The Instigator
tylergraham95
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,892 times Debate No: 45325
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (5)

 

tylergraham95

Pro

*Exists and significantly contributes to overall global warming.


Rules
Round 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.
Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.
Round 3- Free choice.
Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only.
Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.

Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.

Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss.

The BOP is shared.

For the sake of this debate, Pro must argue that Mankinds interference with nature is a significant cause of the general upward trend of average global temperatures. Pro must also argue that this general upward trend will have effects that are seriously detrimental to humankind.

Con must argue that Human-Action does not significantly contribute to the general upward trend of average global temperature. Con must also argue that this general trend will not have seriously detrimental effects to humankind.

No arguments of semantics are acceptable.

No arguments that question the premise of the debate are acceptable.


Definitions

Global Warming- The general upward trend of Global Average temperatures.

Man-Made Global Warming- a force that contributes to general global warming that is caused by the greenhouse effect, and other forms of human interference with nature.

Greenhouse effect- An effect that results from CO2 and CH4 pollution (there are also other chemicals that contribute, these are called greenhouse gases). Causes heat to be trapped in the earths environment.

Serious Threat- Anything that could potentially kill a large number of people, wipe out a species of animal, or ruin any sizeable economy constitutes a serious threat for this debate.

Significant Cause- anything that has a noticeable impact on the overall force.




I look forward to a very interesting debate.



Note: If you mean to argue that there is no general upward trend of temperatures at all, man-made or not, then do not accept this debate.
donald.keller

Con

I accept.

Definitions:

GWP (Global Warming Potential) = The total effect on Global Warming per ppm.
Debate Round No. 1
tylergraham95

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

Pros Case




Point A: Man-Made Global Warming exists




Sub point 1: Scientific consensus

"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century."

Scientists are undoubtedly sure that Man-Made Global warming is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)



Point B: man-made global warming is the primary cause of Global Warming




Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus

"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3)

"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5)

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6)

Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Scientific research has been done by a countless number of experts, and they have all come to a similar agreement. Humanity is the primary cause of global warming. To challenge this claim is to challenge the authority of research giants such as NASA. Environmental scientists are the authority on this subject, and they agree with the Pro.




Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity

"The only way to explain the pattern [global warming] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2)
"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)

Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of global warming.





Point C: The effects of global warming are extreme.


Global climate change leads to:
-Increased temperatures
-Changing landscapes
-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods
-Endangered wildlife habitats
-Rising sea levels
-Greater damage from extreme storms
-More heat-related illness and disease
-Economic problems
(4)




Sub point 1: man-made global warming encourages natural disaster

"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2)
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8)
With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)

Man-made global warming is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with global warming left unchecked, these counts will grow.





Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding

"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2)
"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2)

As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level.

Furthermore, man-made global warming could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life.





Sub point 3: Future effects of man-made global warming could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment.

There are a myriad of effects that man-made global warming will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile.
"Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2)
"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2)
"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.
-Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
-Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.
-Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.
-Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11)

Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)

Current Effects



Future Effects



Human lives are at stake, and even the economies of the world are at stake.



Summary

There is overwhelming evidence to prove that man-made global warming is indeed real. Furthermore, the effects of man-made global warming are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of man-made global warming.





Sources
1. http://www.sciencemag.org...
2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...
3. http://www.nrdc.org...
4. http://www.mfpp.org...
5. http://www.edf.org...
6. http://climate.nasa.gov...
7. http://climate.nasa.gov...
8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...
9. http://www.usatoday.com...
10. http://www.nbcnews.com...
11. http://climate.nasa.gov...;
donald.keller

Con

Con's case:

Premise 1: Global Warming Potential

What few people realize about things like Green House Gas is that they are not all born equal. For example, Carbon Dioxide has a Global Warming Potential of 1. Global Warming Potential is the total effect a single amount of gas has on Global Warming. The list is has follows: (1)

Carbon Dioxide -- 1
Methane -- 21
Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310
CFC's -- Various
Water Vapor -- 0.25

With this in mind, we move on.

1) http://cdiac.ornl.gov...

Argument I: The Effects of Man-Made Carbon Dioxide.

Human's release approximately 35 gigatons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere each year (2). Only 4.3% of the 812 gigatons released total every year. Even at only 4.3% of total CO2 emmissions, our effect over it, is mild at most. Carbon Dioxide is very weak, as opposed to common census, having only a Global Warming Potential of 1.

In total, Carbon Dioxide makes up a grand total of 3.618% of the total Gas House Effect (3). Water vapor makes up 95% of the total Greenhouse Effect. Carbon Dioxide's number increased from 295 ppm to 400 ppm, an increase of 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is worth 2.13 ppm (4), so an increase of 105 ppm would equal 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is worth 0.004% of total Greenhouse Effect, 49.29 gigatons is worth an additional 0.21% to the Greenhouse Effect, a total temperature increase of 0.15°F. That means we are responsible for 10% of total increased warming.

Assuming human's did in fact raise the amount of CO2 by 105 ppm, the effect on the climate would be measly. Temperatures would raise only 0.28% since then. People gravely exaggerate to effect of CO2 on the climate. It is the second weakest Greenhouse Gas in the world behind Water Vapor.

GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECT
Water Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%
Methane ------------ 0.360 ------ 0.066%
Nitrous oxide ----- 0.950% ---- 0.047%
Misc ------------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%
Total ------------------ 100% ------- 0.278%

Assuming the increase in the other gases ppm were the same proportionately, we would be responsible for an increase of nearly 0.20°F. This leaves 1.33°F left that human's are not responsible for.

