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

Humans Cause Global Warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,909 times Debate No: 29008
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)




Rules: R1 acceptance and opening statements. No points or arguments.
R2 beginning arguments no refutation.
R3 refutations and arguments.
R4 same as R3
R5 rebuttals only points and refutations allowed that you have already made. I cannot stress that enough.

I believe the sun is an ever changing celestial body. I do not think that humans can have a big enough impact to change the climate. If the temperature is changing it is the sun.


I am devils advocating this debate.

I will argue human emissions are causing current climate change.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Pro for accepting this debate.

I believe global warming is not real and any temperature change is caused by the sun. I have three main points to back my argument.

1. People believe in global warming because political figures do
2. The earth is cooling
3. "Global Warming" hurts jobs

1. My sources say that the majority of scientists studying climate change will say that global warming is not true. About 17,000 scientists agree with the fact that it is not true. How can we possibly agree with something that is not proven by fact? The reason people believe that global warming is true is because major political figures believe it and say it is true. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and many others are examples of my point. The fact is people believe this because people they trust believe, not because of fact.

2. In the last ten years the earth has gone from warming to cooling. The global temperatures are expected to decline for the next two decades. This does not need very much arguing because it is backed by pure fact.

3. If we continue to believe global warming as a society, we will lose millions of jobs and be less energy efficient. If we cannot use oil, cannot use coal, and cannot use nuclear power, how do you expect any country to be energy efficient? You can't. Without these ways of producing energy, America will lose jobs and we will be forced to find new methods of energy which will cost billions.

I believe I have proved my points and I await pro's case.



I would like to thank my opponent’s response.


1. First, consensus is irrelevant to science. Galileo opposed consensus, Einstein opposed consensus. As Einstein noted, it only took one person, one paper, to disprove his theory. Further, getting a mere list actually does not represent the opinion of climate scientists. Other scientists are irrelevant (except geologists and meteorologists). The majority of debate only happens in political literature, not scientific literature. There is actually a consensus in favor of global warming. No major scientific organization opposes man-made global warming. 97% of climate scientists say global warming is man-made. Although this point is mainly irrelevant, the opposite of my opponents argument is true [1].

2. Long term trends cannot be decided in 15 years. Richard Muller, former skeptic, website notes, “Some people draw a line segment covering the period 1998 to 2010 and argue that we confirm no temperature change in that period. However, if you did that same exercise back in 1995, and drew a horizontal line through the data for 1980 to 1995, you might have falsely concluded that global warming had stopped back then. This exercise simply shows that the decadal fluctuations are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years.”[2] Many temperature datasets do not include the Arctic where it has been warming. Studies accounting for many factors, such as the 1998 El Nino, and others, conclude the earth is still warming at the same rate it was in the 1990s [3].

3. Stopping global warming and its effects on the economy are irrelevant to what causes the warmth. This is totally irrelevant in this debate.


1. Many studies indicate the overall human impact on global warming is far greater than the natural impact, interestingly many natural impacts are having a cooling effect on the warming. Teet et al. 2000 finds human activity caused over 100% of the warming from 1940 – 1997. How do you get 100%? Natural forcing’s causing a cooling effect, meaning we reversed those factors and caused warming. Meehl et al. 2004 finds humans caused 80% of the warming in the last century. Stone et al. 2007 found we caused almost 100% of the warming in the last 60 years. In a second paper, he noted humans caused 50% of the warming, the other half displaced by areosols, and the sun and volcanoes were responsible for 13 and 37% of the warming. Lean and Rind 2008 finds humans have caused 80% of the modern warming. Sott et al. used the same approach of Lean and Rind, but finds humans have caused 86% of the global warming. Huber and Knutti 2011 finds humans have caused 75-100% of the modern global warming. Foster and Rhmstorf 2011 finds that humans have caused 100% of the warming in the last 60 years. Gillet et al. 2012 finds we caused over 100% of the modern warming, as it had to overstep cooling effects and cause warming, making it over 100% [4].

2. The sun, what my opponent argues causes global warming, is not the cause of modern warming. Sun Spots, overall, have no trend proving they likely do not cause the modern warming phase. The current sun spot number is like it was in 1913, when it was very cold, unlike this year, again showing the sun- not a candidate for modern warming [5].

3. Scientific bodies have ruled out natural factors, man-made theory is the only possible thing left.


Humans are the cause of global warming.






