The Instigator
alexrose
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Is Global Warming really an issue?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,374 times Debate No: 22857
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

alexrose

Con

First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Stating the case
Third Round: Rebuttle
Fourth Round: Rebuttle
Fourth Round Concluding arguements
royalpaladin

Pro

I accept. I assume that I will be discussing the negative impacts of Global Warming in this debate. I hereby propose that drops shall be treated as concessions and that no new contentions may be presented in the final round.
Debate Round No. 1
alexrose

Con

First, I would like to start off by saying that I do believe that there is a global climate change. Here are the reasons I do not believe global warming is an issue. My first reason I believe that global warming is not an issue is that, all throughout history, there have been significant climate changes. http://www.digitaljournal.com.... This chart is an example of the different climate changes throughout history. With all those climate changes, people were able to work though it and still survive.

Secondly, many people who are already worried about global warming are misinterpreting the information from the scientists. The people who do this are looking for evidence of global warming instead of looking at the evidence objectively and trying to figure out what it truly means. What I mean by this is people are just looking for reasons to say that global warming is true. But what people should be doing is looking at the big picture and seeing if this has happened in the past and figuring out ways to work through the climate change just like others did during the medieval warm period.

Thirdly, weather always fluctuates. Plants and animals are able to adjust to the climate changes that occurred in the past, so they should be able to do it after this change in weather. Charles Darwin came up with a theory called Survival of the Fittest. This theory states that "species adapt and change by natural selection with the best suited mutations becoming dominant." Darwin realized that over time, climates do change and so does the world. So, as the world changes, life adapts to the new environment.

Sources:
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.phrases.org.uk...
royalpaladin

Pro

As per my opponent's outline, I will only be presenting case arguments in this round. Rebuttals were specifically reserved for the next round by my opponent in Round 1.

Case
My case will be twofold. First, I will demonstrate that Global Warming does, in fact, exist even though it should not be happening. Second, I will demonstrate that Global Warming will adversely affect the human species.

Observation
Even if global warming is a natural phenomenon, it still exists, so you can extend the portion of my analysis in which she concedes that there is a current global trend for increased surface temperatures. My burden in this debate, therefore, is to demonstrate that this increase in surface temperatures is, in fact, an issue, so as long as I prove that the increased temperatures that my opponent concedes occur are disastrous, you vote Pro. However, I will also be presenting evidence that global warming is a result of human activities. This is not necessary for me to win the round because she concedes that there are worldwide increases in surface temperature, but I shall do so anyways.

Global Warming Exists
Global temperatures are, for the most part, depend on the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere [1]. Greenhouse gases are gases that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range and that are responsible fore the greenhouse effect [2]. The Greenhouse Effect is a a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. [3] Through the Greenhouse Effect, heat from the sun is trapped by the greenhouse gases and projected down to the Earth. This results in increased surface temperatures [3]. Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and increased levels of greenhouse gases result in increases in surface temperatures of the Earth's surface, increased carbon dioxide levels cause increases in global surface temperatures.

My opponent is correct when she argues that there are natural cycles for global climate change. The fundamental problem with er analysis is that the current trend is not following the natural cycle. Analysis of the current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere indicates that the levels are higher than those that were seen for at least the last 400,000 years of Earth's history. Moreover, whereas the carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere generally increases gradually, the levels in our atmosphere have been increasing at exponentially frightening rates.

As the above graph adequately demonstrates, the current carbon level vastly exceed the levels that would result from the cycle. In fact, based on the chart, the cycle levels peaked at the year 1850, meaning that if this were a result of the cycle, we currently should be experiencing a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and thus lower global temperatures. In fact, not only is this not following the trend, but it is defying it entirely. This is a direct result of human activities and the Industrial Revolution. Using the carbon dioxide trapped in ice-caps, scientists can determine the atmosheric concentrations of specific gases at the time at which the ice was formed. Pre-industrial revolution carbon dioxide levels were about 285 ppm [1]. The current concentration is 385 ppm [1]. This is unnatural, as evidenced by the fact that in the last 650,000 years (the ice cap does not go beyond this age), the carbon dioxide concentration during warm periods has varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm [1]. It has never exceeded 300 ppm until now, a time at which we should be experiencing a global reduction in carbon dioxide levels. Ergo, the increase in carbon dioxide levels is unnatural and was caused by humans.

