The Instigator
JasonMc
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
llamallama
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points

Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions.

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,499 times Debate No: 2286
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (54)
Votes (10)

 

JasonMc

Con

It would seem that the consensus among academic institutions worldwide would be enough to persuade most people that global warming is real, that it is a problem, and that it is a direct result of human-produced carbon emissions into the Earth's atmosphere, but many are still not convinced. The skeptical argument seems to be that the Earth is so vast that mankind could never be any real threat to it, and / or all of the evidence presented by the world's most prominent scientific minds only points to naturally occurring events and warming cycles.

The problem with the skeptical side of this argument is that the skeptics lack the knowledge necessary to view the argument objectively, from all sides. Skeptics fail to understand the concept of chronic vs acute when considering whether the source of harmful carbon emission levels are man-made, or naturally produced.

Scientists have taken into consideration the significant amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere naturally by contributing factors such as volcanoes and organic decomposition. The difference is that manmade sources perpetuate a consistent or chronic flow of carbon emissions across the planet, which maintains the enhancement of the greenhouse effect, and as a result causes the exponential rate of unnatural warming our planet is experiencing. Significant natural sources of carbon emissions do occur, but they are acute and subside after a period of time, and therefore do not intensifying the greenhouse effect for a period long enough to perpetuate an accelerated warming trend.

Scientists have been able to map natural warming trends over the course of several hundred thousand years through analyzing ice core samples taken from Antarctic glaciers, as well as through other methods. When comparing the rate of fluctuation between natural carbon and temperature cycles and the cycles being witnessed today, it is clear that excessive manmade carbon emissions are causing an accelerated warming trend at such a rate that our global ecosystem cannot adapt to in a non-catastrophic fashion.

I would ask that my opponent keep their argument rational, and leave their emotions at the door.
llamallama

Pro

Let me first say that I believe in global warming and I am doing this to see if I can win even against it.

You say that the Earth's temperature has been rising because of CO2 produced by man, but this a normal cycle and there have been tons of other times when we have freaked out about it.

(http://icecap.us...) Go to this link and look at the bottom graph on page six, which is the average temperature from 1895-2007. Not only do I not see the temperature rising too far above normal, I see it falling sharply around today. This is in complete contradiction to your claim that the earth is warming and that it is different then it has been.

Now go to page 7 of the link. There you see that CO2 and temperature have no link.

The sun can have a big influence on the earth's temperature and it has been more active lately as proved by page 3 of my link.

There have been many times in which the world has worried over a global cooling. In 1895 the New York Times was reporting an apocalyptic story, not on global warming, but on global cooling saying "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again".
Later, in the 1920's the earth warmed by half a degree and the New York Times started talking of an apocalyptic warming.
Then, in 1975, the New York Times reported that "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." The cover of Science News showed a worrying picture of the earth being enveloped by ice and many people panicked.
Now, its reporting warming again and this time its different? I don't think so.

It is not just the Times that has spread global warming, in 1975 Newsweek worried that the earth was cooling dramatically.

Everyone is taking minor temperature changes as apocalyptic predictions.

(http://www.geocraft.com...) Here it says water vapor is responsible most for the greenhouse effect and most other sources are natural.

In the medevil warm period, people were able to grow grapes in England and they can't grow grapes there today.

Not to mention we are just recovering from the Little Ice Age, which may explain why we feel a bit warm.

The arctic ocean, which if the ice is melting, should be falling, is rising according to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite

Even the hockey stick graph, which is used to prove global warming is scientifically invalid.

All in all, it water vapor that has the most effect on global warming and even if it didn't there are still many reasons for why it is false and not caused by man.
Debate Round No. 1
JasonMc

Con

Thanks for continuing. You seem to have a firm grasp of the skeptical side of the argument. Since there are several claims to refute, I'm going to reply to each refutable claim one by one. Any of my claims can be referenced to "An Inconvenient Truth" or www.climatecrisis.net. If you feel this is not a credible source, there are plenty of scientific journals on google scholar you can look up that support the same theories.

llamallama : "look at the bottom graph on page six, which is the average temperature from 1895-2007. Not only do I not see the temperature rising too far above normal, I see it falling sharply around today. This is in complete contradiction to your claim that the earth is warming and that it is different then it has been."