Many people would claim we've caused temperatures to raise enough to evaporate enough water to make up the difference. This would be entirely irrational. At an increase of 0.20°F, water wouldn't evaporate much more than it was prior. Thats less of a difference in tempature shift than what we'd see from one minute to the next. The argument assumes 0.20°F can heat up the ocean enough to make up such a wide difference. Such an increase from only 0.20°F would mean that the ocean would be boiling in the summer (temperatures of 90°F and up, an increase of 31.88°F from normal temperature). It's a weak and unsustainable excuse. Even at 1.53°F, it's not likely.

2) http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...
3) http://www.geocraft.com...
4) http://cdiac.ornl.gov...

Argument II: Argument From Nature:

Is it entirely possible for nature to be responsible? Of course. Nature has seen worse times then now. CO2 ppm is at 400 right now, but in the Mesozoic period, long before man, it reached 2000-4000 ppm.(5) 7000 ppm in the Cambrian Period. This implies that people aren't needed for absolutely unbelievable increases in ppm. It's entirely possible for nature to do this on it's own.

Another issue this brings up is that, at 7000 ppm, 6705 ppm larger than in 1900 (63.8% larger than the 105 ppm increase) the temperatures were 10ºc higher then than today. Proportionately, temperatures should have been 54.23ºc higher then than today. This empathizes high little of an impact CO2 has on the global temperature.

So what in nature right now could be causing such in increase in temperature? A basic cycle.

5) http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu...(GCA).pdf

Argument III: The Global Warming Cycle:

Global Warming activists love mentioning how temperatures are higher now than they were in Human History, forgetting how Human History is only 10,000 years old at most.



In the chart above, we see that past warming periods. Take into account that the temperature of today is now above anything on that list, and then look at the past 400,000 years.



According to the data, the World has been heating and cooling rapidly for 100's of thousands of years, back past a few million, even. It has been the world's cycle. CO2 ppm has been following along. Right now it's where it should be increasing. CO2 has been raising in recent history (15,000 years) and it's merely continuing to, with or without humans.

Temperatures, as well, have been randomly going up and down in the past 15,000 years. Long before industrialization. Of course temperatures are up... We're in the warming cycle. We are actually in the coldest warming cycle in the past 400,000 years, the fact that it isn't warmer is amazing. To assume human's are responsible is more Post Hoc then anything else. Temperatures SHOULD be increasing right now. It's only natural.

CO2 is so unimportant, that despite a rapid increase around the 9,000 year period, temperatures have decreased more than increased, and quite on it's own accord.

Conclusion:

Human's are responsible for very little of the Green House Effect. Our biggest contribution is CO2, which (and my opponent will probably stick to CO2 as his weapon) is very uninfluencial in the overall scheme of things. The increase in CO2 has been going on steadily since over 9,000 years ago. It's nothing new.

There is nothing unique about this warming period other than how cold it is. Human's contribution to Global Warming is minuscule, and isn't a threat to human life. Global Warming might be a risk, at most, in time, while not likely... But Man-Made Global Warming is not.
Debate Round No. 2
tylergraham95

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Rebuttals

The Greenhouse potential of CO2

This is actually an excellent point made by my opponent. There are two problems with it, though.

A) Man realeases many other, potent, greenhouse gases.
B) Man contributes to global warming in more ways than just producing greenhouse gases.



(A) The greenhouse gamut of gases

Man produces more than just CO2 grenhouse gases. Man is also directly responsible for CH4 (methane) emissions, N20 (Nitrous Oxide) emissions, and Chlorofluorocarbons ("F" Gases).

Here is a chart depicting the full impact of these gases.


Carbon dioxide (CO2). Accounts for around three-quarters of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. The key source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, though deforestation is also a very significant contributor.

Methane (CH4). Accounts for around 14% of the impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources include agriculture (especially livestock and rice fields), fossil fuel extraction and the decay of organic waste in landfill sites. Methane doesn't persist in the atmosphere as long as CO2, though its warming effect is much more potent for each gram of gas released.

Nitrous oxide (N2O). Accounts for around 8% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources include agriculture (especially nitrogen-fertilised soils and livestock waste) and industrial processes. Nitrous oxide is even more potent per gram than methane.

Fluorinated gases ("F gases"). Account for around 1% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources are industrial processes. F-gases are even more potent per gram than nitrous oxide. (1)


The emissions for CO2 from man alone may not account for the upward trend, but it is certainly not natural cycles. National Geographic writes, "Scientists have spent decades figuring out what is causing global warming. They've looked at the natural cycles and events that are known to influence climate. But the amount and pattern of warming that's been measured can't be explained by these factors alone. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans." (2)

Man produces quite a bit of methane gases as well. Every methane molecule has 20 times the greenhouse potential of CO2 (2). Man actually produces 50-100 million tonnes of methane per year. This is due to the massive increase of two forms of agriculture: Beef and rice. The digestive systems of cows happen to produce a sizeable amount of methane, and rice paddies produce quite a bit as well. (3)

To give these combined gases some perspective, imagine that all human gases were measured relative to CO2. Since 1990 alone, we, humanity, have increased our GHG emissions by the equivalent of 6 Gigatons of CO2, a 20% increase. (2)


(B) Man contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly, and indirectly.

The direct method in which man contributes to the greenhouse effect is through direct emissions of greenhouse gases. The indirect method, though, is limiting the earths ability to curb GHGs presence in our atmosphere. The two most notable effects are deforestation and oceanic pollution.


I. Deforestation

The most effective way in which the earth curbs the amount of GHGs produced (specifically, CO2) is through the forests of the earth. The earths forests converts CO2 into O2 and glucose, thus reducing the amount of GHGs present in the atmosphere. Deforestation practices, however, have significantly reduced the earths ability to reduce the presence of CO2.

