The Instigator
jh1234l
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
htennis
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Human induced global warming exists

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 6 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,786 times Debate No: 27687
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

jh1234l

Pro

Resolution: Human Induced Global Warming Exists

I will be arguing that the resolution is true and refute my opponent's claims, while my opponent will argue that it is false and also refute my claims. BOP is shared. No new arguments, only rebuttals in round 5.

Carbon Dioxide

a. Correlation to temperature

CO2 is increasing. In fact, the level of it in our atmosphere now is higher than any point in the past 800 thousand years. [1] Temperature records show that the temperature is increasing, [2] and that CO2 does have a strong correlation to the temperature,[3][2] without any apparent lag, as shown in the short term chart at [2].

b. Source of CO2

For the global warming to be caused by man, the CO2 has to be man made or have some kind of relationship to human activities. Generating electricity using fossil fuels is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for about 40% of the total CO2 emissions in 2009,[4] followed by transportation at 31% in 2010[4], and industry at 14% in 2010. [4] As you can see, humans do emit lots of CO2.

Other Greenhouse Gases

a)Methane

Methane has 25 times the effect on the atmosphere than CO2 over 100 years, [5] and it is increasing.[5] "In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution." [5] For this to be a part of human induced global warming, it has to have a human based source, and it does. Rice fields generate large amounts of methane during plant growth. [6] Municipal solid waste also produce Methane. [6]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://ossfoundation.us...
[3]http://www.grida.no...
[4]http://www.epa.gov...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
htennis

Con

I accept this debate.

I accept BOP.

Let me start off by saying: Correlation is not causation. Humans are not the cause of global warming, even though there is correlation. That's like saying "Since more people shop during winter, particularly during the month of December, cold weather increases shopping." There is a correlation, but that is not the causation. (1)

Refutation to Carbon Dioxide:
A) I agree that carbon dioxide is higher than it has been in the past 800 thousand years. There's the problem with PRO's argument. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Just 800 thousand years ago, the CO2 level was higher. There's a big problem with his "short term" graph at [2]- it only spans back to the 1800s! That's like mean showing a graph that as November turned to December, sales went up, so shops should hope for cold weather, when in fact cold weather usually deters shoppers.

B) He states that humans emit a lot of CO2. Conceded. However, people have been scared to death by the effects of CO2 emissions by environmentalist companies. Michael Harrington states that environmentalist groups have hidden the fact that temperatures have actually dropped, and that there is only one model that predicts the climate change- and it is against global warming (2).

Other:
A) Cross-apply Correlation is not Causation and that environmentalist companies exaggerate the findings on global warming.

Argument 1) Paul MacRae claims that there have been periods of time that have had no icecaps (higher temperatures than today) and human civilization did not exist (3). Furthermore, Harrington provides an explanation for global warming. The Sun's Cosmic Radiation, which varies in strength, forms cloud formations in the Earth, absorbing more heat and keeping it in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide ever could (2).

(1): http://www.guardian.co.uk...
(2): http://www.redstate.com...
(3): http://www.paulmacrae.com...

My opponent must disprove Harrington's theory then prove his to win.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his response.

Carbon Dioxide

A)There was not much of a refutation given, but there is a long term graph at http://www.grida.no... . In the long term graph, there sure are times in the past that are warmer than today, but that does not mean that human induced global warming does not exist.

Temperature

My opponent states that temperatures have been going down, and said that environmentalist companies are hiding them. Therefore I will have to prove that temperatures have been gong up and not down, and that the companies are not hiding this.

A)Temperature
The short term graph at [1] has shown an increase in temperature with a high correlation with CO2 and little correlation with sunspots. [1] In fact, even NASA has found that the temperatures are rising as seen in the chart at [2]. In fact, the Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74"0.18 "C between the years 1906 and 2005.[3]

B)Hiding The Truth
Environmentalist companies are not hiding that the world is cooling, as even NASA, which is a government based space organization [4], confirmed that global warming exists. [2]

Argument From My Opponent

1. Just because there were times that were warmer than today does not mean that humans do not play a role in global warming. Here is an analogy:

1. Person B got 100% on a test.
2. Person A got a test with 90% correct.
C: The test done by person A is nonexistent.

The above logic is flawed.

