The Instigator
sjrrj
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Is global warming real and man made?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,647 times Debate No: 65174
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (144)
Votes (4)

 

sjrrj

Pro

The first round is acceptance of the debate. Do not state your opinion until the second round.
Wylted

Con

Global warming is bull hockey, go!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
sjrrj

Pro

NASA reports, "The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6" F) between 1906 and 2005, and the rate of temperature increase has nearly doubled in the last 50 years." Global warming is a gradual increase of temperature of the earth's atmosphere, and it can normally be attributed to increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Many conservatives believed that global warming was just a hoax, an idea invented after a snowless winter. A delighted Eric Bolling reported in 2010, "Sixty-three percent of the country is now covered in snow. And it's breaking Al Gore's heart because the snow is also burying his global warming beliefs." Since then, scientists have been proving deniers wrong at every turn. Our selfish, oblivious behaviors cause the rising temperatures of our planet, and we are now really feeling the effects. The North and South poles, along with Greenland, are melting, causing the sea level to rise. The temperature is rising and it will take extreme measures not only to save the planet, but to save ourselves as well.

Throughout history, the earth's temperature has always been changing, though we have only begun to feel the effects in the last century. Over the years, humans have burned so much fossil fuel that an enhanced greenhouse effect, or the trapping of the sun's rays near a planet's surface, has been taking place. NASA reports that humans have been "artificially raising concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate" due to the overuse of coal, oil, and fossil fuels. Many people still believe the change in the earth's temperature is natural over time and any law passed to control gas emission will only cause a price increase. This, however, is not true. Global warming, as stated, is the rising temperature of the earth due to increased use and emission of greenhouse gases. Any law put in place to better control the use of these gases will only help the planet. Without these laws, humans may just be condemning the planet and the life on it.
Wylted

Con

FRAMEWORK


My opponent is stating a specific scientific theory is true, and as the side making a positive assertion. She holds the burden of proof. If I simply negate her arguments without forwarding any of my own that should be enough to win this debate. On top of her having the BOP she has another obstacle to overcome. She has to prove 2 things while I merely have to prove 0. She must prove that A. Global warming is real and B. that it is also man made. So if she proves global warming is real but fails to show that it is man made than she has lost this debate.


The norm is to make opening arguments in round 2, rebuttals in rund 3 and counter rebuttals in round 4. I will not deviate from the norm this debate.

CLIMATE GATE


A lot of the global warming debate has been made political. Scientists are engaging in a cover up to sweep all evidence that climate change isn't occurring, under the rug. It's no mystery that these scientists with all their university indoctrination into liberal thinking are themselves big liberals. Global warming is used as a political tool to increase the size and role of the federal govenment and if it's proven to be false then it's a big tool that is lost. It's sad but too many scientists are willing to engage in this coverup to help their team win. The truth simply doesn't matter to them. All that matters is thateir team can hijact the eenvironmentalist movement for ther own selfish causes.


In November of 2009 a bunch of climate scintists e-mails were hacked into. [1] These E-mails actually show scientists actively engaging in suppression of evidence.


"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[2]


The trick he is rferring to is using a hockey stick type of graph to make the data hide a cooling trend. [3]


"Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!


... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were


Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"[4]


"Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme] In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "[5]


I could literally show hundreds of emails where these scientists speak of fudging the numbers or doing tricks with the data or applying artificial adjustments but space is limited on this debate.


GLOBE IS NOT COOLING


According to a report by the Daily Mail. The MET office has released data showin no global warming for the last 16 years. The temperature of the Earth has been remaining relativiley steady. [6] Here is a cart to llustrate my point.


global temperature changes


It's pretty much scientific consensus that the Earth has not been heating up for the past 10 years and longer. There can not be global warming if the globe isn't warming. In fact the term climate change is slowly replacing the term global warmig so that any change in the Earths climate can be used to suit the left's political agenda.