Debate Round No. 2



1. You just countered your own argument. You said that the number of scientists does not matter yet you argue that because more scientists agree with global warming it is true. In fact more scientists actually agree with me, your source is not reliable. You also dodged the majority of my argument. My point was people believe what political figures tell them to. My argument was not pure fact like yours.....

2. Just because I said it is PREDICTED that the earth would continue cooling does not mean that was my entire argument. Yes I did say that, but people that believe in global warming say the earth will continue getting "warmer" It is called argument anticipation. My main argument was that the earth is getting colder by temperature change that we have observed and experienced. You dodged most of my argument because you cannot argue with fact.

3. If we continue to believe in global warming then we will lose jobs. I think that the effects of the belief would go with the debate so I would say you dodged this argument as well.

To counter your case I will say that I can get a bunch of sources to back my opinion too but that does not make a case, or a debate. You should get some actual arguments instead of plain sources because that is not what debating is. You use sources to back your arguments not the other way around.

As my main points were either halfway refuted or ignored completely, I will not be providing new points and I ask voters to give arguments to me for a poor case on pro.



1. My opponent claims I have "contradicted" myself. This is untrue. I argued consensus was irrelevant, however according to my opponents reasoning he loses the point because the majority of climate specialists and scientific organizations support my position. If I said consensus is always wrong, my point would be defeated. However disproving your point then arguing its irrelevancy isn't really a contradiction. It's merely extra information. Pointing out that 1) you are wrong and b) the point is irrelevant anyway weakens your point even further. My opponent then claims "more scientists" agree with him. Problem with numbers much? A list of names and a poll are two different things. Take the whitehouse petition. One petition, which has 32,000 signatures, argues Senator Feinstein should be impeached... because she supports an assault weapons ban [1]. However, 58% of the public supports such a ban [2]. A list of scientists and a massive scientific survey are different things. Surveys are more accurate as they include all groups of the population they are polling, lists merely show one opinion (not the other, one sided analysis) making it unreliable. And again, as stated, the vast majority of the signers are not specialists in climate, making the list irrelevant. My data stands on the issue showing a vast consensus from climate experts. Whether my argument, consensus is irrelevant, or my opponents, its the be all and end all, I win this point as I have shown consensus on my side (or) the irrelevancy of the point.

2. Strawman by my opponent. I did not refute his predictions, I merely pointed out the data the predictions are based on is bogus. The predictions are based on the claims of current cooling. I rebutted in two ways: First, I noted a small trend out of a longterm trend is irrelevant showing the same could have been done in earlier decades however the long term trend is up. Secondly, I noted he world isn't cooling at all, nor is it flat-lining. I showed the rate of warming is the same as in earlier decades (1990s, when the warming was exceptional). My opponents argument:

"In the last ten years the earth has gone from warming to cooling. The global temperatures are expected to decline for the next two decades. This does not need very much arguing because it is backed by pure fact."

I did not jump the gun on anything. I noted the first part of this, the earth is cooling currently, was false. That is based on the 1998 el Nino artificially changing the trend, and when this is accounted for the earth is still warming. If the first part is wrong, the following assumptions have no evidence behind them. Therefore, my opponent has decided to dodge my rebuttal instead to strawman the point: claim I only argued predictions. will reiterate my point: "Studies accounting for many factors, such as the 1998 El Nino, and others, conclude the earth is still warming at the same rate it was in the 1990s." I showed it is still currently warming, I did not focus on any prediction whatsoever. My opponent claims I am dodging the point, which is false, and mostly is a cop-out argument. Anyone who cared to read round two can see that this is false.

3. I didn't dodge anything, this is a pure red herring. I didn't think I would have to use semantics for an obvious point. Lets do this like a first grade teacher so we can all get this.

Class, what is the resolution?
Humans cause Global warming Mr. Adams.
Good. Does the economics of preventing global warming relate to the cause of global warming.

The economics of preventing global warming is irrelevant to what causes it. Let's use a probably poor analogy but its all I can think of: what causes the battery on my laptop to die? Usage of the device. To fix it, I must charge it. But wait, its bad to charge it because I have to walk!!! (I am not saying you are wrong by making a bad analogy on the costs of charging, by the way). But does the cost of charging it relate to what is causing it? No, not at all. What is causing the problem is an independent variable to the costs of fixing the problem. Many people support the global warming theory because the facts support it, but oppose mitigation due to its effects on the economy. The fix is irrelevant to the cause, and if you read the resolution the cause is what the debate is about. The point is irrelevant. I am not dodging anything, you are landing an argument where its easier for you to argue but is irrelevant to give the illusion you have one (one) of the points made in the debate. Its a red herring.


