The Instigator
man_bar_pig
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
kykrebs
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Human activities are the main cause global warming.

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: 5/7/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,243 times Debate No: 3946
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

man_bar_pig

Con

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for joining this debate and wish them best of luck to them

now to clarify a few definitions: (merriam-webster)
human- of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
activities- the quality or state of being active (in this case, pollution and burning of fossil fuels)
main- primary
cause- a reason for an action or condition
global warming- an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution

1.) the earth is heating up because of the dawning ice age

a.) About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative 8 degress celcius to about one degree celcius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last era of warming about 115,000 years ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have been recorded.

b.) "Within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world." (Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans.) This is the side of global warming according to Avery and Singer, two scientists studying climate change. Their research was compiled from years of research on tree rings, ice cores, prehistoric villages, fossils, titanium profiles and numerous other sources.

2.) burning fossil fuels only accounts for a small percent of greenhouse gases

a.) The burning of fossil fuels by humans is most often the culprit of global warming but in Avery and Singers research they go on to say that the burning of fossil fuels has little effect on global warming and does not speed up the process. In fact, studies show that humans burning fossil fuels actually account for aprox. 18% of greenhouse gases. Other sources are main contributors. These sources are volcanoes, trees, and even cosmic rays from space can greatly increase greenhouse gases.

b.) New research involving ice core results allow us to distinguish which came first, temperature change or change in CO2 levels. Scientists from an organization called icecap concluded that temperature change actually preceded change in CO2 levels by over 800 years. So in fact, temperature change actually causes CO2 levels to rise and NOT HUMANS.
kykrebs

Pro

Okay, so I would like to agree with all of your definitions starting off, and we are going to keep the terms so we don't have definition clashes (like value clashes except more annoying…just kidding I love clashes of any kind that is why I debate)

I would like to quickly define predicted: foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason. (Merriam-webster)

For my quick resolutional analysis, I will state: going by your definitions, mainly that of your global warming definition, all I have to prove is that human activities are the main cause of pollution, which according to your definition of global warming is the predicted cause of, and to show that the prediction is based off of observation, experience or scientific reason.

1st point: Humans are the main cause of Pollution.
According to library.thinkquest.org, there are six different kinds of pollution: air, water, land, noise, radioactive, and thermal.
a)air- air pollution is mostly caused by motor vehicle exhaust and industrial processes. Through motor vehicle exhaust, the combustion of the fuel creates oxides of lead, nitrogen, and sulpher. These oxides are more commonly known as ‘smog' and when they dissolve into water vapors they create acid rain. Industrial processes create big black smoke, (seen near many cities nowadays) that is nothing more than a gigantic creator of CFC's (clarification: chlorofluorocarbon) that rearrange the structure of the O otherwise known as the ozone layer gas.
b) water-defined as being foreign matter that deteriorates the quality of water. The main causes are: petroleum based products, agriculture chemicals, and soil pollution. Quick run through, oil spills etc., pesticides that cover fruits and veggies that humans and animals eat, and finally our chemicals that seep through the ground and enter underground resevoirs.
c)land- decomposition of solid waste, and the accumulation of non-biodegradable materials. Also the destruction of our environment falls into this category, such as the fact that every year we are losing 6 million hectares of land, loss of 24 billion tons of topsoil (the soil that lets us grow food), loss of 15 million acres of prime farm land to mismanagement and overuse, etc... the list goes on.
d)noise-not a very popular pollution that people focuse on, but here we go: road traffic noise, air traffic, rail traffic, neighborhood noise, industrial noises, etc. while there are natural noises such as waves hitting the beach or even mating calls of monkeys, that are grossly overshadowed by the noise we cause.
e)radioactive- the main causes are the disposal of nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants. i think you get this point but just a quickfact, the half life of these radioactive substances have half lives of over 10,000 years. Right now the best america can do is bury these deep underground in some bunker in nevada.
f)thermal- the most important type of pollution that is related to this debate. the two types that direct us the most, but are not thought about as much are the deforestation of shorelines and soil erosion. the first one, the deforestation of shorelines contributes greatly to the fact that the trees once holding the shoreline together are now being harvested for paper and etc. without these trees, not only is more soil going into the water, but also increases the amount of surface area of the water. the second type helps explains this more, soil erosion. muddy water that is created by the deforestation of shorelines, makes this water filled with sediment and other materials that have increased the light absorbtion into the water. Because the water now has much more light absorbtion, increasing the temperature of the water. This water heats up, and now we have melting polar ice caps. yes, the melting polar ice caps. Just as an example we have the Ward Hunt Ice shelf that has been in solid condition for the past 3,000 years. It started cracking in 2000 and now is currently in pieces. (NASA) When these break off, they start melting in the much warmer salt water and then raise the water level. And because there are less ice shelves, there is not as much sunlight being reflected back into space, rather more sunlight being absorbed. The cycle just continues over and over.