Global Warming is Disastrous
In reality, whether or not global warming is man-made or natural is immaterial to this round because my opponent has already conceded that we are currently in an age of surface temperature increases. This means that we should be focusing on the impacts of global warming. As long as I demonstrate that the impacts of global warming are disastrous, I win the round regardless of whether or not it is natural because it then becomes an issue.

Projected effects:
First, increases in temperature are likely to cause more disruptions in biological systems [4]. This threatens the extinction of many endangered species [4]. In fact, it is projected that after the year 2050, climate change will be the primary driving force behind the loss of global biodiversity. [4]. In fact, studies indicate that approximately 30% of all plant and animal species would face extinction if the global temperature rises to about 4 degrees above the pre-industrial levels [4].

Second, natural disasters are projected to increase as a result of global temperature increases. Scientists have noted that extreme weather is linked to heat waves, which would increase as a result of global warming. Thus, scientists contend, there is likely to be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclone activities, and tsunamis. [4]. All of these are horrendous natural disasters that have massive costs in terms of human life.

Third, changes to the ocean would cause massive damages to both humanity and to other life forms. The ocean currently serves as a "sink for carbon dioxide, meaning that it takes up CO2 that otherwise would have remained in the atmosphere [4]. Increased CO2 levels would cause an increase in ocean intake of CO2 and would thus result in acidification of the oceans. [4]. This would adversely affect many species because a delicate pH must be maintained in order for most species to survive. Moreover, not only does global warming result in ocean acidication, but it also would cause sea-levels to rise for two reasons. First, thermal expansion would lead to the expansion of water and thus a rise in ocean levels. Second, global warming results in rises in ocean levels due to the melting of ice caps [4]. Rises in ocean levels would cause coastal flooding. By the year 2030, several major cities across the globe will be underwater as a result of ocean level changes. [5] This would cause millions of human deaths as well as cost hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

Thus, global warming is man-made and is an issue because it is disastrous.

Sources
1. http://www.skeptic.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 2
alexrose

Con

First I would like to point out that I never said global warming was not happening. I simply stated that I do not believe that it is an issue, or at least not a main issue. I do however believe that there are climate changes happening all around the world. So I will not try to argue with the first half of your argument.

Natural Cycles:

To a certain extent, the chart shown above does, in fact, follow a natural cycle. In any case, even though there is a significant spike today, the cycle is still natural. The greenhouse effect is what causes the cycle. The spike is just noting our involvement in the greenhouse effect (through our increase use of carbon). The spike is not signifying that global warming is occurring, it is just noting that there is an increase in the cycle.

Also, in the chart above, 400,000 years is not enough proof to show that this is not natural because the pattern itself has been occurring for far longer. The earth has been around for about 4.6 billion years. Temperature Increase:
The increase in temperature is nature's way of eliminating the species that would not be able to survive in the long run. Similar drastic temperature changes happened before both of Earth's previous Ice Ages. There have been five Ice Ages in the Earth's past. These Ice Ages occurred because of high carbon emission. During the first few Ice Ages, men were not even alive. So, to say that carbon levels rising are not natural is a false statement. This pattern is inevitable and therefore not an issue, since there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

Global Warming Doesn't Cause Natural Disasters:

There is no evidence that global warming causes natural disasters. You used a source that spoke about the UN IPCC AR4. Well, in one of my sources it states that, "The UN IPCC AR4 claim was based upon an unpublished report by Robert Muir-Wood, which was published later in 2008 with the new caveat that: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses."" (Anderson) Global losses from natural disasters have been going up about 8% per year. But since there are more people and more building in risky areas occurring, there is no proof about global warming causing natural disasters.

Human Involvement:

The Greenhouse Effect is a natural process, one that, though we do play a slight role in it, we are not entirely the cause of. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a small role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

"Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age" (A Chilling Perspective). The Earth's climate has been constantly fluctuating. As of now, we are currently at a reprieve from the deep freeze.

Thus, Global Warming is not man-made and is not an issue.

Sources:

http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com...
http://www.geocraft.com...
royalpaladin

Pro

Response to Opponent's Case
The first thing that she tells you is that she believes in global climate change. She notes that throughout history, there have been significant climate changes.

This is extremely important. The moment that she concedes that global climate changes exist in a cycle, she concedes that global warming exists. Even if it is just part of a cycle, she still agrees that global warming is something that can and does affect the Earth. This has an important impact in this round. Even if I lose the argument aboutwhether or not humans are responsible for global warming, she has still conceded that global warming exists so we must consider all of its impacts in order to determine whether or not it is an issue.

The second thing that she tells you is that scientists who believe in global warming are not “looking at the big picture”. This is absolutely and undeniably false. I posted analysis about how, based on trends in climate change from the past 400,000 years, not only have our carbon levels been expontentially increasing at a rate that is higher than the rate that should result from the cycle, but that current trends are also defying the cycle, because carbon levels in the atmosphere should currently be decreasing. In fact, when she tells you to look at the “overall picture”, she is not even analyzing trends from the past 400,000 years; her analysis only extends back 4,000 years, which is not even enough time to complete a single cycle. This argument should thus not be considered.

She next argues that disasters are fine because by natural selection, species will adapt to changes in climate. This may be true, but it denies humans who are currently living their right to life. Using natural selection as a justification for permitting policies means that we should also permit murder, theft, etc. because the most fit individuals will survive. Obviously, however, we do not because we believe that all humans have inalienable rights, so we should not be wilfully demolishing the environment and killing countless humans just to promote survival of the fittest.

Defense of Case
She first notes that she never said that global warming exists. That is absolutely false. The moment she conceded that cycles of global climate change exist, she concedes that global warming occurs naturally. Cycles have upwards and downwards trends; if temperature decreases, it also has to increase.

“Also, in the chart above, 400,000 years is not enough proof to show that this is not natural because the pattern itself has been occurring for far longer. The earth has been around for about 4.6 billion years.”

This argument is completely false and hypocritical. It is false because the cycles occur every 100,000 years, so we can easily examine how the climate changes by examining the past 400,000 years. Moreover, it is incredibly hypocritical because her analysis only extends for 4000 years. If my analysis, which examines a period of time 100 times longer than her analysis, should not be considered, we should not even spend half of a neuron considering thinking about looking at her analysis. At this point in time, my analysis is better than her analysis because the data that I am examining belongs to a greater set than the data she is examining. My data is therefore more objective and more likely to reveal the truth than her data is.

“There have been five Ice Ages in the Earth's past. These Ice Ages occurred because of high carbon emission.”
This is not even close to true (note that my opponent never provided a source). Ice Ages are caused by reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide and not because of high carbon dioxide emissions. “Maureen Raymo,William Ruddiman and others propose that theTibetan andColorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million yearCenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.” [1] “There is evidence thatgreenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets . . . TheSnowball Earth hypothesis maintains that the severe freezing in the lateProterozoic was ended by an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and some supporters of Snowball Earth argue that it was caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2.” [1] This fits the trends that I have argued in my previous analysis, namely that increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, and decreases in CO2 cause temperature decreases.

“So, to say that carbon levels rising are not natural is a false statement.”
This is a strawman logical fallacy. I never said that increases in carbon levels are not natural; I said that the manner in which they are currently increasing is not natural because they are exponentially increasing to levels higher than those that results from the cycle and they are increasing at rates that should not be occurring if we are examining the cycle. The cycle predicts a decrease in CO2 emissions at this point in history. My opponent has offered no alternative explanation as to why we are currently defying the cycle and why CO2 levels are increasing to such high levels. The cycle predicts carbon dioxide levels at about 285 ppm for the peak year 1850. The current concentration is 385 ppm.

Impacts of Global Warming
She drops all of the analysis about the following impacts: the disruption of biological systems and the massive damage to humanity as a result of increases in ocean levels. The evidence I provided for the disruption of biological systems noted that global warming will be responsible for the destruction of 30% of the current flora and fauna. The evidence I provided for the massive damages to humanity demonstrated that several cities would be left underwater, causing millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic damages. These were cold dropped, so extend them cleanly across the flow. Unless she wants to argue that destruction of 30% of the species on Earth and the deaths of millions of humans and trillions of dollars worth of damage in economic costs are all good, this is a sufficient reason to vote for me.

She does, however, attack the analysis I provided about Natural Disasters. She first claims that my source is based on a false UN Report. First, my argument was not from a UN report. The source I used mentioned the UN report in reference to a different argument that I did not use in this round; my evidence was based on a different study. Second, I did a quick Google search using the quote “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses” and only found links to conservative blogs claiming that the report said that. Such a devastating report surely should be easy to find, so I challenge my opponent to find the original report, not a bunch of conservative blogs that claim that the report said it, and paste the link here.Third, my argument is based on the rise of heat waves. Heat waves are known to cause natural disasters like tornadoes and hurricanes, so if global warming increases the number and intensity of heat waves, it increases the number of natural disasters and their impacts.
Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
alexrose

Con

My chart:

Yes I do recognize that my chart only goes back 4,000 years. I still do believe that you stating that at 400,000 years are enough information to say that global warming is an issue, is not true.

Natural Selection:

I do not by any means necessary believe that murdering another person is a part of natural selection. The meaning of natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. Natural selection does not have anything to do with murder, just about a person or animal biological features are able to keep them alive or not. Meaning, that if this global climate change is occurring, the animals that are meant to make it through this period, will be able to. In this chart, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au... it goes back 500 million years. This chart shows past Carbon Dioxide levels and past extinctions. This just proves my point that too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has killed certain species and some have still been able to live through it because of their biological make up.

Ice Ages:

I did not realize that I forgot to provide a source for the amount of ice ages that have occurred. But in this website: http://en.wikipedia.org..., it states that there have been 5 ice ages.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions:

"Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica." This quote states there must be changes in the earth's carbon emission for something bad to occur. I do realize that I did attain false information and I do apologize for that. But there still have been high levels of carbon dioxide in the past. So, I still do believe that carbon levels do fluctuates and this is natural. Like Isaac Newton, I do believe that what goes up must come down. I do realize that he was referring to gravity, but I think it applies for this case too, because carbon dioxide does fluctuate though out history. I have said this multiple times and I still do believe that this is the case.

Several cities being under water:

There are multiple reasons that cities will go under water, not only because of global warming. As I stated in the previous argument, people build in dangerous flood areas and they forget to mention that the do this.

Sources:

http://www.nature.com...
royalpaladin

Pro

Framework
She finally drops the analysis that notes that she has already conceded that global warming exists because she argues that there is a natural cycle that involves periods of warming and cooling. Extend this observation cleanly across the flow. The impact is that even if she proves that global warming is natural, and we refuse to accept my evidence that it is man-made, it doesn't matter because we have to then discuss the impacts of global warming in order to determine if it is an issue. Again, this was dropped in the speech she just delivered.

Scientific Evidence
She next tells you that she concedes that 4000 years (her evidence) is not long enough to determine if there is a cycle or not, but neither is 400,000 years. First, she cold drops the analysis I gave about how the cycles last for 100,000 years each, meaning that 400,000 years is enough to note the trends in the modern cycle. Second, this argument is just nonsensical. If we cannot look at either of our evidence, how do we determine if global warming is natural? She is literally telling you that we should drop all scientific evidence and just pretend that it is not an issue. Third, she concedes to the validity of my evidence the moment she argues that there is a cycle. My evidence adequately demonstrates this cycle. How can we determine if there is a cycle or not if we ignore the evidence? Since she agrees that a cycle exists (as evidenced by the fact that she argued this in her previous round), and we only know that a cycle exists because of my scientific evidence, she essentially has conceded to the validity of my evidence.

Moreover, I will be accepting one of my opponent' sources because it examines evidence from the past 500,000,000 years and reaches the same conclusion that I did previously [1]. Please refer to the debate below.

So, you can extend all of the dropped analysis relating to this evidence. First extend the argument that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate that is exponentially higher than it should be. The levels we are currently experiencing are higher than those that are present due to the cycle. Then extend the evidence that, according to the cycle, we should be in a reduction phase; meaning that we are actually going opposite of the trend. None of this is a result of natural processes; since the Industrial Revolution, we have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The impacts of all of this is that global warming is indeed an artificial phenomenon.

Natural Selection
She's completely misunderstanding the point. I never said that natural selection involves murder; I said that she is using Natural Selection to justify murder. Her argument is that organisms who were "meant to survive" will survive, so altering the Earth's climate is ok. My analysis notes that we have no right to artificially alter the Earth's climate because the organisms that are currently alive have a right to life; we cannot justify their slaughter by claiming that they were meant to die. Moreover, a great chunk of the organisms killed will be human, and in society we recognize that other humans have rights.

I would like to extend the source that she provided in this section of the debate because it provides a plethora of evidence for my side. [1] Let us examine this evidence from the source that she provided and agrees with.

The first thing that it tells you is that the only other time that Earth has ever had such high CO2 levels in the atmosphere was during periods that resulted from artificial rises due to asteroid collisions [1]. That means that the source is telling you that CO2 levels get to this level only through artificial means. "Raising atmospheric CO2 level at a rate of 2ppm/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record, with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts, the deleterious effects of pollution and deforestation have reached a geological dimension, tracking towards conditions which existed on Earth in the mid-Pliocene, about 2.8 million years ago." [1] Note that the source even tells you that the increases in atmospheric CO2 are a result of pollution and deforestation, which are activities that are done by humans.

The second thing that it does is provide more evidence for my contention about ocean levels rising and ocean acidification." According to her source,"When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises above a critical threshold, climate shifts to a different state. Any significant increase in the level of carbon gases triggers powerful feedbacks. These include ice melt/warm water interaction, decline of ice reflection (albedo) and increase in infrared absorption by exposed water. Further release of CO2 from the oceans and from drying and burning vegetation shifts global climate zones towards the poles, warms the oceans and induces ocean acidification." [1] This provides more evidence for a later portion of the debate.

The third thing that her source tells you is that natural disasters, like firestorms, will result from global warming. [1]. "The consequences of open ended rise in atmospheric CO2 are manifest in the geological record (Frontispiece). The world is in a lag period, when increasing atmospheric energy is expressed by intense hurricanes, increased pressure at mid-latitude high pressure zones and shift of climate zones towards the poles. With ensuing desertification of temperate zones, i.e. southern Europe, southern Australia, southern Africa, the desiccated forests become prey to firestorms, such as in Victoria and California."

All of this is directly from the source that my opponent posted. She accepts this source as true, so please extend the evidence from it.

Ice Ages
I was not asking for evidence that five Ice Ages occur; I was asking for evidence that they were a result of CO2 increases. She drops all of the evidence that I provided that demonstrates that they were a result of decreased CO2 in the atmosphere. Extend that cleanly across the flow.

Carbon Emissions
She insists that the carbon fluctuations are natural, but she has not provided any alternative mechanism that explains why 1. Carbon Dioxide levels are increasing at an unprecedented rate and 2. Why they are increasing at all, since the cycle demonstrates that they should currently be decreasing. Moreover, her own sources tell you that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing at unprecedented rates due to pollution and and deforestation, artificial phenomena, and it examines evidence from the past 500 million years [1]. At this point there is no reason to conclude that current global warming trends are natural.

Impacts
Extend the first impact, namely that 30% of all plant and animal species will perish as a result of global warming, because she has dropped this argument entirely in the past two rounds. Extend the other argument about global disasters because she dropped the argument in this round when I asked her to provide evidence from the actual study instead of conservative blogs. Both of these are deleterious impacts of global warming that can cost millions of lives.

She decides to address the argument about ocean levels rising and flooding coastal cities. First, this is pretty unfair, considering that she dropped the argument previously, but I will debunk her response anyways. Her response is that people will live in dangerous flood areas, so their homes will be underwater for other reasons. This is entirely nonresponsive to the argument, which notes that coastal cities that are currently not underwater will be underwater in the future due to increases in ocean levels (something that her own source agrees with) that result from global warming. Areas that are currently not flood areas will soon be converted into flood areas.

Sources
1. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au...
Debate Round No. 4
alexrose

Con

Global warming caused by humans?

In round three of this debate I stated that "Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a small role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect." The definition of global warming is "what happens when the temperature of the earth increases. This temperature increase is something that happens naturally, although it is also contributed to by human activity." So as I've stated in the past. I do believe that human involvement is occurring during this stage of the earth's global climate change, but I think it is a very small amount, and for the most part is a natural process.

Dropping Evidence:

The reason I dropped the scientific evidence from the previous rounds is because the earth has been in the universe for 4.6 billion years. So although both of the previous charts may be true, they do not go back far enough to state if global warming is an issue or not. There will always be natural climate cycles. Nothing can stop that from occurring.

Natural Selection:

I do not justify murder by believing in the theory of natural selection. Natural Selection is the survival of the fittest. By survival of the fittest I mean a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment. Humans might even be able to adapt to the climate changes and live through this climate change. It has been going on for so long and we and many other species are still alive. So, to reiterate, I do not justify murder, I just believe that the most well adapted species will survive.

My source from the previous round:

Humans are only altering the earth slightly, as I've said in previous rounds. Also, most species do alter the earth in either a good way or a bad way. At the time that humans first started to increase their carbon dioxide use, they didn't plan on slightly causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

As I have stated in round 3 of this debate, as of now, there is no proof that global warming causes natural disasters. The word natural means that it exists by nature; not made or caused by humankind. And in this argument, you believe that global warming is man-made. So to state that natural disasters are caused by humans must be false because of the definition of the word NATURAL.

Ice Ages:

I do recognize that Ice Ages are caused by low amounts of CO2. The reason that I had mentioned Ice Ages was to show that the earth has high and low amounts. Another reason I mentioned this was to prove that climate changes are natural and that they occur no matter what and there is nothing that humans can do to stop this from occurring.

Carbon Emission:

In my past arguments I have been able to show that carbon levels rise and fall and I have shown many sources that prove that. The reason they are rising is because cycles always occur and the earth is just taking its natural course, like I have said multiple times!

Impacts:

As I have stated earlier, as the earth changes, species die off. It has happened many times in the past and will happen many times in the future. The species that do become extinct were just not the most fit and could not live through different climate changes.

Conclusion:

I still do not believe that global warming is an issue. Earth will continue to change naturally and there is nothing that humans can do to change this from happening. This type of climate change has been going on for a long period of time. Earth is just trying to balance out all the changes that are occurring in the only way it knows how to.

Sources:
http://www.what-is-global-warming.com...
royalpaladin

Pro

I am going to try something that I have not done for a year. Instead of doing a specific line-by-line, I will be using this round to crystallize my position because I do not think that my opponent really made a substantive effort to attack my position in this round. That does mean that I am dropping anything; I will cover the flow as I tell the “story of the round”.

Before I begin, however, I would like to address this argument that my opponent makes about 0.2% of the greenhouse effect being due to humans. I have no idea where she got this from; she did not source this statistic, so I cannot explain why the methodology of the statistic was wrong. Moreover, some of her other sources contradict this argument and statistic, so there is no reason to accept it.

Cycles

This round rests on whether or not global warming has an impact. As my observation noted, as long as my opponent believes that there is any type of climate change, global warming necessarily has to exist. This means that even if my opponent has convinced you that global warming is entirely a natural process, she does not win this debate. She needs to demonstrate that the impacts of that process are meaningless, so any discussion of whether or not it is artificial is tangential to the real debate. This observation has been dropped since Round 3. My opponent has maintained throughout this round that any climate change is a result of a cycle.This means that she concedes that global warming does exist in some form.

I also agree that cycles exist. I provided evidence in Round 1 that demonstrate that there are cycles every 100,000 years in which carbon levels peak at 285 ppm. According to my evidence, we reached this peak in 1850. That means, according to the cycles, we should not only have reduced carbon levels at the moment, but that we should also be witnessing a reduction in temperature and a reduction in carbon levels. The evidence that I cited notes that our carbon levels are currently increasing at an exponentially high rate and are going against the trends established by the cycle.

My opponent then proceeded to not only reject my evidence based on time period, but to also concede that her own evidence did not examine the Earth’s history properly. She completely dropped the argument that I made, however, about how since the cycles last 100,000 years, my evidence, which extends back 600,000 years, is enough to see the trends. Moreover, if she is rejecting her own evidence, she has no basis for for making the claim that global climate change is natural because she has nothing to back up her arguments. She already conceded that her evidence is false, and she did not provide any more evidence to support her assertions. This itself is a reason to accept my evidence because she has not provided any sort of alternative studies that she considers to be more accurate. Ergo, she cannot make her unsupported assertions.

While discussing another argument, opponent did provide us with evidence that examines that past 500 million years. Happily, that evidence supports my position. It explicitly notes, “Raising atmospheric CO2 level at a rate of 2ppm/year, a pace unprecedented in the geological record, with the exception of the effects of CO2 released from craters excavated by large asteroid impacts, the deleterious effects of pollution and deforestation have reached a geological dimension, tracking towards conditions which existed on Earth in the mid-Pliocene, about 2.8 million years ago." Her own evidence is literally telling you that the only time that we have had such rapid increases in CO2 levels was when massive asteroids collided with Earth. Ergo, by her own evidence, which examines the past 500 million years, these levels are only reached artificially, and are not a natural part of the cycle.

This was entirely dropped by my opponent. That should be enough to tell you that the global warming we are experiencing is an artificial phenomenon.

Impacts
I discussed three impacts of global warming that demonstrate that it is, in fact, an issue. The first impact was that there will be a 30% decrease in the flora and fauna species of this planet. Her only response to this was natural selection allows for the best adapted species to survive. She still has not responded to the rights analysis that I posted in Round 1. Even if the beings who are most fit to survive will survive, that does not mean that we are justified in committing acts that will cause the destruction of 30% of Earth’s species because they have a right to survive. Natural adaptation and competition is one thing, but specifically causing harms to those species is another. It’s the difference between chopping someone’s leg off and seeing someone being born with a birth defect. One is natural and is not our fault. The other is something that we are doing actively and is a violation of rights.

The second impact was the increase in natural disasters due to an increase in heat waves. She continuously asserts that global warming does not cause natural disasters. First, I would like to point out that in Round 4, she conceded that the evidence she provided that said there was no link was faulty. Therefore, she is just asserting that there is no link. Second, her own evidence from Round 4 explicitly notes that there will be an increase in natural disasters. I will post the quote again because she dropped it: "The consequences of open ended rise in atmospheric CO2 are manifest in the geological record (Frontispiece). The world is in a lag period, when increasing atmospheric energy is expressed by intense hurricanes, increased pressure at mid-latitude high pressure zones and shift of climate zones towards the poles. With ensuing desertification of temperate zones, i.e. southern Europe, southern Australia, southern Africa, the desiccated forests become prey to firestorms, such as in Victoria and California." Her own evidence that SHE chose to cite says that there will be an increase in firestorms and hurricanes. Therefore, global warming increases natural disasters and thus deaths.

The final impact was flooding in coastal cities and the deaths of millions of humans and damages in billions of dollars. After Round 3, she did not even attempt to address this point at all. This point is thus conceded and is a cause for concern. By itself, it notes that global warming is an issue because it can cause millions of deaths by flooding coastal cities that are currently above water and also causing billions of dollars in damages to those cities.

Voting Issues
Please vote pro on the following points:

1. Global warming is man-made. She provided no evidence to support her assertions of a wholly natural cycle after she conceded that her evidence should not have been used.

2. Global warming has disastrous effects. Her own sources tell you that there are a rise in natural disasters and she dropped the analysis about the flooding of coastal cities, plethora of human deaths, and and damages in billions of dollars.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Now that the debate is over: http://climatechange.procon.org...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Great debate, sadly CON had a poor case on natural cycles (Ironically I am reading two books on the subject, her case missed a lot of knockout points).

The debate, in my eyes, revolved around 3 things:
1. Global warming is real
2. Global Warming is man made
3. Global warming causes many issues

Lets go down in order:

1. Global warming is real

"First, I would like to start off by saying that I do believe that there is a global climate change."
- CON ROUND 2

So that answers the question which is highly arguable here using NOAA satellite data, surface station failures, and global warming exaggerations, but it was conceded to pro here.

2. Global warming is man made

Here is where CON needed to make a showing, sadly failed to do so.

CON failed to make a case, instead of (I am reading empirical data on this as I write this) showing global warming is exaggerated (the hockey stick graph which pro used) is faulty and, well, false she just argued the unprecedented spike was a natural cycle, but this makes no statistical sense, hence PRO (she counters this with other data as well) wins the argument with these reasons and the ones the used in the debate.

3. Global warming causes issues

CONS arguments where lacking, a lot. Over the debate con lost and conceded more an more of this argument until 99% of it was fed to pro, hence con loses here.

@Pro

I will debate you if you would like later on if human CO2 emissions are the main cause global warming.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 5 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
alexroseroyalpaladinTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Global warming has been proven to be an issue, as Pro proves. Con seems to concede to quite a bit of Pro's arguments throughout her own, whether or not she knew she was.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
alexroseroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
alexroseroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted arguments on the natural selection argument. Massive death and destruction makes it an issue, and I don't think Con grasped the implications of the natural selection defense. Con was poorly served by her sources.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
alexroseroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically concedes the points of the case, bit by bit, throughout the argument, especially with regards to the trending of Greenhouse Gases over time.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
alexroseroyalpaladinTied
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 presented a more compelling case on why global warming is an issue. Whether it is man-made or not, it was shown that global warming effects the enviroment that effects the weather and life in various areas of the earth. Con also dropped certain points in the debate.