The Instigator
SirMaximus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
retrovision
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Global warming is real

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 80831
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

SirMaximus

Pro

This is a debate about whether or not global warming is real. The premise is that global warming is real, and I am taking the Pro position - that is, I am arguing that global warming is real.

I, as Pro, will have the burden of proof in this debate. Since my opponent will be taking the Con position, it is not up to my opponent to prove that global warming is not real. Rather, it is up to me to prove that it is real. I will have the responsibility of making the arguments. My opponent will not have any responsibility or obligation to make arguments. However, if my opponent chooses to make arguments, that's OK. The only obligation that my opponent has is to debunk my arguments. I can debunk my opponent's arguments if they choose to make any, but my primary goal will to be to make my own arguments. The burden of proof is on me. Also, this is not a debate about whether anthropogenic global warming is real. It's a debate about whether global warming is real. If I prove that global warming is real and that it is primarily or totally anthropogenic, then I will have succeeded. If I prove that it is real but also prove that it is not anthropogenic, then I will have also succeeded. If I prove that it is real but I don't prove what causes it, then I will have also succeeded. Keep this in mind if you accept the debate.

Now, let's define global warming. The definition that my opponent and I will use in this debate is "the overall increase of the average temperature of the planet Earth", not "the Earth getting warmer all the time, everywhere".

I welcome anyone to accept this debate.
retrovision

Con

The world is getting warmer, but it isn't getting exponentially warmer like most of the climate models predict. Tuvalu is not sinking. There are more polar bears than there ever were. The Canadian moose die out is caused by wolves. The Australian Barrier Reef is fine. Pacific Islands like Tuvalu aren't sinking. There is no giant doomsday hot spot forming over North America. There is absolutely no way to know what effect, if any, global temperature increase has on any particular weather event or weather trend.

Global warming is real, a lot slower than the models predicted, and the consequences of the world being a little warmer fall clearly into examining navel lint for guided insight by 75 billion dollars worth of scientists trying to justify their research grants. I'm really getting sick of every nature show having some speculative goop of how anything bad that happens in the environment is "global warming"

I know I will smoke a blunt in Fresno for all eternity because of my blasphemy.
Debate Round No. 1
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent says that global warming is real, but "a lot slower than the models predicted". If my opponent is acknowledging that global warming is real, which they seem to be doing, then it would appear that they are arguing for my side. Even if global warming is much slower than the models predicted and doesn't have consequences that are as bad as some people say, then that does nothing to advance my opponent's argument. Remember, this debate is solely about whether global warming is real - not about whether it will have terrible consequences or about how slow or fast it is.

And now, to make my own argument. Global warming is a fact. The global mean land-ocean temperature is much higher than it was in 1880, and overall, the trend has been that it has been increasing since then. It does decrease at times, which is inevitable. Temperatures rise and fall. But overall, the trend is that the global mean land-ocean temperature is increasing. The same can be said for the global temperature. Both of these can be verified by going to data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/.

I welcome my opponent to respond to my arguments.
retrovision

Con

Some of the new science on this tells us that instead of a 4.8 degree temperature increase by 2100 as a worst case scenario, the worst case is 1.8 degrees by 2100, which means it's within our ability to deal with it without doing anything much. We don't need to close perfectly good coal plants, lay off thousands of people, starve Africa of electric power or pay drastically higher energy bills.

The "real" part of global warming is that it's not that big of a deal.
Debate Round No. 2
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent says, "Some of the new science on this tells us that instead of a 4.8 degree temperature increase by 2100 as a worst case scenario, the worst case is 1.8 degrees by 2100, which means it's within our ability to deal with it without doing anything much." Please note that I am not arguing about whether global warming will rapidly increase in the future. I am only arguing about whether it exists today. Now, let's go back to data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/, which I referenced earlier. If you look at the graph that says "Global Temperature (meteorological stations)", you can clearly see that the graph has a positive trend. It may not be increasing very rapidly, but remember that I am not arguing that global warming is increasing rapidly. I am merely arguing that it exists. My opponent also says, "We don't need to close perfectly good coal plants, lay off thousands of people, starve Africa of electric power or pay drastically higher energy bills." I am not arguing for any of those things. This is not a debate about possible solutions for global warming, but rather a debate about whether global warming exists. My opponent finally says, "The 'real' part of global warming is that it's not that big of a deal." Again, I'm not arguing that it's a major catastrophe or a big deal. I'm just arguing that it's real, which my opponent has even acknowledged.