ARCTIC ICE


The arctic ice has increased by over 50% according to a report by the ESE. [7] Despite the fact that Al Gore and other advocates for global warming state that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now.[8] Strong evidence actually shows that the ice cap are getting bigger and stronger.


It's only a matter of time beforethey start claiming it's global cooling again like they did in the 40s through 70s and advocatng for nuking the poles like they did back in that time. I'm glad people were smarter than to take the liberal's advice to nuke the poles then. I wish they were justa little bit smarter now.


CONCLUSION


Rebuttals are coming next round. I'll leave his round by stating that the Ice caps are getting bigger and have not disappeared like people who say global warming is real predicted 5 years ago. Also the Earth's temperature is also pretty steady sowe have multple forms of evidence that the Earth is not warming and when you add that on top of the uncovered emails showing a conspiracy in the scientific community to fudge numbers perform trickery and just plain lie to foward their theory, it's pretty obvious global warming is a lie.


I leave you with some predictions people who have forwarded this theory to advance a political agenda have made


"Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades … up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated" Al Gore 1992


“senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”[9]


Here is the funny thing aboutglobal warming alarmists not only will they say increased temperaues on Earth will make snowing a thing of the pas but when it does snow real heavy they also somehow blame that on global warming. So what is it? Does global warming lead to more snow or less?


"Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”[9]


sources


1. http://web.archive.org...


2. http://www.americanthinker.com...


3 http://wattsupwiththat.com...


4 http://tomnelson.blogspot.com...


5. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com...


6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


7. http://www.esa.int...


8. http://www. thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/five-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-in-5-years/


9. http://www.thenewamerican.com...

Debate Round No. 2
sjrrj

Pro

"Globe is not cooling" (I don't know if you meant the "The world is not warming" or what because my argument is that the world is warming): Though many people believe the world is not cooling, this is, in fact, wrong. Much of the world (Antarctica, Greenland, etc..) used to be covered in ice. Over the past few decades, the amount of ice has been slowly melting. Slowly, but steadily. The increased risk of wildfires in the west is directly related to global warming. (This may seem like a random point, but it connects to the ice on different continents) Wildfires have become frequent and stronger over the past few years. As the time when snow melts has been occurring 1-4 weeks earlier, the amount of beetles and other insects has increased. They eat through plants and trees and cause death in nature and severe dryness. Thunder and lightning storms become more frequent and more wildfires are the result. The soot produced from the fires is carried around the world and much of it is deposited in Greenland and other places with huge amounts of ice. One of the reasons the glaciers melt so fast is because the ice is covered with soot which absorbs heat. Much of the soot is from wildfires, the rest is from air pollution. When the snow is covered with soot, it starts to melt because it absorbs heat. When it melts, the temperature becomes warmer, which in turn, causes more wildfires. If all of GreenlandF0;s ice melts, which is a distinct possibility, about 80 of the worldF0;s most beloved cites will be underwater. The glaciers of Greenland are hundreds of feet high, but have been melting at an astonishing rate of about 27 feet of ice in a single year. To slow down the rate of the rising oceans, people need to decrease emissions created in the burning of fossil fuels and additional heat by 80 percent. Everything thatF0;s happening is due to human activity, yet we still sit here and do nothing. Greenland is not the only place where ice is melting. The Arctic is melting and the largest deposit of ice in the world, Antarctica, is also beginning to melt. If it melts at a similar rate as Greenland, the world is headed for catastrophe.
This proves that the world is warming. If the world was staying at a pretty much constant temperature (overall) the ice would not be melting. Here is an article that will explain how the melting ice and rising sea levels (due to global warming created by man) will severely impact our environment.

https://news.vice.com...

Please check your spelling and grammar. It is distracting from the actual point you try to make.
Wylted

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for her rebuttals and for the interesting arguments.

FRAMEWORK

My opponent hasn't contested that she holds the full burden of proof in this debate. I expect the judges to respect that. Pro's arguments seem to be a bit all over the place, unorganized and a lot of times not even relevant to the resolution. It's for these purposes that I will formalize her arguments in order to give them a fair rebuttal.

