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

Is Anthropogenic Global Warming 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,090 times Debate No: 74949
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




HI! This is my first debate and I would like to make it a good one, so I am starting with global warming. I take the position that anthropogenic warming is not real and human activities has not caused temperature changes.

Anthropogenic: originating in human activity
Global: of or relating to the whole world; worldwide.
Global Warming:
a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Rebuttal or speech?
Round 3: Rebuttal or speech?

Thank you so much to however I debate, and because I am just starting, I humbly ask for corrections if I do something incorrectly. Thanks again! (if there is anything else you wish to define, go right ahead)


Hello! I have debated on this site before, but I would still consider myself new to it. I will take the position that anthropogenic global warming is real and is caused by human activities. I agree with the supplied definitions of the Con's terms.

I would like clarification as well: Does this debate assume global warming is happening despite whether or not it is being caused by humans? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

I look forward to our debate!
Debate Round No. 1


First off, THANK YOU! I am very excited to have this debate, and I hope it goes well.

This debate assumes that climate change has happened over the past centuries, and that over that period of time there has been a overall increase in global temperatures. So yes, I think.
Before we start I would like to present these following facts/opinion that I humbly ask my opponent and voters to count as truth in this debate. As of now, current levels of CO2 are around 400 parts per million, give or take a little. Another is that most scientists who believe in Antropogenic Warming think that global temperatures will increase by 2-4 degrees C by the end of the century. Finally, most of said Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by release of CO2 according to most scientists who believe in this form of warming. Make any changes or additions to this list as you see fit, also while some of these are opinions I ask that in this debate we consider them truths. If you disagree please make it be known in you speech, and provide counter "truths."
Lets Begin!
Arguments that Contradict and Disprove the Idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming
18 Year Equalibrium: In this argument we will examine the fact that there has been no warming for 18 years and 4 months. (actually 6, but site is one month old)
From December 1996-March 2015 there has been no global warming as shown in the average. This really is shocking in the grand scheme of things because this proves that despite the world blasting carbon into the air, there has been no change in average temperature. This completely contradicts what Pro-antropogenic Global Warming scientists believe, meaning that they have prodicted it all incorrectly.
30000 Scientists: In this argument we look at the MASSIVE number of scientists that oppose the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
A petition has been cycling has aquired 31,487 scientists who reject the idea of Antropogenic Global Warming, 9,029 of those individuals have a PHD. An argument of the oppisate side is that there is a concensus amongst scientists that Global Warming is caused, but these numbers clearly destroy this notion. When we have this many scientists, especially those with PHDs, who say that global warming is not caused by human activities and any "evidence" that says otherwise is false, you must assume that something simply is not correct with the opposing arguments.

Antarctic/Arctic Ice: In this argument we will examine the fact that Antarctic Ice has hit all time records and the fact that Arctic Ice rebounded by 50% from 2012-2013.

Antarctic Ice hit its all time record in 2014, surpassing the 20 million square millimeter mark. The antarctic ice has been increasing by about 18,900 square kilometers since recording first began. Increase in this ice has been occuring for several years, and in the past few years have been making new records while Arctic Ice on the other hand has been struggling. I frankly will be the first to admit it, however I will LOUDLY proclaim the fact that it has been making comebacks. From 2012 to 2013 Arctic ice rebounded by 50%. This means that despite this "global warming," ice continued to increase. So basically during this time period, both the arctic and antarctic ice increased, despit increased CO2 which should have caused an increase in temperature. Even though Arctic Ice had been shrinking, the fact that it increased speaks volumes to what is really happening.