Sun's radiation

My opponent has stated that solar radiation is to blame for the climate change, however, most scientists agree that the current climate change is not due to solar radiation.[5]

"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species." [5]

[1]http://ossfoundation.us...
[2]http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.nasa.gov...
[5]http://www.livescience.com...
htennis

Con

His long-term graph does show that there have been instances in history warmer than today. He argues that that does not mean human induced global warming does not exist. However, if you look at his wonderful graph, you will see that the period of time between each "hike" in temperature is about the same. Furthermore, the increase in temperature has been steeper before.

We both have Burden of Proof. Therefore, my opponent, to win, must explain why temperatures have increased in the past- otherwise we have no reason to believe that global warming is human-induced.

I don't know where your link to NASA goes, but it is not NASA explaining that global warming exists, it leads to a page called What NASA does?

I don't understand his analogy. Can you please explain that. However, I would like to give two more clear analogies of why correlation is not causation.

1) The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is. Therefore, firemen cause fires. This is obviously not true.
2) The more ice cream sales there are, the more people drown. Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown. This is also not true.

A government site has said that solar flares probably led to the 17th century Maunder Minimum, when minimal solar flares cause there to be a cold spell over the Earth (1).

At worst case scenario, this debate is tied as my opponent needs to show the differences between today's hike in temperature and other ones in history. At best, I'm winning because I clearly advocate for an alternative- solar flares.

Thank you

(1) http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his response.

1) "His long-term graph does show that there have been instances in history warmer than today. He argues that that does not mean human induced global warming does not exist. However, if you look at his wonderful graph, you will see that the period of time between each "hike" in temperature is about the same. Furthermore, the increase in temperature has been steeper before."

This proves and disproves nothing. Con has yet to prove that this disproves human induced global warming, which he should do as there is a shared BOP.

2)"I don't know where your link to NASA goes, but it is not NASA explaining that global warming exists, it leads to a page called What NASA does?"

That was to prove that NASA was a space organization and not an environmentalist company. The link after that is a link to the chart at http://data.giss.nasa.gov... . The chart does prove that temperatures are increasing.

Solar Flares

In 2008, the solar cycle is at the deepest minimum in nearly a century. [2] However, if you look at the chart in [3], there was no significant drop anywhere after 2000. This proves that solar flares have no significant effect on climate. NOAA also agrees that solar flares do not do much warming to the Earth.

"Although solar flares, and associated coronal mass ejections, can bombard Earth"s outermost atmosphere with tremendous amounts of energy, most of that energy is reflected back into space by the Earth"s magnetic field. Because the energy does not reach our planet"s surface, it has no measurable influence on surface temperature. A small fraction of the extra heat from the solar flare radiates to layers of the atmosphere below the thermosphere, but it is miniscule compared to the normal amount of heating the lower layers of the atmosphere already experience from incoming visible and ultraviolet sunlight. Short-lived solar explosions don"t influence weather events like the March 2012 heat wave, but longer-term variations in solar output might affect Earth"s climate."[1]

My analogy explained

P1. There were times that were warmer than now.
P2. Temperatures have risen lately, with a high correlation to CO2. [4]
C. Because there were times that were warmer than now, the temperature rise is not due to CO2.

The above logic is flawed, which is the logic my opponent's quote at 1) is based on.

Correlation and Causation

CO2 does not just correlate to temperatures, it also does cause global warming.

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."[5]

Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect[6], which causes global warming.[7]
I also have proven that humans emit lot's of CO2 in round 1.

In conclusion, CO2 is emitted by humans, causes global warming and correlates with temperatures.

I await my opponent's response.

[1]http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov...
[2]http://science.nasa.gov...
[3]http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
[4]http://ossfoundation.us...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...
htennis

Con

I was not trying to disprove human induced global warming in that analysis of the graph. I was merely pointing out that in various points in history, things are the way they are now. PRO does not explain why temperatures have increased in the past; therefore, we cannot assume they are the way they are because of certain happenings.

He says NASA is a space agency and that their graph proves that temperatures are rising. I agree, but again, as I have said and will get to later, Correlation is not Causation.

Solar flares: He says solar flares have decreased now. Yes, for the past 3 years. If you look at my evidence from (1) last round, you'll see that it takes time for Earth's atmosphere to cool down after decreased solar flare levels. Perhaps we will soon see temperatures dropping.