"By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation." (4)

This results in a much higher quantity of CO2 present in the atmosphere that is a result of mans interference with the environment.


II. Pollution of the Ocean

The ocean is also a fairly major player in the environment, and GHGs. The ocean naturalyl absorbs GHGs and reduces their concentration. Warming the environment, though, significantly reduces the oceans ability to combat the increase of GHGs.
"There’s an important relationship between the atmosphere and our oceans, which is out of balance due to climate change pollution. As oceans warm, they lose their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, causing them to become 'acidified.'" (5).


Summary
Even if CO2 initially has very little effect on the enironvment, we can see that the initial effects can quickly spiral out of control and "snowball" into a much more severe effect. Man produces many more GHGs than through simple CO2 emissions. The way in which we cause the greenhouse effect is complex, but almost assuradly the most major cause of modern global warming, as is the scientific census (see Point B, Sub-point 1).



Nature and Global Warming/The global warming cycle.


Up until about 1950 (where many of my opponents graphs end) the warming period was totally accounted for by natual causes. It wasn't until after then that we began to realize that natual cycles cannot account for modern global warming.

Here is a chart illustrating CO2 emissions in PPMs from NASA.




As you can see, CO2 emissions are actually much much higher than they have ever been in natural history - 100 PPMs higher than ever.

Furthermore, my Point B Subpoint 1 argument shows that the environmental scientific community is in total agreement: Natural cycles simply do not account for modern global warming. The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced"


Summary


There are countless sources in my R1 argument, and in this argument, that show that the only explanation for the massive upward trend in global average temperatures is that humanity is significantly exacerbating the natural cycle, causing a warming cycle more extreme than any warming cycles in history.
I reiterate, Natual Cycles cannot account for modern global warming, and environmental scientists are all in agreement over this point.

Via GHG emissions-both directly and indirectly- of all kinds (more than just CO2), man has significantly contributed to the general upward trend of global average temperatures.


Sources
1. http://www.theguardian.com...
2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...;
3. http://www.ghgonline.org...
4. http://www.scientificamerican.com...;
5. http://www.takepart.com...;
donald.keller

Con

Outline:

Most of Pro's case is focused on CO2. I will prove that CO2 as no threatening potential, even when combined with our other emissions. In order to win, Pro must prove that CO2 is a major threat, as that is the core of his argument.

Rebuttal I: CO2 Global Warming Potential

Pro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things.

"Assuming the increase in the other gases ppm were the same proportionately, we would be responsible for an increase of nearly 0.20°F. This leaves 1.33°F left that human's are not responsible for."

Men's emissions simply don't account for the number needed to assume the whole of Global Warming is man-made. Methane and Nitrous, as a whole, doesn't match up to CO2 emissions alone. Making up a combined 1.31% of all Global Warming, humans making up 0.113% total (1). As for F gases, they are so few that they, with all their potential, only make up less than 0.072% of all Global Warming Potential. They are all combined to form the Misc section. We see the total GWP of Misc, Methane, Nitrious, and CO2 in a visual display.



Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World. I've already discussed this, and will display the chart again.

GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECT
Water Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%
Methane ----------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%
Nitrous oxide ------ 0.950% ---- 0.047%
Misc ----------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%
Total ----------------- 100% ------- 0.278%

1) http://www.geocraft.com...

Rebuttal II: Deforestation and Indirect Emissions.

I understand this argument well. I've debated it before. CO2 emissions from Deforestation is calculated into the amount listed above. Making up a pretty percent of our total emissions. Deforestation, however, isn't an issue. US forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago.(2) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting. The world replants almost every tree removed, with the UN (apart from the US) replanting 1.7 billion trees (3) and the US replanting 1.5 billion trees a year (4), the world isn't far behind it's deforestation rate.

At a total replanting rate of 3.2 billion trees a year + plus ever tree planted by lumber companies. Many lumber company replants trees they cut down to ensure they always have a supply. Forests are not disappearing at close to the rate most people assume they are. It would take over 150 years for the forests in the world to be cut in half, based off US/UN replanting alone. With Lumber Companies replacement programs and all other private replantings, as well has natural Forest Growth, we may never see it at the current rate of deforestation.

As for CO2 emitted by Deforestation, it's outwieghed by the amount of CO2 consumed over the lifespan of all the trees we replant. Cutting down a tree and turning it into lumber releases 1,200 lb of CO2. Ever tree we replant consumes 12,000 lb throughout it's life. This adds up, as in one year we will release 2.3 Gigatonnes cutting down trees, but the trees replanted that same year will consume 19 Gigatonnes in their lifes. A mighty profit. After the 88 years it would take to cut down every tree that is alive at this moment, we will have emitted 237.6 Gigatonnes, but the trees we replanted would have consumed a grand 661.17 Gigatonnes by then, after calculating the total consumption of CO2 every year. The first year's trees would consume 6.7 Gigatonnes by then, the next years would consume 6.67 Gigatonnes, and so on.



As for ocean pollution, this is true that Ocean Pollution is a bad situation, but Pro hasn't proven that it's enough of a threat to make the Resolution true. CO2 and all it's emittions simply aren't strong enough to support Pro's case and prove the Resolution.

CO2, at it's GWP, has far to go before it's a major issue. Until then, Human's aren't leaving around nearly a large enough amount to hurt the environment. Total World Emissions, including humans, only accounts for slightly above 3% of the total Green House Effect. It and every other gas Pro mentioned makes up in total 5%. If you only look at the Man-Made gases, it's only 0.555% of total effect. We know CO2 isn't that bad in the scheme of things because of how CO2 levels were around 7000 PPM in the Cambrian Period, and yet the temperature was only 10ºc higher, showing the CO2 doesn't have nearly the effect Global Warming Alarmists are predicting. Pro's own rebuttal only makes this more clear, as we will see.