- Though the average global temperature may not have risen too far above normal, the concern is how average temperatures differ at different locations on the planet. While the temperature may have stayed the same, or even dropped in certain locations, the average temperatures in the coldest regions of the world have risen at an alarming rate. The proof of this can be seen, not only in recorded temperatures by climatologists, but in the way that glaciers and ice caps have decreased significantly in size. In fact, the largest ice sheet in the Arctic Circle has broken in half.

llamallama : "Now go to page 7 of the link. There you see that CO2 and temperature have no link."

- The oil industry spends billions of dollars annually on lobbying and advertising campaigns aimed at making global warming appear as a non-issue. It isn't hard for scientists who are funded by the oil industry to make a compelling case to the layman with evidence that contradicts the findings of the global academic community. There is ample evidence that shows the two are indeed directly related.

llamallama : "The sun can have a big influence on the earth's temperature and it has been more active lately as proved by page 3 of my link."

- The Earth's temperatures are directly related to energy provided by the sun. This is commonly known. Though solar activity fluctuates from time to time, this increase in activity as stated has been more active lately. The warming period in question takes place on a much larger time frame than the increases in solar activity are occurring.

llamallama : "There have been many times in which the world has worried over a global cooling. In 1895 the New York Times was reporting an apocalyptic story, not on global warming, but on global cooling saying "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again".
Later, in the 1920's the earth warmed by half a degree and the New York Times started talking of an apocalyptic warming.
Then, in 1975, the New York Times reported that "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." The cover of Science News showed a worrying picture of the earth being enveloped by ice and many people panicked.
Now, its reporting warming again and this time its different? I don't think so.

It is not just the Times that has spread global warming, in 1975 Newsweek worried that the earth was cooling dramatically."

- There's a major difference between what a hand full of people thought in the period between the late 1800s and 1975 and what the global academic community is claiming. In addition to a global consensus, the science of today is far more advanced than in earlier periods.

llamallama : "Everyone is taking minor temperature changes as apocalyptic predictions.

(http://www.geocraft.com......) Here it says water vapor is responsible most for the greenhouse effect and most other sources are natural.

In the medevil warm period, people were able to grow grapes in England and they can't grow grapes there today.

Not to mention we are just recovering from the Little Ice Age, which may explain why we feel a bit warm."

- Water vapor is a key component to the greenhouse effect, which is a key component of our global climate, and is therefore a good thing. When the greenhouse effect is intensified to the point that it traps more infrared radiation than it's supposed to is when it becomes a problem. The intensification of the greenhouse effect is caused by a consistent worldwide flow of CO2 emission into the atmosphere. It is true that the vast majority of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is from natural sources, but A) this is where the difference between chronic vs acute mentioned in my round 1 argument comes into play, and B) much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet. There's a great PBS documentary about global dimming called "The Dimming of the Sun" that can most likely be accessed online which I would recommend to anyone that would like to improve their understanding of the climate crisis.

llamallama : "The arctic ocean, which if the ice is melting, should be falling, is rising according to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite"

- This statement is false. If the ice is melting, then it would cause the sea level in the Arctic Ocean to rise, much like cubes of ice dropped into a glass of water will cause the water level to rise in the glass.

llamallama : "Even the hockey stick graph, which is used to prove global warming is scientifically invalid."

- Which hockey stick graph would you be referring to?
llamallama

Pro

Great response! I'm glad that there is such a strong arguer for global warming on this site.

You said: "much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet."
If you say CO2 cools the planet then how can we be warming the Earth?
How does that CO2 differ from our CO2?

With water vapor causing most of the greenhouse effect and the little bit of CO2 that influences it being mostly natural, how can the comparatively miniscule amounts of CO2 we emit make any difference?

As for the arctic sea level, for some reason I wrote falling in the place of rising and vice-versa. Sorry, I checked it over, but I guess I didn't notice it. This is what I meant to type down: According to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite the Arctic Ocean's sea level is falling, which if the ice were melting should be rising.

The Hockey Stick Graph is the graph that show the average world temperature spiking up at the end (today) so that it looks like a hockey stick and that graph is scientifically invalid.