He doesn't prove anything with his comparative analogy to mine. It's just the opposite. By providing his own analogy, he accepts that Correlation is not Causation. Furthermore, this and none of his arguments actually prove that global warming is human induced. I do have BOP, but if I disprove my opponent's arguments, thus proving that global warming is not human induced, then that is sufficient to fulfilling BOP.

In conclusion, my opponent tries to wiggle out of actually proving that all of this is connections. He spouts a bunch of sources, which may seem impressive, until one actually sees his arguments and links. Nothing links; he's just spouting a bunch of facts. Even if they do link, he contradicts himself by agreeing that Correlation is not Causation.

At worst case scenario, again, we tie, and at best case (meaning that my opponent doesn't fulfill his burden of proof, basically fulfilling my burden of proof), I win.

Please, as a voter, look at every individual arguments.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Pro

It looks like that my opponent has resorted to ignoring my whole debate.

"He did not prove that global warming was human induced."

That is true as long as you ignore my arguments about how Co2 is increasing, concede my arguments about that being caused by humans, don't read or argue my methane paragraph, skip over the rebuttal on solar flares (which is from Con's source, it seems that he doesn't even read it.) and omit my 447 character proof about how CO2 does not only correlate to temperatures, but it is also causation.

Please read my round 3 argument: (sources in round 3)

CO2 does not just correlate to temperatures, it also does cause global warming.

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."[5]
Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect[6], which causes global warming.[7]
I also have proven that humans emit lot's of CO2 in round 1.
In conclusion, CO2 is emitted by humans, causes global warming and correlates with temperatures.

Note the word "causes".

Solar Flares

I have proven that Solar Flares only have minuscule effects on the climate[1] with Con's own source, and he completely ignored that. Con did not address that argument adequately.

Links

"He spouts a bunch of sources, which may seem impressive, until one actually sees his arguments and links. Nothing links; he's just spouting a bunch of facts. Even if they do link, he contradicts himself by agreeing that Correlation is not Causation."

WRONG, these DO link, and the correlation and causation part was refuted last round and yet was not adequately addressed by Con. I used the OSS foundation graph to prove that CO2 correlates with temperature, I put two Wikipedia articles to prove that greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 and also causes global warming. (Most of the facts are at the top of the Wikipedia article, and they all do link.) Yet with this claim, Con has ignored all my sources and 447 characters of arguments. In fact, I have posted valid claims backed by respectable sources that do link to my arguments, but Con ignored all of it.

Conclusion

Con has conceded one of my arguments and either ignored or failed to adequately address the others. In a best case scenario, I win. In a worst case scenario, voters do not read any arguments from either side and vote for woever they want.

Please, as a debater, read all my previous arguments before refuting them with false beliefs caused by not reading them, Con.

[1]http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov...
htennis

Con

So, not saying this is the deciding factor, but PRO does not respond to my definition of my role in BOP. Therefore, all I have to do is prove his arguments false.

I'm arguing that my opponent has no definite proof to say that global warming is human induced. Here's what he says:
CO2 levels are rising, due in part to humans.
Temperatures are rising.
Humans are causing global warming.

There are a lot of holes in this argument. First, my opponent never responds to the THREE examples of Correlation is not Causation that I give. Therefore, one must prove every step of the way why A leads to B leads to C, etc.

Second, my opponent doesn't respond to my question asking him why temperatures have risen this sharply before with about the same time distance between each sharp rise. Therefore, he is in effect also ignoring my half of the debate, just like he has claimed that I have ignored his half of the debate.

Let me get this clear.

I do not argue with the legitimacy of his stats. My sole concern with his case is that he needs to prove it links. He has shown me no differences with his global warming argument than with the three Correlation is not Causation examples that I give. He needs to do that.

Therefore, vote CON emphasize proof and reasoning. If one does vote PRO, they must be completely disregarding the fact that with the same margin of time and same increase, temperatures have risen this much before (which PRO does not respond to) and are agreeing that firefighters, no matter how heroic they may seem to the public eye, actually cause more damage in terms of fires than they prevent.

Voters: If you are voting, do not be blindsided by any studies that you have heard on the news. Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
jh1234l

Pro

"Second, my opponent doesn't respond to my question asking him why temperatures have risen this sharply before with about the same time distance between each sharp rise. Therefore, he is in effect also ignoring my half of the debate, just like he has claimed that I have ignored his half of the debate."

