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

Is 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,721 times Debate No: 31332
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I challenge s.szzzz to prove his position that global warming is not real to be true.

I believe global warming is a serious threat for humanity and that we bring it upon ourselves unless we alter our activities to be less harmful for the environment by lowering the production of greenhouse gases.

Global warming is in this debate defined as continuous rise of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere since the early industrialization in the early 19th century that will alter many ecosystems all over the world negatively by affecting weather, sea-levels and other crucial systems.

Furthermore we shall debate the effect of increased concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere on global warming and if human activities can be blamed.

This debate is going to be a scientific one. Political views will be irrelevant to winning the debate.

First round is about definitions and a short summary of your position. Save arguments for later.


Everyone will concur with one observable fact,the earth's surface and environment is changing . Common sense is leading us to one utterly true fact. Humans have become very destructible towards nature since the industrialization.
We can often see the evidence in our daily live as well most of the catastrophic keywords like disease, pollution, waste etc have come from the media . We have learned to preserve a very ecologically protective mindset while dealing with pollution in general. We are confronted with a scale of large catastrophes like deep water horizon and other maybe even bigger problems, like pollution of our oceans, endangering so many species, wasting so many commodities, sickening ourselves through so many substances. People on this planet are definitely aware of the whole problem. If you tell someone there's no extinction of whales or there is no danger in transportation of oil, they will declare you a maniac. Nobody will disagree to this point I hope. But everyone of those catastrophes has one thing in common. They are not doubtful. You can't doubt something, people have reported all over the world, almost proving it only with that fact.
People are reporting a climate change all over the planet, this is a true and the main issue of this whole debate.
Therefore our headline can be a little bit misinterpretable due to me agreeing to that point.
As i have read ego's opening he stated we should restrain to scientific argumens, first i could not realy agree with that. As both of us hardly are scientists,we can only rely on a few hours up to days of research mostly over the internet. My second issue deals with the common belief or attitude towards this very difficult topic. My motive is not to disprove a man made global warming, just because i don't see myself fit to achieve such a goal, but i want put out my thoughts and be able to resolve or clearify a common hardened belief : Man made global warming.
I hopefully will adress either a few political views , some of their irresponsible strategies wasting efforts and funds.
I will also try to explain a few factors of global warming. As our planet being constantly changing on a scale, where thousands of years don't count at all . I will also look from an astronomical viewpoint on global warming. Whether there is a large cosmic influence on the earth's temperature or not. There are also large efforts until that day to be rated, such as a global warming stock exchange. And a bigger question what has led to such an institute. What role does the media have at all.
Those are subtopics of my con argument, even though i see large benefits from a misbelief like that. We have to try not to defend only ur beliefs, but we have to start thinking about it on a global matter. Weighing it. Does it feed a new way of treating the world, making the increase of western energy efficiency management conclusive to fighting global warming. Do all of these regulations and costly investments interfere with our productivity and slow down our economic growth? Aren't we destroing our economies by challenging our competitors, who rely on the old and cheap way, eventally losing our way of life. We have to clearify that .
Debate Round No. 1


The debate is well defined and involving politics and economical issues will mess things up. The headline is just an eye catcher, read the description and you are set.
You do not need to be a scientist to make scientific claims if you can support them with sources. You probably are no politician or economist, so how could you argue from those perspectives if you follow that logic?

The evidence for a man-made global warming is overwhelming.
Firstly I would like to point out that the general consensus of scientists approve of my position as expressed by this synthesis report (systematic review):
"It is very likely that the response to anthropogenic forcing contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century"
"Temperatures of the most extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days are likely to have increased due to anthropogenic forcing."
It gives a good relative insight into the results of many studies that support my view that global warming is caused by man.

A prosperous future of mankind relies highly on the investments we put into technologies that will alter our activities to more green ones. While I agree that certain investments can be redundant or prove to be mistakes afterwards, a variety of options needs to be considered in order to find the best possible solutions for the problems we face.
The solution certainly is not to cut spending but to direct the investments into a most promising direction.
We do not spend enough by far and some of the main producers of CO2, such as the USA, still refuse to face the truth about global warming and reject to join the Kyoto Protocol as they fear economical disadvantages more than ecological disasters.
The Kyoto Protocol, while it gets a lot of press, did do some good and was successful in some ways. See: Chart

The production of CO2 through human activities, however, is still increasing yearly.
That's the problem. The few miscalculations and mistaken investments are rather insignificant in comparison to the amount of investments and calculations that aren't done at all. A focus on problems of the green thinking ways is misplaced.

The concentration of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is an important factor.
I realize that the production of CO2, as well as its absorption, is always happening naturally but it is very evident that the harsh raise of the concentration in the atmosphere since the industrialization is due to human activities.