2) Global Warming Theory exists off of observation, experience and scientific reason.
The people who are mostly pushing this theory is the IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) who is made up of over 350 scientific experts and government representatives, and their report was contributed and edited by over 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors (IPCC) all from over 130 countries. The specific summary for policy makers included 600 authors from over 40 different countries, more than 620 expert reviewers, and government reviewers and representatives from over 113 countries. (IPCC) I think this counts for observation and experience.
For scientific reason, here is their reasoning: We are certain of the following: there is a greenhouse effect...; emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.
We calculate with confidence that: ...CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect; long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilise their concentrations at today's levels...

For my arguments:
1)Yes I agree that over a period of several hundred years the temperature will slowly rise, but to have such dramatic rise in the past few years is not the earth in a cycle, but rather outside influences, more specifically human influences. If we look to my information, supported by the UN and more than 130 countries, as well as hundred of climate experts, they all found the same thing, humans are affecting global warming whether we want to admit it or not. More than that, they have found that we are the cause of over 50% of it all.
2)For burning fossil fuels is only 18%, yes I agree with that too. But, we are not looking to ONLY fossil fuels contributing to greenhouse gases. Methane is not a fossil fuel (look to livestock raised by farmers..;)..) yet it contributes greatly to the global warming problem. If you look back to my first point and proof of pollution and greenhouse gases (specifically water vapor) we see that we do cause the majority.
good luck KB
Debate Round No. 1
man_bar_pig

Con

i'd like to refute my opponents points and then return back to defending mine.

regarding my opponents first point, his point simply stated that humans pollute the earth. duh. of course human pollute the earth but this evidence is not conclusive enough to state that they are the main cause of the earth's rising temperature. we must look to a far greater source of carbon and other greenhouse gases: the earth itself. trees, volcanoes, and cosmic rays all cause the atmosphere to trap in heat. and there is far more carbon being produced by these natural occurances than humans as proven by avery's and singer's studies. to place this blame of such great magnitude on humans is proposterous. and also, no where in any research could i find a stat that humans cause "more than 50%" of global warming.

in my opponents second point, he simply stated that people believe in the greenhouse gas theory. although this is true, i have evidence to support the other side. recently a petition was circulating around the oregon institute of science and medicine of over 17,000 highly qualified scientists who believe that humans releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will not cause a catastrophe in the foreseeable future. in response another petition had been created recieving only 2,600 signatures stating that humans are causing this change. signatures for this survey consisted of only 10% scientists and of that 10%, only 1% were climatologists. and also a recent court case in britain ruled that "an inconvenient truth" could not be shown in school because it was ruled non-factual.

my opponent states that the UN agrees with him that humans are the cause of global warming but if you gander at his debate history, he is involved in a debate that states the UN is a bad organization. a little hypocritical, huh krebs? :)

moving to my side of the argument

my opponent showed no means of proving that global warming is not happened because of the earth's dawning ice age so this point still stands. i clearly prove that because we are coming up on an ice age, this is the culprit of rising temperatures and not humans

my second point covered fossil fuel emissions which is most commonly named for causing global warming and i disproved this and stated that rising temperature actually causes rising CO2 levels and not the other way around

thank you.
kykrebs

Pro

kykrebs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
man_bar_pig

Con

wow Krebs, way to show up BUDDY. If we were in a real debate round I would have to insist that I take this match because of my opponents lack of second speech. Because of this, I have nothing to rebutt.
kykrebs

Pro

kykrebs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Now you are simply twisting my words. I have nothing more to say on the subject, except that I'm very fond of nature myself, and have nothing against initiatives to reduce our effect on the environment. I simply reject claims that global warming will destroy the earth if we don't do something yesterday.
Posted by Toucan_Sam 8 years ago
Toucan_Sam
But I would rather not poison our planet any further. So many beautiful and essential beings are dieing each day. Eco systems are collapsing.