2) http://forestry.about.com...
3) http://www.un.org...
4) http://forestry.about.com...

Rebuttal III: Global Warming Cycle.

Yes, CO2 is 400 PPM now, which is pretty high compared to recent cycles, temperatures are still lower than any other warming period. This is prove supporting my case. This Global Warming Period has the highest CO2 PPM (and I never said we weren't responsible for the increase in CO2, as we are, just that CO2 isn't a huge threat) and yet it is the coldest warming period to date. This is clear evidence that CO2 isn't a threat.

I already knew the charts were 50 years out of date, I was hoping Pro would notice, as the charts only proof that while CO2 rises during the warming periods, it doesn't cause the warming, otherwise we would be in the hottest warming period in the last 400,000 years. Looking at the charts again, we see that, at 400 ppm, CO2 is high, but we know Global Temperatures is 1.53°F higher than 1900 at this very moment, which makes it the coldest period.



Looking at the charts, we see that the coldest warming period is about 2.2°c warming than the 1950 record, while today isn't even a forth that.



"As you can see, CO2 emissions are actually much much higher than they have ever been in natural history - 100 PPMs higher than ever." -Pro

This is ignorant of my arguments about how high CO2 was in the Mesozoic and Cambrian Eras. Despite the high amount of CO2, which only looks high compared to recent history, both the Cambrian and current temperatures are well under what people claim they should be. We are colder now than any other warming period in recent history, despite high CO2, because CO2 isn't that big of an issue.

As for Pro's R2 points, they are mostly an Argument From Authority, from a group of people who are paid to question how humans effect Global Warming, not how Nature might also effect it.


Conclusion:

CO2 and all the Gases humans release do not have the power needed to prove Man-Made Global Warming is a threat. As far as numbers and data go, The mass of Global Warming we see is natural, and would happen with or without human involvememt. As said in my R2 case, CO2 has been rising since 9000 years ago, and despite high amounts of it, we still have the coldest Warming Peroid in the last 400,000 years.
Debate Round No. 3
tylergraham95

Pro

Points Ceded by Con
-GHGs are at an all time high
-Humans do emit large quantities of GHGs (which he claims is too small in proportion to general emissions)
-The ocean is losing its ability to absorb GHGs


Defences

I. CO2 and GHGs

"Pro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things."

"Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%."

These arguments may seem compelling at a first glance, but that is only if one doesn't take into account climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is how sensitive the global climate is to energy change in the lower atmosphere. Cons argument rests on the concept that climate sensitivity is low. This is not true. Climate sensitivity is high

Essentially, climate sensitivity is how much our climate warms if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere.



(A) Climate Sensitivity

Climate sensitivity is high. If man continue to put out CO2 emissions the way we do now, the global warming trend will accelerate. The nature of global warming is such that the more heat that is trapped on earth, the worse the effects of global warming become. This is primarily because as the ocean becomes warmer and warmer, it lessens it's ability to absorb natural gas.

Doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures by a minimum of 2 degrees Celsius. A conservative estimate places this number closer to 4.5 degrees Celsius. (1)

With the extent of man-made CO2 and its impact clearly made explicit we move on to directly address Cons case regarding the % of emissions of man-made CO2 in comparison t natural emissions.




(B) The significance of man-made CO2 emissions

My opponent argues "Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World."

Again, this may seem compelling, but when we investigate what the effect of man-made CO2 actually is, we see his point is not so compelling.

Let's talk equilibrium. Equilibrium is the state where opposing forces are balanced. Nature naturally seeks this equilibrium. The massive numbers Con shows that come through natural emissions do not stay in the atmosphere (historically). Before man began to emit large amounts of CO2, nearly all natural CO2 emissions were absorbed by the ocean or the trees. The emissions were at equilibrium with the absorption.

Man made GHGs have thrown this equilibrium totally out of whack. The emissions that are naturally produced do not stay in the atmosphere, and therefore do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Man-made emissions do indeed remain in the atmosphere. (2) Consider the following graph



Man made GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere and quickly accelerate the effects of the Greenhouse Effect, and thus contribute significantly to global warming.
"About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)." (2)

"While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2." (2)

"Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions." (2)

This irrefutable points out that although Con is correct in saying that the natural carbon cycle emits more CO2, the Man-made emissions have a much more potent effect on the atmosphere.

Subpoint A points out the sever nature of the effects, as a rise of 2 degrees Celsius could have very severe consequences (1)


Summary
Man emits a lot of GHGs. Nature emits way more, but the GHGs do not stay in the atmosphere. Mans GHGs are a major cause of global warming, as man-made GHGs remain in the atmosphere, unlike natural GHGs. The earth warms significantly. This warming further reduces the oceans ability to absorb GHGs, further increasing the damage done by Man.




II. Indirect emissions


(A) The effectiveness of replanting

Con is correct in saying that more trees are planted than cut down, but this does not mean that GHGs are more effectively curbed. The fact is, older trees actually absorb more GHGs than younger trees.

"Trees' growth accelerates with age, according to a new study in the journal Nature, which suggests that the world's oldest trees could play an important role in combating climate change.

The revelation goes against the long-held assumption that trees lose their vigor with age. An analysis of more than 600,000 trees belonging to 403 species found that trees grow more as they get older, which enables them to trap more carbon than their younger counterparts." (3)


(B) The ocean, and heating

The ocean absorbs around 40% of all carbon emissions, natural or man-made. (4)

Warming the ocean significantly reduces its ability to absorb GHGs. As I have proved, Man-Made GHGs warm the earth significantly more so than natural GHGs. Natural GHGs that remain in the atmosphere due to the warming of the ocean via man-made GHGs are just indirect emissions from man.