Rebuttals

ARGUMENT 1

P1- "The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6" F) between 1906 and 2005,

P2- "it can normally be attributed to increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants."

C1- global warming real and man made


P1- REBUTTAL

"The global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6" F) between 1906 and 2005"


The first problem with this premise is this fact is uncited and I guess my opponent wants me to take her word for it. That's not how debates work though. Every single fact outside of stuff widely known should be cited. The exact difference in the Earth's temperature between 1906 and 2005 isn't a fact most people would automatically know and is very much a fact up for debate.

I need access to where this information came from to see if there was any deception on the part of the scientists (see climate Gate), to see how data was collected and to see if I can spot any mistakes in data collection or the reporting of the results among several other things.

When I asked my opponent for her citations in the comment section to give her a chance to provide them so the debate was more fair, I was basically called a jerk for "telling her how to debate" and generally given a hard time. With only 24 hour rounds and not much time for research it's very important to both give and receive good citations within the rounds of the debate.

At one point my opponent did relent and gave me links for a total of 7 different website articles. I guess I'm just expected to read through a bunch of articles, but it's not good enough. I need to know which facts link to which pages. Not only that but I don't believe all the supposed facts were even covered in the articles nor were the numerous quotes by my opponent meant to serve as straw man arguments.

Besides the nonexistent citations more problems exist with this data. A lot of researchers and studies have confirmed that there is no reliable. The dip in the ocean temperature in 1945 ha been explained by how the data collection method changed for that year. Instead of Ships taking temperatures in the ocean before starting the ships engines they hauled the water up with buckets for the year of 1945 causing wind to hit the buckets and cool the water more. [1]

The extremely sloppy ways of collecting data hasn't really changed much since 1945.

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at waste water treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations " nearly 9 of every 10 " fail to meet the National Weather Service"s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source."[2]


Another issue I take with the supposed fact my opponent presents (which for all I know is completely made up because it is uncited) besides the unreliable methods of collecting data is that the data is presented real well. It seem like a good way to manipulate the data to pick the average temperature of one year and the average of another and compare them and the temperature of the Earth is climbing. Temperatures vary quite a bit.

There was a cooling cycle from 1940's to the 1970's, where a ton scientists were predicting global cooling. This is a trend that continually repeats it's self. Shortly scientists will be on the global cooling trend again. The Earth just goes through cycles of hot and cold.

"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age " just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." [3]

P2 it can normally be attributed to increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants


Pro doesn't explain what she means by pollutants. The term pollutants could honestly mean anything. As far as carbon dioxide is concerned lets not go into a panic over them. Plants need it to survive. Pro hasn't shown how any of theses things cause or contribute to global warming let alone how man is being blamed for these things as opposed to other natural phenomenon.

I believe the Earth is actually not experiencing any warming whatsoever and the data I provided in the last round has went completely uncontested. Actually all the data I supplied showing the Earth is not warming should be counted as dropped arguments by my opponent and I should win on that basis alone.

My opponent has provided no evidence that pollutants and carbon dioxide (something plants need to live), contribute to global warming at all. Not only that but there are alternate explanations for any warming trend that may exist. Again I don't think it is warming but if it is my opponent's explanations shouldn't trump the explanations I give which actually are accompanied by evidence.

For one the sun is actually getting hotter and is a good explanation for why you might see an increase in the Earth's temperature.

"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." [4]

The suns increase in temperature affecting planets can be extremely obvious because you can clearly see the effect of the sun heating up on Mars. If Mars is getting hotter because of the sun's rays why would anyone think it's going to be any different for Earth.

"Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.
NASA says the Martian South Pole"s "ice cap" has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter"s caught the same cold, because it"s warming up too, like Pluto." [5]


CONCLUSION


My opponent hasn't really made much of a case for global warming being man made and the evidence for global warming actually existing is nothing more than bare assertions and uncited facts. Despite the facts being uncited, I've still managed to undermine them. My opponent has actually dropped many of my arguments the stuff on climate gate was completely ignored. With her holding the burden of proof it is impossible to overcome this in the final round. I want to remind my opponent and the audience that it is too late for her to bring up any new arguments in the final round and to vote con.

sources
1. http://scienceblogs.com...
2. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
3. http://www.mrc.org...
4. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
5. http://www.nationalreview.com...
Debate Round No. 3
sjrrj

Pro

sjrrj forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

The vote here is pretty obvious. My opponent has failed to respond to any of my arguments or evidence and instead just focuses on making bare assertions. Even if the warming stats were cited, not countered and taken as fact she has still failed to make a case for how the global warming is man made.

There really is no need for counter rebuttals. My opponent completely ignored my arguments and attempted some sort of Gish Gallop but failed to cite any of her facts or make any argument as to why any of them are true.

My opening arguments all still stand unopposed whie all of my opponent's opening arguments have been refuted.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
144 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sjrrj 2 years ago
sjrrj
I was upset and he asked what was going on and asked if he could write something. He's a great guy. I'm not going break up with him for trying to help me. And no he does not log onto my Facebook.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
You should probably get a new boyfriend though. Once he starts logging onto your profile it is controlling. Does he control you by logging onto your Facebook account or texting people and pretending to be you from your phone.

I would never log into my fianc"'s social media accounts it's wrong and a big red flag.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
You don't have to apologize, by the sites very nature heated exchanges will occur. I forget everything as soon as it occurs, as should everyone.
Posted by sjrrj 2 years ago
sjrrj
I'd like to apologize to my opponent for any misconduct there was. I have been through a crisis lately and I know I have been saying it on many of my debates but it has put enormous stress on me and my family and I would like to apologize for any effect it had on any other use on this site. Many things you have said were interpreted wrong or I took them to the extreme. I apologize for all I said and hope you can accept it and apologize as well do we can move on. I hope there is no bad blood between us. Good night all.
Posted by Beyoncebetwice 2 years ago
Beyoncebetwice
Yeah she should have handled things differently and maybe her boyfriend shouldn't have stepped in but at this point you guys should just stop. It's not funny. Please can you stop? Just leave her alone at this point
Posted by Beyoncebetwice 2 years ago
Beyoncebetwice
You guys are being so mean to her and her boyfriend. None of us know about the sh!t she has to deal with. I'm serious. Please stop. You aren't being nice.
Posted by Beyoncebetwice 2 years ago
Beyoncebetwice
"Wylted" I'm serious. You don't know about all the sh!t going on in her life right now. Please stop. It isn't funny or a joke anymore.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
OUCH! Kitty can scratch...
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Shut up idiot. She contacted me an all my messages were responses to her messages. She should find a man who isn't such a sensitive pvssy.
Posted by sjrrj 2 years ago
sjrrj
This is her boyfriend. Stay the f*ck away from her. I saw your messages. Stop having contact with her. You were very rude. Do not contact her again. You don't know everything going on. Stop piling more sh*t onto her life and stay away.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
sjrrjWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Wylted has good arguments.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
sjrrjWyltedTied
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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to provide any rebuttals to Con's latest challenges which left Con standing unchallenged. Furthermore, Pro failed to rebut a majority of the points raised by Con in previous rounds. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. While both utilized sources, Con's were of both higher quality and quantity. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
sjrrjWyltedTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
sjrrjWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: A very clear winner here. Wylted had this won from the start. Conduct goes to con because of the forfeit, but pro did not act professional, so regardless of the forfeit, con gets conduct. Spelling and grammar goes to pro, because con makes many typos. Convincing arguments goes to con by an absolute landslide. It was clear, neat, and got the point across. Pro's was messy, unorganized, and was just fact after fact. No clear point was really demonstrated here. Pro used no visible sources, which just further supports my conclusion of giving con the point for arguments. Last, con used more and reliable sources.