1. My opponent merely argues I have source spammed. Although I usually do, this isn't really source spam. I gave data points and observations from multiple studies showing humans are the cause of global warming. When you present data, is is courteous to cite the source. Source spam would be this.

"Global warming is natural"
No, its not. Link times 100

I cited the data and the observations in the study. If my opponent wants, I can provide the methodology next round or in a PM so he can ridicule the results. Presenting a study, its results, and, if needed, a short explanation is not source spam. The argument is simple:

1. We emit greenhouse gases (we agree upon this).
2. Natural factors likely don't cause the current warming (we disagree here).
3. Man-made factors explain the modern warming (we disagree here).
4. Therefore, warming is man-made (obviously we disagree on the conclusion).

For 2, I showed the sun had no correlation with temperature since the 1980's and said ". Sun Spots, overall, have no trend proving they likely do not cause the modern warming phase. The current sun spot number is like it was in 1913, when it was very cold, unlike this year, again showing the sun- not a candidate for modern warming"

Yeah, providing data and a lack correlation is such a weak argument...

For three, I provided data points based on multiple regression analysis which happens to be done by many academic studies showing man likely has caused the modern warming.

My opponent merely drops my case with no ounce of rebuttal, it's like he is not even trying. I could expand on my argument, with more data and observations. Actually I will, let's hope this isn't spamming.

My argument was he majority of data supports my position. I provided data. Instead of refuting it, my opponent ignores it with the cop-out argument of source spam. I showed co2 caused the current warm phase. Let's take another route.

CO2 causes the current warming, as shown by many points of evidence. CO2 causes warming, as many measurements have shown. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When more CO2 and methane are added to containers, the amount of outgoing radiation decreases, providing evidence of the CO2 warming effect. The amount of outgoing radiation is falling as temperatures increase, indicating a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. These data points have been shown by surface and satellite temperature datasets. CO2 has caused the earths energy imbalance causing the modern warm period of man made origin [3]. I am low on room, so that is all I can say. Data backing up my assertions can be found here. And last round, but thats somehow spam.
Am I really dodging arguments? Are my points of data weak enough to be dismissed because I have sources? Am I dropping points that are irrelevant anyway? Am I missing something on the earth is cooling point by demonstrating it is in fact not cooling, and even if it is that is irrelevant? I will let the voters decide. But really, my case has not beaten defeated and my opponents lack of showing should be noted by the voters.

References are here:
Debate Round No. 3


I am sorry but I refuse to debate this with you. I can see you are very angry and I will not turn a civilized debate into two people being rude to each other. We were both rude and pm me if you want to close the debate.


I really wasn't angry. And accusing each other of ignoring an argument, red herrings, and Strawmen often occur in debates. But okay. What is the voting situation? Tie? Up until this point in the debate?
Debate Round No. 4


If we agree, we can ask airmax to close the debate. I'm sorry I even started this debate.... It's just a battle of opposing facts. Some facts say no warming, some do not. There is no debate here.


I think there is a lot of debate. But whatever. Don't vote on this debate people.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
An Paleoclimate data shows such climate changes do occur. The large ice age, the little ice age, medieval warm period, etc.

Read this. It admits warming, shows paleo climatology, but still is Skeotical of the causes.

We're skeptics because our minds change when evidence changes. The Paleoclimate record and modern warming are pretty clear.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
Alright. Explain sea level rise, all temperature measurements showing warming (though it stopped in 1997), shrinking glaciers, and a melting arctic. The world is warming, no doubt about it, the question is the cause - I think its nature. I merely devils advocated in this debate.
Posted by larry1 3 years ago
Dude, land changes over time causing the Thames water to change causing it harder for it to freeze solidly. Also: no such thing as the ice-age! History channel lies!
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
Lol. Comment when you can build a shop on the Thames again. Wait, unlike in the little ice age you can't... It's warming.
Posted by larry1 3 years ago
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
It is a debatable subject.
Posted by Azul145 3 years ago
I do not know how you can be a devils advocate to this debate but if you can pull off a good argument then my great respects to you.
Posted by Sunbean 3 years ago
Ah, I'd love to go Con on this! I'll think about Pro, however...
Posted by Azul145 3 years ago
It's still open.
Posted by Cobo 3 years ago
Reinstate this please, My computer broke down. :(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Trinitrotoluene 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were more convincing and fleshed out. Many of Con's arguments were off-point, irrelevant, or unsubstantiated.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically gave up.