"The world’s oceans will absorb lower amounts of carbon dioxide as they warm" (4)

Therefore, you can see that humanity raises the global average by only a few degrees Celsius, and the effects of that damage "snowballs" out of control, and results in disastrous levels of damage.


Summary

I, the pro, have proved irrefutably that man-made GHGs are responsible for the warming cycles that expert environmental scientists claim to be "impossible to be natural." I have proved as well that man-made GHGs stay in the atmosphere longer, and therefore contribute much more to the greenhouse effect. This warming snow-balls and causes even more natural CO2 to be trapped in the atmosphere. These massive amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere heat the earth through the greenhouse effect. These GHGs are in the atmosphere because of man.

Therefore, VOTE PRO!




Sources
1. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
2. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
3. http://www.natureworldnews.com...
4. http://www.rtcc.org...
donald.keller

Con

Outline:
With most of Pro's argument based off the effect of CO2, I simply have to show that CO2 has a minor effect on Global Warming. I already have the historical data to prove it.

Rebuttal I: Importance of CO2


Pro brings up Climate Sensitivity. It's a common and exaggerated argument. The GWP measures how sensitive the Climate is to that element. 1 Gigaton of vapor has far less than the effect on the climate of half a Gigaton of CO2. Climate Sensitivity has already been addressed as soon as GWP was brought into the discussion. That being said, with a GWP of 1, not much is happening to the climate...

My argument about the Cambrian Era emphasizes this. At 7000 ppm, The climate was only 10ºc. If the climate was as sensitive to CO2 as Pro claims, the Cambrian Era would have been 50ºc higher or more, and literally unsurvivable for the Dinosaurs living during it. If climate was as fragile as Pro claims, we would be in, by far, the hottest warming period in the last 400,000 year, not the coldest. Those two things are issues Pro's argument simply disreguards.

A) Climate Sensitive

Climate Sensitivity is hardly as intense as Pro claims. If you view my charts in R3, you will again see that CO2 is 25% higher than any other period, but the temperature hasn't followed. Why? Because CO2 doesn't have a large effect on temperature. I've already done the math in R2 showing that the increase in CO2 only accounts for 0.15°F of the total increase in temperature, which says a lot, since the total increase in temperature still leaves us freezing in comparison to other warming periods.

The claim about the potention effect CO2 has and what the actual data say just aren't agreeing. Climate Sensitivity would have took effect in the Cambrian era as well, and let the tempature was well under what Pro needs to back his case.

B) Man-Made CO2

Much of Pro's argument is based on how much CO2 human's release... Which I've already brought up. We do tip the pot, I've said this... And we did increase the amount of CO2 in the air, I've said this... And yet the data STILL says it's doing little to nothing. Why? Because, again, CO2 is weak. The amount we release simply isn't doing anything. Again looking at my math in R2, the total increase in CO2 has had an affect of 0.15°F.

Pro is arguing in circles. "CO2 is increasing" "The increase is doing nothing" "But the CO2 is increasing." Pro is simply arguing in circles, repeating his last round. We already brought up the increase in CO2, I already explained the insignificance of the increase... I even brought up how much we added... In fact, my numbers were higher than Pro's (35 Gigatons to Pro's 29 Gigatons). The increase in CO2 has been recorded, and the increase in temperature has been recording, and the correlation is small and unsupportive of Pro's case.

Pro is chasing his tail, and begging the question. Claiming the increase in CO2 is bad because we are increasing CO2, ignoring every argument made showing how little of an affect that increase actually has. Pro is showing how much it's increasing, but as let to show the affect of that increase. I have shown the affect of that increase, and it is minor.

Rebuttal II: Indirect Emissions

It should be mentioned that Indirect Emissions aren't ignored when measuring PPM. The 400 ppm still includes those. That being said, Indirect Emissions have already been calculated, and do not hold some potential that was overlooked in the chart's I've shown. The increase in CO2 from Indirect Emissions isn't hidden. We see it just like we see any other. They were already accounted for.

A) Tree Replanting.

My math, in regards to CO2 consumption, is based on an average rate. Not the rate at which new trees consume CO2. Even if the amount consumed was much smaller, it doesn't say much against how wide the gap was. 661.17 Gigatons consumed compared to 237.6 Gigatons made. The total consumption rate by the end of 88 years would have to be cut down by 63%. Odds are, the decrease in CO2 consumption will likely never be that extreme. The gap in Consumption and Emissions is simply too large. If cut in half, the Consumption would be widely above Emission.

B) Ocean and Heating

This argument is flawed in that it ignores just how small the temperature increase from man-made emissions is. As explained, human emissions (all emission, Methane, Nitrous, and F Gases included) is responsible for an increase of 0.20°F, the rest being natural. Pro gravely exaggerates the affect of CO2 on the ocean's ability to absorb CO2. If it was as sensitive as he claims, once the extremely hot Summer season hits the ocean, it would never end. Also the increase needed, being several degrees Celsius, as Pro mentions, is far from the current increase. Assume it takes 4°c... It would take 666 years to reach that, as it took 134 years to see temperature increase by 0.85°c.

This is a causational paradox. Claiming that Global Warming is causing X to create Global Warming. What's causing the temperature to rise? The Ocean's efficency going down. What's causing it to go down? The rising temperature that it was causing. Claiming that X, caused by Y, is causing Y to cause X in the first place. As well, all pro is doing is listing off new ways CO2 is building up. My data includes TOTAL ppm, including direct and indirect. That 400 ppm we are taking about doesn't somehow exclude CO2 from the ocean. For EVERY way pro claims CO2 is raising, it still doesn't prove CO2 is influential enough to be a threat, while my data shows it isn't.