But yet you shy away and accuse the other side of an agenda.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
You misunderstand, I'm not taking a position one way or the other, I'm just saying that I've noticed a tendency within the global warming activist community to shy away from debate and simply accuse their opponents of having some kind of hidden agenda. Global warming lends itself very neatly to the socialist agenda, which is reason enough to be suspicious of it.
Posted by Toucan_Sam 8 years ago
Toucan_Sam
I prefer to believe scientist that aren't influenced by corporate interests that all.

This was a statement that was released by the committee that they submitted their research too. Its not that they didn't want to debate the issue, it was poor research and did not meet standards of a serious study.

Plus the scientists that were involved have been involved in many different scandals with Exxon and big tobacco. I fail to see how I should take them seriously.

I don't believe everything I read. I merely examine all points of view and draw conclusions from that. After studying Global climate change and participating in research I have yet to see and evidence that has convinced me that is isn't occurring.

Please I encourage you to challenge me to a debate if you wish to discuss the topic further. Maybe I could change your stance on the topic or at least present new information that you might have not encountered. After all it always pays to learn all you can.

Plus in regards to your other points with photosynthesis. We are also deforesting the earth and eliminating plant life that would convert CO2 to oxygen.

Our effects are far from marginal. The extinction rate within the last 200 years is faster than any others previous. Species are being killed daily, some haven't been discovered or seen before until we find their bodies. Extinction is happening at a faster rate than at the time of the mass extinction of dinosaurs. To say humans effects on the environment is marginal is laughable.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
That's a typical technique employed by those who don't want to debate the issues: accuse your opponents of being corporate lackeys and "unscientific." I'm not saying that you're doing that, Toucan, but I wouldn't believe everything I read, especially when it concerns an extremely polemic subject such as global warming.
Posted by Toucan_Sam 8 years ago
Toucan_Sam
Did you know that petition in oregon is considered to be a little shady. Considering many of the signatures are by people that aren't even scientists. Plus the National Academy of Science who the research paper was submitted to said it was "an attempt to undermine the kyoto treaty". Plus some of the scientist were former employees of big tobbaco and Exxon.

Sounds a little fishy to me.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
I watched a youtube video by a global warming activist trying to refute "The Great Global Warming Swindle." In his refutation he stated that "Only half of human CO2 emissions are currently being compensated for by photosynthesis. The implications of this fact should be obvious. If humans were not producing any CO2 then levels steadily decline until there was none. Since CO2 emissions and uptake were presumably equal prior to the advent of human emissions, this means that the environment is already compensating for increasing carbon dioxide levels. I predict that photosynthesis will eventually compensate for all emissions, completely negating the already marginal human contribution. In any case, the dangers of global warming are grossly exaggerated.
Posted by kykrebs 8 years ago
kykrebs
sorry k-bargmann, working on my...uh, our policy case...i don't like evidence, or harms. or disecting frogs, but it is fun in a sick way...
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
Global warming would happen without us and our technology, the earth can fix itself, humans are just kind of speeding it up.
Posted by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
This shall be an interesting debate
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
man_bar_pigkykrebsTied
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 fitzt21 8 years ago
fitzt21
man_bar_pigkykrebsTied
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 kykrebs 8 years ago
kykrebs
man_bar_pigkykrebsTied
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 jhalo13 8 years ago
jhalo13
man_bar_pigkykrebsTied
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 huntertracker6 8 years ago
huntertracker6
man_bar_pigkykrebsTied
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 littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
man_bar_pigkykrebsTied
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 man_bar_pig 8 years ago
man_bar_pig
man_bar_pigkykrebsTied
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