I welcome my opponent to respond to my arguments.
retrovision

Con

You're just being slippery. Everybody thinks the world is warming up. That's real. Unreal is the religiosity of the cult leftists have built around it. Unwarranted is the actions governments are taking as the result of believing in the boogie man. What is not real? The idea that weather is being affected in some predictable way is not real. The idea that this is "the greatest challenge mankind every faced" and other exaggerations is not real. The idea that we should prioritize this over all other considerations is unwarranted.
Debate Round No. 3
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent has even admitted that "the world is warming up", and has called me "slippery". Remember that this is not a debate about whether the actions that governments are taking to protect the environment are warranted, whether weather is "being affected in some predictable way", or whether global warming is "the greatest challenge mankind every [sic] faced", to quote my opponent directly. That's not what this debate is about at all. This debate is about whether global warming exists, which my opponent has even acknowledged.

I welcome my opponent to respond to my arguments.
retrovision

Con

You are being slippery again. I would define "real" as what the people think that say "global warming" is "real" think. They think it's doomsday. They think Polar Bears are dying. They aren't. They think this is the "greatest threat mankind ever faced" Not even close. "Real" is when something is factually as you present it. The rhetoric around global warming doesn't meet the facts. You know it isn't real because nobody makes the case for it without exaggerating and/or telling bald faced lies (i.e. polar bears are dying, the Great Barrier reef is dying) .

The world is warming slighty. That's a fact. Anything else you'd like to attribute to global warming is speculation. That makes your perceptions about it unreal and it's why you'd like to frame the debate the way you have.
Debate Round No. 4
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent says, "You are being slippery again. I would define 'real' as what the people think that say 'global warming' is 'real' think. They think it's doomsday." But remember, this is not a debate about whether global warming is "doomsday". In the very first round of this debate, I clearly said, "The definition that my opponent and I will use in this debate is 'the overall increase of the average temperature of the planet Earth', not 'the Earth getting warmer all the time, everywhere'." That's all that this debate is supposed to be about. I have already proven global warming by that definition, and my opponent has even acknowledged that global warming is real in some form. Whether global warming is "doomsday" is completely irrelevant to this debate. My opponent also says, "The world is warming slighty [sic]. That's a fact. Anything else you'd like to attribute to global warming is speculation. That makes your perceptions about it unreal and it's why you'd like to frame the debate the way you have." But I'm not attributing anything else to global warming in this debate, so I'm not making any speculations in this debate. I'm merely giving arguments to support the fact that global warming exists. I'm not arguing for anything else in this debate. The premise of this debate is that global warming is real, and I have already included a definition for global warming. I have proven the premise, if we use the definition of global warming that I gave in the first round.

I wish my opponent luck in this final round. Remember to vote honestly and fairly, no matter who you vote for.
retrovision

Con

Here's a definition of something real:

---
fire"crack"er
G2;fī(ə)rG6;krakər/
noun
a loud, explosive firework, typically wrapped in paper and lit with a fuse.
---

If I start describing a firecracker by making wild claims about how it's doomsday, how it's gonna go off by itself, how it's gonna kill the polar bears and affect weather etc.... then your definition becomes unreal.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by retrovision 1 year ago
retrovision
It occurs to me that no conservative person I know doesn't think global warming is real. They just think liberals are full of .... That would be an interesting debate. Who is more full of ....? A fundamentalist Christian or a global warming zealot?
Posted by retrovision 1 year ago
retrovision
Oh... by the way... No.... I didn't notice storms getting bigger and the weather changing and I'm 53. Seems like normal old weather to me.
Posted by retrovision 1 year ago
retrovision
There is absolute no correlation between global warming and any weather event or series of events. Global warming may have something to do with severe weather or it might not. Secondly, our weather isn't that abnormal. Katrina wasn't even unusual. It just happened to hit New Orleans dead center. Usually these things hit somewhere with less people and it's no biggie.

If global warming is affecting our weather, nobody knows exactly how.
Posted by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
Thank you, Lisen2Reason! :)
Posted by Lisen2Reason 1 year ago
Lisen2Reason
Global warming is not only real but it is a reality have you not noticed that storms have gotten bigger and more powerful in the past decade but even this year the northern United States experienced one of the worst winters ever and just recently the Carolina's were put under water the polar ice caps are melting causing the sea levels to rise feeding larger hurricanes and causing freakish weather due to human industry releasing gases into the atmosphere it blocks the sun and heats the planet which causes drought and wild fires just last year California and Colorado experienced massive wild fires and in places like norther Alaska have reached 90 degrees this summer and this isn't even the tip of the spear of what has happened and what is to come.
Posted by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
Well, I found out that I don't have to cancel it and make a debate, so I just edited it. Again, thank you both.
Posted by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
Both of you are right. I'm going to cancel this and reinstate it where I have more BOP and am on the Pro side. Thank you both for pointing that out to me.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
DATXDUDE
I agree. You should have accepted full BoP.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
You're asking the person proving a negative to have more BOP, sounds messed up.
No votes have been placed for this debate.