Final Defense:

CO2 just doesn't have the needed impact to claim human's are responsible for most of Global Warming. The Cambrian Era and the past 400,000 years went unchallenged. Every variable Pro brought up would have effected temperatures in the past as well, and yet the temperature in the Cambrian era was well under what it'd have to be for Pro's claim to be true.


As the data shows, the Cambrian Era (550 mya to 480 mya) was nearly 8°c above today, despite having 17x the CO2. This chart, like all my other charts, takes into account the whole temperature as it is/was. Every variable and hidden factor that Pro brings in is accounted for. If it's not, that's because the variable literally didn't effect the temperature. The temperature doesn't exclude increases from the decrease in CO2 consumption in the Ocean, if that increases temperature, we'll see it on the chart. With every variable took into effect, temperature to CO2 ratio just doesn't add up to Pro's claim. If CO2 was as capable of the kind of Global Warming Pro claims, directly and indirectly, temperatures in the Cambrian era, and today, would be much higher.


Pro acts as though every variable he brought up doesn't show up on my charts, as though they only now exist. They have been involved the whole time. The temperature has increased 1.5°F, that increase is already caused by every variable Pro mentioned, and yet it's still leaves us with the coldest warming period in the last 400,000 years, and my math (using the GWP of thg gases) only makes up a small portion of that increase. To small of an increase to snowball out control. If an increase of 0.20°F is enough to cause what Pro claims, Summer would be devastating.

All of Pro's arguments simply ignores the data.

As seen in my charts, CO2 rises with temperature, but isn't causing (most) of the temperature increase. The argument is Post Hoc. CO2 may rise with tempature, but it doesn't cause the temperature. If it did, the Cambrian era would e 4-5x hotter, and we'd be at least 6x hotter. History simply shows that CO2 isn't strong enough to have a major impact on tempature.

1) http://www.geocraft.com...

Conclusion: Men-made Global Warming doesn't make up a large part of the Global Warming cycle, and isn't a threat.

CO2's effect is small, as has been seen long ago and today. In order for Pro's arguments to be accurate and right, temperatures today must be well above all the temperatures of the last 400,000 years. The fact that temperatures have barely risen with CO2 shows the minimal impact CO2 has on it.

Pro's arguments are begging the question. He claims CO2 level raising are an issue because we are increasing CO2, ignoring that data, and GWP of CO2, deems the increase near harmless.

CO2 simply does not bare to Global Warming Impact needed to prove Pro's case. Human's are not responsible for most the temperature increase, and our influence simply isn't a threat to humanity.
Debate Round No. 4
tylergraham95

Pro

Conclusion



Final Defences

(A) Climate sensitivity

My opponent attempts to prove that the climate sensitivity is exaggerated, but gives no sources to suggest that climate sensitivity is really exaggerated the way he explains. The source I cited is written by an environmental scientist, who has posted the calculations on how he calculated climate sensitivity. He dismisses them by pointing to the cambrian era, but this is not an acceptable rebuttal. Climate sensitivity is not static. The cambrian era likely had a lower level of climate sensitivity.


(B) Man Made CO2

I've stated that CO2 "tips the pot" and proved it. Con cedes this. Con says that I agree that CO2 does nothing. This is not true. In my previous arguments, I've stated that although CO2 does have a low GWP, doesn't mean that it is non-existent. My point is not begging the question, as I have argued a point of instigation: when man emitted large volumes of CO2. The majority of CO2 and other misc. GHGS that remain in the atmosphere are man-made, as I proved in my R4 argument. The GWP of CO2 in particular may be low, but it still has GWP. Every fraction of a degree that the temp is raised by CO2 further accelerates the global warming effect by reducing the oceans ability to absorb CO2 (as I stated in my R4 argument).

My opponents points, when freshly cross examined with my previous points, can be seen as invalid.

Con cedes that Man-made CO2 emissions disrupt the CO2 cycle. This disproves his point regarding the cambrian era (as man was not present, the CO2 cycle would have been in balance). Con cedes that warming oceans have lessened ability to absorb CO2, but claims that this point is begging the question. Pro proves that that point is not begging the question, as the initial warming is instigated by the CO2 (and other GHGs) that man emits that disrupt the natural cycle.

The correlation isn't low, as con states. The earth is warming, directly after man disrupts the CO2 cycle. Con may dismiss scientific consensus as an appeal to authority, but it can be argued that if literally thousands of expert climatologists are in agreement that there is sufficient evidence to say that man-made global warming is significantly changing the environment, then they are probably correct.



C) Trees

Con cedes that Older trees more efficiently absorb CO2, than younger trees. Forward this point.



D) Warming Oceans

Con attempts to disprove this point simply by saying " once the extremely hot Summer season hits the ocean, it would never end." But this is simply forced misinterpretation of how the ocean is affected by the world temperature. One hot summer does not warm the ocean sufficiently to see a drastic change in its ability to absorb, as the entire planet is hot during one regions summer. Only global rising averages really shift the temperature of the ocean.

"Assume it takes 4°c... It would take 666 years to reach that, as it took 134 years to see temperature increase by 0.85°c."

This is an interesting point made by con, but totally fails to account for temperature acceleration. This point is only true if one assumes that the rate at which temperature changes is always constant. If one looked at the 134 year period he mentions, you would see that the rate of warming accelerated, and was fastest during the latter portion.



Final Statements

My opponents final argument has boiled down to essentially 2 points.

1) CO2 has a low GWP
2) The cambrian era had a ton of CO2, but wasn't as hot as it "should" have been.