It is very hard to compare science with politics, as we all know, politics happens to have no codex and a political opinion just represents a way of thinking. If anything or in the best case, politics can rely on a scientific thesis in a technocratic way. Science however is a topic of hard work and study. A political opinion scarcely needs a lot of time to adopt. Because you don't need much research for it. At most, politics is about judging things on a large base, not proving things. If you adapt that kind of scheme you will first have to think about efficieny. Even if humans are to blame for global warming. They can not be undiscering among themselves. This however is the case. You agreed at the end of your statement to a certain point that some people can't be held eligible for a global issue. Even without arguing about global warming we can see a political discord. We've got a pat situation with large co2 producers going on effortlessly with their pollution. Even if there are many benefits from self sufficient energy supplies. We needn't to argue about that.
So my first question for you is, why to bother dealing with co2 emissions and not trying to urge the real polluters into accepting those facts? We need some kind of warrant which can only be achieved by persuasion.

Nevertheless there is a position, a hard one which i have to defend so i want to ask what if there is no danger at all from global warming itself?

My first subtopic deals with our planetary system and espacially the sun. Everyone has heard about sunbursts. There is much to research about the mechanisms causing a variation of the activity of our sun. What we know is in fact an 11 year long cycle in which our sun is getting colder, to jump again. Our planet is situated in a cold period over all right now. Called quaternary glaciation. In fact our planetary temperature varies strongly over large periods of time. There is very little evidence for a few grades making a large difference.; If you look at the blue chart, our temperature is continuing to fall since a few thousand years . Also there is no statistical evidence for co2 emissions being excessive. But i have to pass that one on to you because i am not a scientist, therefore my estimation does not really count, as i am seemingly opposing a common scientific belief.

The vast climate changes in the history of our planet are making me believe a even faster climate change is no exception at all.

Here an extract about my thesis of the sunactivity.

"""QUOTE"Some people continued to pursue the exasperating hints that minor variations in the sunspot cycle influenced present-day weather. Interest in the topic was revived in 1949 by H.C. Willett, who dug out apparent relationships between changes in the numbers of sunspots and long-term variations of wind patterns. Sunspot variations, he declared, were "the only possible single factor of climatic control which might be made to account for all of these variations." Others thought they detected sunspot cycle correlations in the advance and retreat of mountain glaciers. Willett admitted that "the physical basis of any such relationship must be utterly complex, and is as yet not at all understood." But he pointed out an interesting possibility. Perhaps climate changes could be due to "solar variation in the ultraviolet of the sort which appears to accompany sunspot activity." """"

There are many other factors like earth's rotation itself, being held responsible for climate change
Such a large number of factors makes me doubt one agressor like co2 being responsible for the whole thing.
My question for you would be: As i know we possibly can't reach a lethal conentration of co2 in our atmosphere, but where is a point which would make our economical systems collapse? I believe even if our temperatures raise, which from a unbiased point of view are pretty low right now, when getting into mind, there was even a time, when our planet had no polar capes at all, the consequences would only change our countryside and redirect fertile land zones.

I also read about an interesting fact. A few million years ago, Carboniferous was marked by very significant plant growth across the planet, even though there was terrestrial life already. These plants bound vast amounts of CO2 from the air, and perhaps most importantly, there were no humans to let out a vast amount of the stuff. Yet, despite all this, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was twice as high as it is today
Although we are in an interglacial that might well last another 50000 years, Earth today is still relatively cold (global mean temperature ~14 Celcius, has been in excess of 20), so it's more likely that it'll get warmer.

In my opinion we should try to use efficient energysources to get independent from fossils and we also should try to invest into every promising new technology, changing our technology over time. I even tend to assume that this is somehow the whole point, trying to urge everyone for a technological revolution, without attempting fighting wars over it. At the end somehow it is more likely only a point of view. Having slightly similarities to religion.

Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately I do not have the time to post a proper response right now. I will type as much as I can but will not be able to put too much effort into it. 
Thanks for your sympathy in advance.

My opponent keeps on trying to force politics into this debate which I rejected in my previous statement as well as the introduction. It is irrelevant to winning this debate so I am going to ignore any politics related statements.

I also never agreed that people are not responsible for global warning, as con tries to interpret into the end of my previous statement. I clearly stated that the increased CO2 concentration in our atmosphere is highly likely due to human activities since the beginning of the industrialization. I even provided a source to support that statement.

The question my opponent stated is one I cannot answer as I do not fully understand it.
“So my first question for you is, why to bother dealing with co2 emissions and not trying to urge the real polluters into accepting those facts?”

Who the “real polluters” are has yet to be defined by con. I also do not comprehend why a persuasion of the “real polluters” would make discussing the effects of CO2 emissions irrelevant as both persuasion and discussion hardly are mutual exclusive.
That's also a political issue that I am not going to comment further on.



s.szzzz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


EgoDuctor forfeited this round.


s.szzzz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


EgoDuctor forfeited this round.


s.szzzz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.