The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
The Contender
Cameron16
Con (against)

ManBearPig is 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Cameron16 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 452 times Debate No: 100062
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming.

I will contend that ManBearPig exists.

My opponent will contend that ManBearPig does not exist.

Structure
R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.
R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.
R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's three argument.


Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally.

Previous debate. [0]

Definitions

ManBearPig = global warming and visa versa, these can be used interchangeably.

Global warming "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."
[1]



Sources.
0.http://www.debate.org...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Cameron16

Con

I accept this debate.
I've looked at your recent debates and I am impressed. You seem to really have an understanding of global warming. However, that will not stop me from trying to prove my point. Now then, onto my definition of global warming.

Global warming: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Round two arguments


Picture of consensus studies. [2]




Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [2]





Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [3]






Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [4]





Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [5]




Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [6]



Human fingerprint picture. [7]



As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver. A person may ask, but is there not natural sources of Co2? Yes, but natural sinks of Co2 outweigh natural sources. Meaning nature is a net sink of Co2. This can be seen by more Co2 going into the ocean than out and the resulting ocean acidification.



Sources
2. https://skepticalscience.com...
3. http://www.climatecentral.org...
4. https://www.epa.gov...
5. https://skepticalscience.com...
6. https://skepticalscience.com...
7. https://skepticalscience.com...
Cameron16

Con

The world is fine. There"s no "hole" in the ozone layer. It"s all a myth.
"Argument 1 " No Significant and Prolonged Temperature Changes Since 1997 " Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn"t real because since the 90s there hasn"t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature have been flat since then which clearly states that there isn"t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years."
"Argument 2 " Not Enough Historical Data Available " There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn"t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don"t have long-term historical climate data or the data they have isn"t clear."
"Argument 3 " Arctic Ice Increased by 50% Since 2012 " Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version."
"Argument 4 " Climate Models used are Proven to be Unreliable " The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long-term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift."
"Argument 5 " Early Predictions About the Effects of Warming Have Been Proven Wrong " Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example, Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012."
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals


Fact 0: The Ozone hole still exists. " Overall, the 2014 ozone hole is smaller than the large holes of the 1998–2006 period, and is comparable to 2010, 2012, and 2013." [8]

Graph of ozone hole. [9]



Myth: There is no ozone hole.

Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. There is little to no evidence to support that the ozone hole does not exist.


Fact 1: Global warming has continued to warm the planet since the 1970s. My graph in the previous round show the temperature increase. [6]

Myth: Global warming stopped in 1997-1998.

Fallacy: Cherry picking. By looking at high temperatures in 1998 you can come to the conclusion that global warming is not happening. Yet, the overall trend is warming, and several years have surpassed 1998 since.


Fact 2: There is enough historical data. In the past Co2 has been strongly correlated with temperature.

Myth: There is not enough historical data.

Fallacy: Impossible expectations, there is ample evidence, deniers are demanding even more evidence. Global warming is extremely likely to exist, caused by man, and the main driver is burning of fossil fuels that release Co2.


Fact 3: A scientific consensus exists.

Myth: 31,000 scientists petition disproves the consensus.

Fallacy: Fake experts, only a very small portion of the 31,000 are climate scientists. As seen in the previous round as expertise increases, so does agreement. [2]

Fact 4: Overall large bodies of ice are losing mass.

Myth: Sea ice in Antarctica is increasing therefore warming does not exist.

Fallacy: Cherry picking, although sea ice is increasing for certain bodies of ice, the overall trend is loss of ice. You can see this in the previous round. [6]


Fact 5: Even if all climate models were proven wrong, they would still be useful. Climate models are better at predicting long term trends than short term. Some of the climate models have made incredibly accurate predictions about long term trends. [10]

Myth: Climate models are unreliable and thus useless

Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. Despite, climate models being flawed, they are still useful.


Fact 6: Human finger prints rule out natural causes.

Myth 6: Climate change is part of a natural cycle.

Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions.

Fact 7: Some early predictions were proven correct and some incorrect.

Myth: Early predictions were wrong therefore global warming is disproved.

Fallacy: Cherry picking. The overall trend of warming and Co2 increase has been proven correct. By focusing only on the incorrect predictions, deniers can create the illusion of more errors than reality.

Thank you for the debate, and not just forfeiting like so many other debaters.


Sources.
8. https://science.nasa.gov...
9. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
10. https://skepticalscience.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Masterful 11 months ago
Masterful
Please tell me how you added images
Posted by EggsAndSam 11 months ago
EggsAndSam
I would advise Con to use reliable sources to back up their arguments for I have absolutely no idea where he/she got their "facts" from
Posted by Doom-Guy-666-1993 11 months ago
Doom-Guy-666-1993
EXCELSIOR!!!! xD
Posted by Stupidape 11 months ago
Stupidape
Sure, theunexaminedlife next debate I create. Let me finish this debate first though.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 11 months ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Can I argue that global warming doesn't exist by using philosophical argument and simulation theory to argue that the external world doesn't exist?
Posted by Stupidape 11 months ago
Stupidape
Thank you.
Posted by n7 11 months ago
n7
Good resolution.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.