Both points are easily rebutted by my previous arguments.

Point one is rebutted in that I have proved that although CO2 has a low GWP, doesn't mean that it is negligable. I have proved previously that any amount of warming caused by CO2 has the potential to accelerate out of control.

Point two is rebutted by my climate sensitivty argument, and my carbon cycle argument. It is rebutted by my climate sensitivity argument, in that the cambrian era likely had lower sensitivity. It is rebutted by my CO2 cycle argument, in that the cambrian era CO2 cycle was not disrupted by unnatural interference.

Note: These are cross-examinations, not new rebuttals.


These are the points ceded by Con.
-Man made GHGs disrupt the natural cycle of GHG emissions and absorbtion.
-Man made GHGs remain in the atmosphere, unlike natural GHGs, and can build up in the atmosphere, therefore significantly contributing to the greenhouse effect.
-Deforestation contributes significantly to the reduction of the natural absorbtion of GHGs.
-When the ocean warms, its ability to absorb CO2 is reduced.
-Therefore, warming from CO2 (among other GHGs) has the potential to accelerate the greenhouse effect.

Con has zero assertions standing in his argument. The Pro has a multitude of points that all indicate that man is significantly contributing to global warming. The evidence for Pro is overwhelming. The scientific backing is solid. That is the reason why environmental scientists have come to the census that they did.

Con has no argument.

VOTE PRO!
donald.keller

Con

Final Defense:

Defense 1: Global Warming Potential of CO2

The Global Warming Potential of CO2 is, simply said, weak. So weak that it does little to affect Global Temperatures even with massive sums of it in the air. Despite how focused we are on CO2, it simply isn't as big a deal to the environment, and history backs this up. At 400 PPM at the present, this should be the hottest Global Warming cycle of all time, but it is the coldest. The two don't correlate well enough. CO2 rises with temperature, but temperature doesn't really rise well with it.

Temperatures are actually low. Through out history, CO2 will correlate when temperatures rose, but temperatures didn't follow well when CO2 rose, often well under the CO2 count of that era. This is for the same reason that today is colder than any other Global Warming Cycle. The effect CO2 has on Global Warming is minimal at most, and not qualified as a *threat to humanity*. With a GWP of only 1, history emphasizes the weakness of the gas, while people exaggerate the strength of it. At only 3.6% of the total GWP effect, and humans at only 0.117% of that, human emissions are not a threat to the planet.

Defense II: Other Gases and Earth's Sensitivity.

All other human emissions are greatly small in comparison to CO2, even with higher Global Warming Potentials. F-gases and other poisonous substances we throw into the air have massive GWPs, but are so small in number, that all put together still only effects 0.072% of the total Greenhouse Effect, and human's are responsible for only 0.047% of that. The gases, all together, contribute only 2% of what CO2 does, and since the evidence and history shows CO2 does little, we can only assume our other gases do much less.

Earth's Sensitivity is high, but it is gravely exaggerated upon. History shows that, specifically the Cambrian Era. If Earth's Sensitivity was as high as people claim, and 400 PPM CO2 or anything close to it could cause a major snowballing effect, we would have seen it there. At 7000 ppm, the Cambrian Era should have snowballed into temperatures we can't measure on conventional thermostats. And the sea level would have been well below ours, not 30-90 meters above. The Snowballing effect simply isn't there, not for CO2 at least.

A) Deforestation

Deforestation does release a lot of CO2, but this CO2 isn't hidden from view, it is accounted for in every measurement I made. Having done the math, Total CO2 consumption from trees we replant over the next 88 years is well above 3x the amount we produce through deforestation based on an average annual consumption per tree... Even if CO2 Consumption was half as effective the whole of the next 88 years, we would still see it 100 gigatons above emissions (a decrease of 213 ppm worth, or 850 ppm at the original measurements).

Defense III: Global Warming Cycle

The past millions of years have seen a continuous cycle of Global Warming. Each one hotter than today's, despite lower CO2 emissions. Assuming Humans are responsible for Global Warming is more Post Hoc, since our emissions are minimal in effect. This Global Warming Cycle has been going on long before human's began throwing out emissions, and CO2 has been rising since 9,000 years ago. That being said, it's more likely that natural CO2 emissions having been growing as well, otherwise CO2 ppm should have been going down until the Industrial Age.

Assuming CO2 causes most Global Warming is ignorant of the history of Global Warming, where high amounts of CO2 never correlated well with equally high temperature, as is the same today. At least, not in a way that supports the notion that CO2 plays a major part in increasing temperatures. The Global Warming Cycle in the past 400,000 years has never seen CO2 PPM this high before, being 25% higher than any other example. Temperature is, however, the coldest. This is because CO2 has never been a major part of Global Warming. Correlating with it, but not causing it. The Global Warming Cycle of the past 400,000 years prove this, as well as Global Warming in the deep past. In the Cambrian Era and Mesozoic Era, CO2 was wildly above ours, but temperature was't proportionately as high.

The Current Global Warming cycle is entirely natural. Looking back at the charts, we should be in a warming cycle. Saying Global Warming is mostly man-made is ignorant of the fact that this cycle looks just like every cycle.

Final Conclusion: Human emissions contribute little to Global Warming, which is evident in how cold our current cycle is. CO2 has never increased temperatures to any proportionate amount, and the Earth Snowball-Sensitive effect just isn't present in any historical data.

Pro has dropped the case of CO2 consumption from tree replanting.

I have proven how:
  • CO2 has a minimal effect, even when compiled.
  • Deforestation isn't nearly the issue it's exageratted to be.
  • The Earths Sensitivity isn't nearly intense enough to cause a massive Snow-balling effect.
  • We are colder than any other Warming Period.
  • How natural Global Warming is.

