "science is being quashed?"
Allow me to refute your video with a simple paragraph from the LA times. (2) "A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view." But, how was this study funded? Was it all a liberal hoax? No. The LA times writes: The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases."
This sounds to me like only those who almost religiously believe global warming is a myth are actually continuining the struggle, whereas those who actually conduct the science are switching sides.
The evidence indicating the increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is overwhleming and undeniable. According to NASA's best estimates, 1950 was the first 650,000 years that the carbon content of Earth's atmosphere climbed higher than 300 parts per million (2). And over the past 4 years alone (1), the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere jumped from roughly 385 to 394.29 and, judging from the linked graph, the rate of CO2 increase will continue to climb.
Both your video and this statement can be true. In the earth's past, the reason CO2 levels haven't driven climate change was because CO2 levels in the past were not high enough to make a significant imact



Obviously a counter-study to global warming would be predominantly funded by thoe who the myth of global warming woudl affect most. Billionaires want to stay rich, not lose customers due to a myth. That is jsut a stupid argument and irrelevant to your debate.

I have nothing more to say because you raised no valid point regarding evidence supporting global warming nor why it deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.

You merely discussed climate change itself. Not at all explaining why it's due to humans.

Thus you have not achieved your BOP and I win.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Talk about a total cop-out on con's part. Vote to go up in a sec.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
I would debate pro on this
Posted by tyty43 5 years ago
global warning doesnt exist duh
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Can you make the max characters higher? I would love to take this if you made the max characters higher.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The entire thing ended up devolving into another "Does global warming exist" debate, which con failed to prove that it was seasonal and failed to refute Pro's CO2 argument. Pro explained (in the first round mind you) how the CO2 rise was man-made and how we can change the course of events, and thusly fully fulfills his BOP. Con essentially forfeited the last round and so I end up giving pro conduct for it. Args is obvious.