Ice Age: In this argument we will examine an ice age that occured whis CO2 levels were signifigantly higher than they are today.

s://; alt="" width="640" height="404" />

(this graph shows the Atmoshperic Carbon Levels and Average Global Temperatures from around 600 million years ago till today)

As this graph clearly depicts that at around the 450 million year mark Earth went into a HUGE ice age. However during this time CO2 Levels were at a little more than 4000 ppm. 4000! This means that Earth was experiencing and ice age while the CO2 levels were more than 10 times what they are today. Now the fact is: if what some scientists are saying is true, and CO2 has the power to raise the temperature of the planet by 2-4 degrees by the end of century, then this simply should not have happend. The is conclusion is this: CO2 does not have an impact on global temperatures because there have been cases in past where huge opposites have occured that simply should not have happened according to opposing scientists.

Flawed Arguments of the Opposing Side

97% Consensus: This argument examines the often sited 97% consesus of scientists that believe global warming is real and is caused by human activities and is dangerous.

This study was run by one person and a couple friends who supposably read over 10,000 papers, and said that 97% endorsed the idea that global warming is human caused, and dangerous. However, a professor and 3 coauthors went back through and looked at these papers and saw that this was simply not the case. In fact, they found that only 0.3% of these papers supported the idea. Therefore we can conclude that the 97% consensus is false. The reason you believe the professor is because he is a professor. The other individual was a blogger, who to the extent of my knowledge did not have these types of credentials and could not have made better conclusions than the proffesor.

Weather: In this argument we examine how arguments about weather are completely unjustified.

Tornados are at an all time low. These past three years have seen signifigantly less tornadic events than any other year since monitoring in the 1950s. Major hurricanes have been at or bellow average for the past 50 years, whereas the before years before that had substantially more with only one year that was below average.

The above graph shows that droughts have been very stable over the past few years, despite the idea that the Earth should heating up. In fact there has been no signifigant changes with number of droughts or their severity, so any argumnet that droughts are increasing is just false. The opposing argument often points bad weather and says "Ha! Here! We told you this would happen!." But the fact is, bad weather happens, and we should not assume the globe is warming just because some bad weather happens here and there.

Climate Models: This argument looks at the climate models that the pro-Anthropogenic Climate Scientists.

A former NASA scientist has examined the climate models and found that of those he examined, 95% of thes overcasted actual warming for years, meaning that they have been wrong time and time agian about what the global temperature SHOULD have been. I will tie this into another point, and that is that almost all predictions made by pro-Anthropogenic Global Warming scientists have been WRONG! By now the ice caps should be MELTED! Polar bears should be drowning! However as shown above this was simply proven to be completely false.

Hockeystick Graph: This argument examines the often sited "Hockeystick Graph."

No specific site for this one, I just know about it. So the problem with the graph is that it is a cherrypicked portion of global temperatures on Earth, and if we looked at centuries prior we would see similar, if not higher Temperature Levels without added CO2 by humans. So basically it is more of a scare tactic than actual proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

THANK YOU so much for debating me, and I appologize if I did everything wrong, but this is part of the reason I am doing this so if you could just give me some tips and corrections I would be most appreciative. Also, the "truths" at the top probabaly should have been stated at the beginning, so I appologize for that.



debaterTater123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I have nothing to refute, so please send some votes my way. Also, if some people could please make some comments about what I did wrong, what I did right, etc. This was my first official debate and I would like to have some critiques. Thank you!


debaterTater123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
If you said you have the BoP I'd accept. :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited all the rounds of this debate except for the round that was for acceptance, i.e. Round 1. Full forfeiture is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting, however informal. Con graciously forwarded all their contentions to the following rounds despite the forfeiture, thus bouncing the debate back to Pro to ensure the rounds were equal. This is particularly gracious conduct. I penalize Pro for their misconduct by forfeiture and award Con for their good conduct in extending their arguments. Con presented the only arguments in the entire debate, showing why an 18-year-equilibrium seems to indicate a sudden stop in global warming, questioning the proposition if global warming exists or not. Con then attacked possible AGW contentions such as the hockey-stick graph. Pro's forfeiture hindered their ability to refute these arguments or present contentions of their own, thus presenting none. Thus, conduct and arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.