Con has not explained why this is a flaw and therefore does not make a adequate refutation.

Correlation

I have used 447 characters to prove that CO2 and temperature is causation yet it got ignored by my opponent. Therefore I have refuted this claim.

My opponent also just misrepresents my entire debate.

"CO2 levels are rising, due in part to humans.
Temperatures are rising.
Humans are causing global warming."

The right one is.

CO2 is rising due to humans.
Temperatures are rising and on graphs it correlates with CO2.
CO2 and temperature is not only correlation, but also has been proved to be causation.
Therefore humans play a major role/are causing global warming.

"Voters: If you are voting, do not be blindsided by any studies that you have heard on the news. Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link."

If it links, there will be a CHECK.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Confirms that Co2 levels are higher than any point in the past 800 thousand years.
CHECK

http://ossfoundation.us... and http://www.grida.no...
Are charts that do show the correlation which is what I said in my argument.
CHECK

www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
The site does talk about the amounts of CO2 emitted per source, and that is what I proved it using.
CHECK

Let's see my opponent's sources:

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov...
It does confirm that the Maunder Minimum was caused by decreases in Solar Flares. CHECK
" It takes time for Earth's atmosphere to cool down after decreased solar flare levels." NO CHECK.
The closest thing I can find on it to it is:

"The latter half of the seventeenth century experienced a decades-long stretch of minimal solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum, which many scientists suspect may have triggered the Little Ice Age"a cold spell that chilled the Northern Hemisphere from about 1650 to 1850. "

Note the fact that it says decades, which is plural.

" Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link." I have proved three. If I did all I would run out of room.

Conclusions

My opponent has ignored over half my arguments and then criticized me for not responding to something that is not told by con to be a flaw in my contention. Later he says that voting for PRO is "agreeing that firefighters, no matter how heroic they may seem to the public eye, actually cause more damage in terms of fires than they prevent." Which is irrelevant as I already adequately addressed the Correlation-Causation claim. My argument from R3: (sources in round 3)

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."[5]
Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect[6], which causes global warming.[7]
I also have proven that humans emit lot's of CO2 in round 1.
In conclusion, CO2 is emitted by humans, causes global warming and correlates with temperatures."

This also proves that Con was not reading my arguments at all. Later he uses me dropping an argument as an excuse to not address my following arguments:
Methane
Co2=Causation
All other arguments because he said: "none of his arguments actually prove that global warming is human induced."

Now that you see the flaws of Con's arguments, like falsely accusing me for posting irreverent sources and actually all my arguments are baseless claims, which is obviously false as he told voters to "just look at his arguments" instead of telling where it does not link.
htennis

Con

He says CO2 is rising due to humans. That is not necessarily true, as I will get to later.
He says temperatures are rising and on graphs it correlates with CO2. This statement is true.
He says that there is correlation but also causation. He quotes his sources from Round 5 by saying, "Are charts that do show the correlation which is what I said in my argument." (Correlation). "The site does talk about the amounts of CO2 emitted per source, and that is what I proved it using."

Where in here does it say causation? HE NEVER SAYS CAUSATION UNDER ANY OF HIS SOURCES.

He says humans cause global warming. Again, no "causation" under his sources.

Exactly, it takes decades to cool down. Therefore, the solar flares decreasing in 2007 may cause a temperature drop in 2017. He essentially advocates for my argument.

He says he responds to Correlation is not Causation. Here is what he says in Round 3.
"My analogy explained

P1. There were times that were warmer than now.
P2. Temperatures have risen lately, with a high correlation to CO2. [4]
C. Because there were times that were warmer than now, the temperature rise is not due to CO2.

The above logic is flawed, which is the logic my opponent's quote at 1) is based on.

Correlation and Causation

CO2 does not just correlate to temperatures, it also does cause global warming.

"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."[5]

Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect[6], which causes global warming.[7]
I also have proven that humans emit lot's of CO2 in round 1.

In conclusion, CO2 is emitted by humans, causes global warming and correlates with temperatures.

I await my opponent's response."

I may be wrong, but is he not using correlation is not causation to disprove my theories. He has his own analysis representing my side, but the fact is that analysis is correlation is not causation. Again, he supports my side.

He says I ignore half his arguments. Is this not hypocritical? I asked him, in 2 separate rounds, to explain why temperatures have risen in the past. Guess what I got in return? Nothing.