The sun has at least some control over the temperature and Mars's icecaps have also decreased over the past 3 years.

The hype over global warming may be more prevalent now because media is more wide-spread and can hammer in the idea of global warming more.
Debate Round No. 2
JasonMc

Con

"You said: 'much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet.'
If you say CO2 cools the planet then how can we be warming the Earth?
How does that CO2 differ from our CO2?"

- The difference in CO2 that you're asking about is a matter of a solid vs a gas. CO2, or gaseous carbon, traps infrared solar radiation that would otherwise be reflected back into space when it is perpetually emitted into the atmosphere at the current rate. Solid particulate matter that is emitted into the atmosphere actually reflects solar radiation.

"With water vapor causing most of the greenhouse effect and the little bit of CO2 that influences it being mostly natural, how can the comparatively miniscule amounts of CO2 we emit make any difference?"

- As out of control carbon emissions trap infrared solar radiation and warm the earth, there's a significant increase in the amount of evaporated water in the atmosphere, which intensifies the greenhouse effect.

"According to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite the Arctic Ocean's sea level is falling, which if the ice were melting should be rising."

- I'm not sure about that one. I cannot attest to the validity of ERS-2 observations.

"The sun has at least some control over the temperature and Mars's icecaps have also decreased over the past 3 years."

- The climate crisis is due to occurrences that have taken place over a period of longer than three years. Even if Mars has retreating icecaps, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is due to solar activity.

"The hype over global warming may be more prevalent now because media is more wide-spread and can hammer in the idea of global warming more."

There is a degree of truth to this, but that's not to say that it's a good thing. People need to be aware of our impact on the environment. I do not believe, however, that the media should try to terrorize anyone about global warming. When people get scared it inhibits their ability to rationally deal with the problem at hand. There are a lot of ideas floating around that there needs to be international enforcement of environmental regulations. To me, an international government is a very scary thing.
llamallama

Pro

The arctic ocean defiantly is falling and that does not fit with global warming, especially if you say its warmer up there.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk...)
(http://www.physorg.com...)
(http://seattle.craigslist.org...)
The facts do not come together and there is a lot of hype, but little concrete evidence that global warming is something to be worried about.
Debate Round No. 3
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I trust the findings of the people and scientists on that list 19,000 from the oregon institute 1000 times more than any information disseminated by anyone connected with the United Nations. The United Nations does not have the best interests of our country in mind. It's only interest is to tear down this nation and marginalize it into obscurity along with it's culture and it is using the global warming issue as it's vehicle to do so. But that is just my opinion.
Posted by JasonMc 6 years ago
JasonMc
I would also like to add that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine offers a giant list of names, but is in no way affiliated with any institute of higher education. If there were some prominent figures who offered their names to this supposed opposition, I would give it a day in court.

I see nothing about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine or the claims implied which would lead me to believe that such claims are in any way credible. It doesn't give the employers of the supposed scientists, nor does it state the field they work in.

The claim made by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate" is absolutely absurd.

Such a claim is suggesting that the global academic community is either fooled, or part of some giant conspiracy to convince the people of the world of some great lie. This is a joke, which you clearly lack the education to see the humor in.
Posted by JasonMc 6 years ago
JasonMc
I already explained this once, but apparently you still don't understand, so I'll give it another try. In your first comment you stated: "You notice how the proponent for global warming calls all the scientists who dipute the claim of global warming "UNKNOWLEGABLE" That's so so so scientific."

The later part of your first comment: "That's so so so scientific" is clearly an attempt to ridicule me because I offer an opposing view point, thus you committed the first strike, Sir. Your comments, both on my debate and others I've seen your comments on, you use a condescending tone, which can also be construed as being insulting.

I followed the link to www.digitaljournal.com, which is an article citing oism.org as its source. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine claims on this cite that over 19,000 American scientists have signed the petition refuting the theory of global warming.

It also states that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

I am a full-time student at the I. U. School of Environmental Affairs working towards a degree in environmental management. I spend a significant portion of my week surrounded by some of the most prominent scientists studying the effects of climate change. If there's such an overwhelming presence of opposed scientists in the U.S., where's the representation of this supposed opposition in the academic community? I can tell you that I have encountered absolutely ZERO scientists that refute the notion that humans are causing unnatural warming that is adversely affecting our global climate.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Copy and paste this:

Digital Journal - 17200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming

Scroll to the bottom of the page, you will find a link that takes you to a "PEER REVIEWED" report that disputes Global Warming" ARE ALL 17200 SCIENTISTS WRONG!
And lets not call it "global warming" anymore, the scientists are studying climate change, that's both directions not just one like the words "global warming would infer.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
You isulted me first sir!
Posted by JasonMc 6 years ago
JasonMc
You are attempting to ridicule me when you state: "That's so so so scientific". You argue with a very condescending tone, which one could construe as being insulting. Would it help if I stated that, if you had a worthwhile argument, you wouldn't have to resort to posting condescending comments against those who hold a different view on the issue?

I never said that "any information that you proivde by a link on the internet so completely unrefutable and pure as the driven snow and anything that I provide or anyone else for that matter, just junk science and a pile of trash".

What I am saying is that you should offer rational debate to the specific claims made in the debates you're making condescending comments about instead of being extremely weak and vague by simply suggesting that readers Google an argument that someone else is making.

Additionally, where do you get the idea that I, or people like me, won't allow a televised prime time t.v. event to have the scientists both pro and con have a debate without politicians or the news media to be allowed to comment or interrupt? I would love for the most prominent scientific minds to debate skeptics about global warming, televised or not.

What you would find is that the vast majority of the scientists who have published peer reviewed journals refuting the findings of the global academic community on global warming are reputable scientists who's research was funded by corporations who serve to lose the most when our government takes necessary action against out of control carbon emissions. I would LOVE to see that televised.

As far as you stating that my arguments will be mute and marginalized if I ever misspell anything in any debate from now on, that's fine with me. You monitor my debates for grammatical errors, and I'll monitor yours, and we'll see who becomes mute and marginalized. With a win ratio of 0.00%, it would seem that you would stray from attempting to annoy people on this site (lol).
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Another thouhgt I had, is why is it any information that you proivde by a link on the internet so completely unrefutable and pure as the driven snow and anything that I provide or anyone else for that matter, just junk science and a pile of trash. I have read many many reports on global warming both pro and con, What bothers me is why you and people like you won't allow a televised prime time t.v. event to have the scientists both pro and con have a debate without politicians or the news media to be allowed to comment or interupt. If there has been one I missd it. Mabey you could link me to it so I can see it so I can educate my feable ingnoramous mind.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I didn't say anything mean about you, look at you, you just marginalized me out of the debate bcause of a grammar error. So so so scientific. If you ever misspell anything in any debate from now on your arguments will be mute and marginalized from now on.
Posted by JasonMc 6 years ago
JasonMc
sadolite:

I have seen you dish out a lot of criticism about proponents of the theory of global warming on this site, and you even go as far as to ridicule us, but you offer no rational debate to the specific claims made in the debates you're commenting on.

What I find to be worthy of ridicule is your lack of ability to offer any sound evidence refuting the theory of global warming, aside from telling people to "Just type and google "Disputes against global warming". If you had a worthwhile argument, you wouldn't have to resort to posting insulting comments against those who hold a different view on the issue.

Also, your grammar is pretty atrocious, and you don't appear to be very "KNOWLEDGEABLE" when you try to offer refutation against the findings of the global academic community. If you're going to attempt to argue those within the academic realm, at least try to look like you have a clue as to what it is you're talking about.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
You notice how the proponent for global warming calls all the scientists who dipute the claim of global warming "UNKNOWLEGABLE" That's so so so scientific.
Just type and google "Disputes against global warming" and you will find hundreds and hundreds of scientific articles by very "KNOWLEGABLE" scientists who say the opposite.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by llamallama 6 years ago
llamallama
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 6 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 oboeman 6 years ago
oboeman
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 Armageddon23 6 years ago
Armageddon23
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 nebosleeper 6 years ago
nebosleeper
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 jsonn5 6 years ago
jsonn5
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 padfo0t 6 years ago
padfo0t
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 watchman 6 years ago
watchman
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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 gogott 6 years ago
gogott
JasonMcllamallamaTied
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