I have proven that CO2. and man-made gases, simply contributes little to nothing, as history and even today's chart prove. Thank you for this debate, Pro.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nickisabi 11 months ago
Nickisabi
Uhm, the earth thousands of years ago when there was more carbon was an entirely different earth than the one we have now...
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
RFD 2/2
In conclusion though, I don't think Pro defended the resolution well enough. The whole part of significant man-made pollution was shaky, and thus the whole idea of it posing a *serious* threat to humanity lost its vigor.

Sources were tied: Both were very good on that. I should also note that some of Pro's links were broken when you clicked on them, since he had an extra space at the end. But I was able to copy and paste the links and get to them, so I won't take off points for that. For S/G, I caught a few typos and misspellings in Pro's arguments, while Con was, for the most part, easy to understand and had good spelling and grammar Also, the use of huge font from both sides was a bit distracting. So for S/G I'm giving it to Con.

Good job to both! :)
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
RFD 1/2
This was a good debate on both sides. I'm going to give my round-by-round RFD.

Round 1: Pro had a very good case. However, lots of his arguments seemed to be arguing from authority. That's not necessarily bad though. Con however, was very clear in his presentation and description of how CO2 affects the atmosphere. I'm going to have to give Round 1 to Con, since his arguments seemed to be more of arguments, rather than just quoting authorities.

Round 2: Pro presented that there are other things contributing to global warming, besides CO2. He also showed the graph to the present, while Con's graph stopped at 1950. However, Con successfully rebutted the Co2 response, with easy to read charts that demonstrated these pollutants were affecting the environment less than Co2. Con also rebutted Pro's tree arguments pretty well, showing that the tree population is growing. Con's rebuttals of the charts were also good, but he once again used charts that only went up to 1950. I'm going to have to say that in this particular area, it was tied. So for Round 2, I think Con won by a decent amount, though it wasn't a landslide by any stretch of the imagination.

Round 3: I liked Pro's arguments that even though more trees are being planted, they've not doing as much good. This was actually very cool to watch you guys going back and forth, because you both knew your stuff and had good arguments. In the end, I think this round was about tied, but it was hard to tell.

Round 4: Also, tied. Both did a good job presenting their arguments again, and I can't say it was a whole lot different than the other rounds.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
I also don't get how he said he had a clean slate before the debate, and yet he put:

"Agreed with before the debate: DK"

Seems like a nice contradiction to me,,,
Posted by tylergraham95 2 years ago
tylergraham95
@Leojm, I'm sorry but there's no way you came into this debate "unbiased." You even posted that you agreed with DK before the debate. You are a notorious right wing extremist on this site.

Furthermore, why did you vote con? The only reasoning you've provided is "Con convinced me."
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I will no longer comment on this thread. But you better believe I will defend my voting decision with AIRMAX! ABSOLUTELY!
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
"If you don't like the rules of *voting*, you're free to abandon all *voting* in the future."

Fixed it for you.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
"Well that's just plain rude."

If you don't like the rules of logic, you're free to abandon all debates in the future.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
To the both of you: next time you encounter constructive criticism: LEARN TO TAKE IT!
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
You're stupid if you think you can just dodge the rules.

Everybody agrees that you can't do that. Coincidence? Or evidence of a cosmic force at work?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
tylergraham95donald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
tylergraham95donald.kellerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made an enormous error in his argument (as does the source he cites when he uses it ). He asserts that because water vapor has a larger green house gas potential than carbon dioxide, that it is primarily responsible for global warming. This is wrong! More water vapor isn't being pumped into the atmosphere because of natural, non-human processes. ( Can you prove that this is going on, Con? ) Whatever increase there is in atmospheric water vapor is contributed because of an increase in global warming due to elevated levels of CO2 (the highest in several million years). Con and the source he cites in making this argument are committing a logical fallacy. "Because water vapor has a higher green house gas effect in equal concentrations to carbon dioxide, it must be more responsible for global warming." Again, this isn't logically coherent. This error demolishes many of his chief sub-arguments. Points to Pro for making more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by leojm 2 years ago
leojm
tylergraham95donald.kellerTied
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: Con Convinced me. Even though I was against this, I came into it clean slate like I didn't have an opinion, yet Con still managed to bring me to his side. This was a great debate, pro you did very well, but not enough to meet my standards. Though both did have good spellings and reliable sources. Once again thank you this was fun. :)
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
tylergraham95donald.kellerTied
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: This was intensely difficult to judge. I had to speed read this and the source vote could change, but this was about the resolution that is at hand. I never even thought it was possible to give con arguments on this but his argument with statistics was quite sound. He was able to show that the contributions of global warming was miniscule by humans. Pro was able to refute this with some arguments to show that humans contribute to global warming, but Con left a lasting impression in response to the resolution. I could have even interpreted this wrong in my head, but pros argument relied on the fact that humans caused global warming and cons argument refuted it and showed they hardly had any contribution at all. That stuck in my head. Arguments con for that reason
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
tylergraham95donald.kellerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: You both had strong arguments in the debate, but the result really has most to do with who framed what was a sufficient impact to humans to win this debate best. Con spends a lot of time trying to mitigate, but lets too many of Pro's arguments slide to make his arguments the most effective. Too often, I see repetition in Con's argumentation, and too much focus on numbers without looking at the broader picture. Pro's arguments come together as a little more "cause and effect" as well, understanding how each source can contribute, what that contribution means in terms of temperature change, and what the temperature change does to affect climate. I would find Con's argument more appealing if it hit at this solidly, and there are simply too few points of attack to sufficiently rebut.