He says I don't tell you where his arguments don't link. Well, maybe the fact that he doesn't have the word causation when describing his sources is explaining why his arguments don't link.

Vote for me Because:
1) He essentially agrees with me in that Correlation is not Causation is true. Therefore, we don't know if his arguments are true are not.
2) He advocates for me in talking about solar flares, and say that they take decades to have an effect.
3) He is hypocritical. He says that I don't respond to half his case when he does the same.
4) He doesn't explain why temperatures have risen in the past. This shows that global warming may be natural.

Thank you. I enjoyed this debate and hope you did too.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
the graph that shows CO2 levels and temperatures rising and falling was made famous by Al Gore. If the two graphs are overlaid, it is obvious that CO2 is responding to temperature, not the reverse. There is a lag of 800 years in CO2 responding to temperature changes. What's happening is that most of the CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. When the atmosphere warms due to solar activity or other causes, the CO2 comes out of solution. When the atmosphere cools, the atmospheric CO2 goes back into solution. This was explained about twenty minutes after Gore put up the bogus proof of CO2 causing warming.

The resolution of this debate is literally true. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it causes warming. that wasn't what was debated, however. What was mostly debated was whether green house gases dominate climate. In the past it clearly did not, once you understand that temperature was causing the CO2 levels. There has been no global warming since 1997 s CO2 levels have continued to rise, so while CO2 is likely causing warming, it is not dominating climate. Something else is.
Posted by Brabus 4 years ago
Brabus
why do we have more ice then we did 30 years ago if we have global warming? why? do we have 5% less of deaths because of environment then we have 100 years ago?
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
CON brings out the old chestnut that correlation is not causation. True, but that is why *mechanisms* are proposed to explain the correlation. There is no debate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. PRO explained this thoroughly.

CON showed no evidence that temperatures are going down. PRO used sources well to show that it is going up.

PROs source for human CO2 emission was flawed, as it only showed human sources of CO2. More useful would be human emissions as percentage of total CO2.

PRO's source to prove sun's radiation was not responsible was very comprehensive.

PRO far outweighs CON on both sources and positive argument. CONs arguments were all rebutted. Only his point that temperatures have gone up in the past stands, and he did not provide an argument as to why this refuted anthropogenic global warming.
Posted by htennis 4 years ago
htennis
Disclaimer (that should in no way affect voters' votes): I do not agree with any of the debate that I have posted.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
jh1234lhtennisTied
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: Neither side knows much about the subject and the resolution is poorly worded. Pro made bogus arguments, but Con did an inadequate job of refuting them, so the debate goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
jh1234lhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, but rather then focusing on responses to one or the other's challenges, I look at the main argument here. Correlation and Causation. That's what THIS debate truly boils down to. If you simplify pro's argument to: 1. CO2 levels are rising, cause somewhat by humans. 2. There is global warming 3. therefore, human induced global warming exists IF you boil it down to that, then the correlation/causation argument holds true and con wins, but between 1 and 2, if you add "increased CO2 levels cause global warming" Which is pros argument, you don't rely solely on correlation for causation. This negates Con's main argument. If the debate was more about the DEGREE of human induced global warming, con would likely tie if not win the argument, especially with the historical argument. Rematch debate on the DEGREE of human induced, vs. natural global warming. I will read and vote. (why such a long voting period??)
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
jh1234lhtennisTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seems to ignore all the evidence there is on this. He could have done so much better. Pro certainly provided a lot more sources that pro, thus I give those points to him. As for arguments, con always seems to make bare assertions. He brings out the "correlation is not causation" argument, and then fails to back it up in later rounds. He fails to show proof, or even how CO2 does not correlate with temperatures. On the short-term fluctuating temperatures, con also fails to provide adequate proof. And then, con commits an unthinkable fallacy; he wins the argument that temperatures have fluctuated before, but fails to show why this is relevant to the debate. Finally, con started strong on the sun, but failed to back up his arguments in later rounds. Pro wins because he counters most of con's arguments and con does not show why all of his "assumptions" are even relevant to the debate. Con could have won if he had provided just a little of the abundant data on his side. EDIT: Counter.
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
jh1234lhtennisTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't agree with global warming. Con gives okay arguments against it but I want my side to win >:D
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
jh1234lhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote to come later
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
jh1234lhtennisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments.