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

Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

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: 4/9/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 89398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change.

1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions
Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016.
Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began.

According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution.

Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.


Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether "human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change", people should try their best to act for the common good.

With that said, you have not properly defined what "human activity" is and what level of change constitutes "Climate Change".

Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change.

Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental.

If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.
Debate Round No. 1


Just for clarification when I say human activity I mean the activity to the addition of climate change, as you could see by the evidence I used. What level of change contributes to climate change would be the rising temperatures. Since that humans release so much C02 and pollute the air it contributes to warming the planet. The EPA predicts in the next 100 years global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees. Now you may say that isn't much but that will cause the melting of the ice caps which will cause rising sea levels which will sink cities, as National Geographic reports.

As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS.
My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there.
Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent.

So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate.


Thank you for your reminder that I have not given a single evidence that goes against your case. To fight against a popular belief, the odds have been against me from the beginning. You have certainly won if this was a popularity contest. What I want to say in my previous argument was that you have not put matters into perspective.

Here are my facts which I hope can put matters into perspective:

A)Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future

B) CO2 is not the only driver to climate change; atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago.

C) The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere " the primary driver of recent climate change " has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

D) Solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.

E) I hope you can agree that the Sun is an independent system of the Earth. Therefore, whatever we do on earth do not affect the sun's activities.

My Analysis of the situation:
[A] means that the earth is capable of sustaining life and handling CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have today.
[B] & [C] support the CO2 level is 10 times more than now prior to the dinosaurs, which roughly supports [A]
[D] supports that it is the combined effect of sun and CO2 that contributes to the climate change.

You can see that even if we increase our current output, it would take a long time to create CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have now. Even at that level, earth can sustain life like dinosaurs.

Therefore, human activity does contribute to climate change in the time scale of a 100 year, but to put in into perspective, over the time scale that date back to the beginning of life, human contributed CO2 level doesn"t affect life all that much.

The sun would probably be a greater contributing factor than us human.

Of course, with that said, even if we are not the major contributing factor, it is always our responsibilities to do less harm to others and to the nature" even though the sun would have killed us anyway in the end.
Debate Round No. 2


Seeing that you have a rich source of information I can easily rebut the case. To address you examples that humans are different than dinosaurs. Not to mention the fact that during the dinosaurs time there was just 1 continent. So to end this debate my case has won because I have easily shown that humans harmful activity have increased Global Warming, you're entire case is built upon the facts that if the dinosaurs lived through it we can. Well that was a 165 million years ago buddy, Earth has changed. For these reasons this is why Pro has won this debate.


Thank you for your quick response.

Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change.

My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact.

The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth.

With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hakkayo 2 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument made by Con addressed the initial question and did more to prove that the question itself was flawed and not that Pro was wrong. It was a good approach and ultimately left him with a better argument though it did not necessarily answer in the expected way. Pros' argument started out strong though the early self congratulation stunted his argument and came across as crass and close minded. Neither made spelling or grammar that was terribly offensive to me, and Pro gave actual sources giving them more reliability.