The Instigator
Pro (for)
56 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 9 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,603 times Debate No: 76546
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)





I am and have been a rather staunch supporter of the position that global warming is primarily anthropogenic. The question of the existence of man-made global warming is particularly serious in today's time, and is a highly controversial topic that I have, unfortunately, only debated once. Since I'm relatively free, with no debates going on, I think I shall go on with this debate.

You must have completed 1 debate or more in order to accept. There is a minimum required Elo score of 1,500 to vote on this debate.

Full Topic

Mankind is probably the main cause of global warming in current times.


These are the resolutional definitions, all influenced from the Oxford Dictionary of English, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Wikipedia.

Mankind - the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.
Probably - is likely to take place or be true.
Main - chief in size, extent, or importance.
Cause - the producer of an effect; a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result.
Global Warming - the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.

Below are the abbreviations that will likely be used in this debate, and are relevant to this discussion.

AGW - anthropogenic global warming
CR - cosmic ray(s)
TSI - total solar irradiation
MWP - Medieval Warm Period
RWP - Roman Warm Period
SSN - sun-spot number
PDO - pacific decadal oscillation
LIA - little ice age


1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be within the debate or in an external link.
3. No new arguments in the final round (including new positive arguments, new rebuttals not presented before, and new defenses).
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.
5. No trolling.
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions.
8. No deconstructional semantics (e.g. "cause" means origin, so the beginning of Earth's warming millions of years ago, etc.)
9. The BOP is shared.
10. The first round is for acceptance only.
11. The second round is for arguments only, with no rebuttals; the third round is only for rebuttals, without defending one's own case; the final round is only for defense, with no rebuttals.
12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.


R1. Acceptance
R2. Pro's case, Con's case
R3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's case
R4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallize


...again to whomever accepts, and to voters and readers.


Okay pro ... Soon to be ameture ... So you believe humans caused global warming. I disagree entirely because you are wrong. There is no real evidence supoorting global warming existence and causes of that.

1. Define (Global) Warming:
You have provided any defintion of the word "Global" ... Or "warming"

On this basis i will prove why global warming is not even real... Because in some countries its colder this year than last year or previous years. Therefore, the entire globe is not warming. Certain parts are actually colder now than before. Based on this your entire argument is flawed.

2. The Idea of a God
God created us, created the sun, humans could not have anything to do with this because God is omnibenevolent and omniscient. The bible speaks of a divine plan and global warming is obviously a factor.

Isaiah 25:1
O LORD, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; For You have worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.

Exodus 26:30
Then you shall erect the tabernacle according to its plan which you have been shown in the mountain.

3.Global warming is not proven
Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science. -
Debate Round No. 1



OV1: I *did* define ‘global warming’ in R1, thus Con’s objection regarding there being no definition of global warming is invalid.

OV2: The first round was supposed to be *only* for acceptance--thus, I request Con to pass the final round to equalize the # of rounds.

OV3: I shall only present my own case in this round, and rebut Con’s case in the next.

C1) Climate sensitivity is likely high

CO2 climate sensitivity is the rise in equilibrium temperature with rise in CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere [1], especially calculated with a 2x rise in CO2 levels and its correlation with atmospheric temperature levels. Idso (1998) and Shaviv (2005) predict that non-amplified mean CO2 sensitivity is 1 degree celsius [2][3], thus there would be a 1 degree celsius rise in temperature with doubling CO2 concentration.

But the effects of CO2 on equilibrium atmospheric temperature is amplified by climate feedbacks. A feedback is something that causes a variation in sensitivity via. generally environmental means [4], and can be positive or negative in nature. A positive feedback is a feedback that causes a rise in overall climate sensitivity, while a negative feedback causes a drop in climate sensitivity [5].

Various studies report positive feedbacks as more likely. Soden and Held (2005) reported a 2 degree celsius climate sensitivity due to positive feedbacks [6]. The study reports very few negative feedbacks. “Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response.” [7] Colman (2003) reports a feedback of nearly 3 degrees celsius, and the paper is cited by Soden and Held. In the study, “[a] comparison is performed for water vapour, cloud, albedo and lapse rate feedbacks taken from published results of ‘offline’ feedback calculations for general circulation models (GCMs) with mixed layer oceans performing 2 x CO2 and solar perturbation experiments.” [8]

There is much evidence outside climate models as well. Wigley, et al. (2005) reports a possible sensitivity of greater than 4.5 degrees celsius due to extremely high positive feedback levels, and supports an average sensitivity of 3.5 degrees [9]. The study says, “After the maximum cooling for low-latitude eruptions the temperature relaxes back toward the initial state with an e-folding time of 29–43 months for sensitivities of 1–4 degrees C equilibrium warming for CO2 doubling.” [10]

Additionally, using volcanic activity, Forster and Gregory (2005) predict an amplified climate sensitivity of around 1 to 4.1 degrees C [11].

Even in a hypothetical scenario where negative feedbacks cancel out positive feedbacks to a climate sensitivity of 1 degree C, research by Ziskin and Shaviv (2011) has predicted that “the largest contribution to the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources.” [12] They find that of the ~0.7 degree C temperature rise in the 20th century (some estimates slightly higher), about 0.4 degrees of that are due to anthropogenic forgings, or about 57% of the warming.

A significant body of research notes that climate sensitivity is probably much higher, approximately 3 degrees C with a range of 2 to 4.5 degrees C. Their findings can be seen in the graph below [13].

Thus, I have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is high and the climate system is predominated by positive feedback mechanisms.

C2) Paleoclimate

In the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years), overall solar activity has risen 0.4%. “Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era.” [14] The study reports that carbon dioxide is the dominant force behind temperature rise and rise in solar activity in the Cenozoic. Royer, et al. (2004) notes that CO2 drives Phanerozoic temperature, and writes, “Atmospheric CO2 is an important greenhouse gas, and because of its short residence time (~4 yr) and numerous sources and sinks, it has the potential to regulate climate over a vast range of timescales, from years to millions of years.” [15]

The temperature changes of the Cenozoic correspond to CO2 changes. “[T]here is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.” [16]

Harries, et al. (2001) finds that CO2 traps solar radiation, thus increasing solar radiation’s interaction with the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures [17]. Satellites have reportedly found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect [because of CO2].” [18]

It is known that CO2 levels are increasing. “In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.” [19] The graph below illustrates increasing CO2 levels [20].

It is well known that carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activity. “Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.” [21] It is, according to most paleoclimatological studies, warmer now than the Roman warm period or the medieval warm period, primarily because of human-caused CO2 influence [22].

Thus, I affirm. Over to Con.







7. Ibid.



10. Ibid.








18. Ibid.







First of all why dont you learn to read... I said you DID provide a definition... What is wrong with you?

the oceans is so cold there people even die in Cape town. I have personally been to Cape Town. Many shark attacks occure in Cape Town. This is because of the anual shark migration towardwatrrs below 10" celciuse(sorry used a bullet i have no degrees sign on my keyboard). SO if Global warming was becuase of the humans why are sharks real?
Millions of deaths a week in Cape Town. Blerry Bushies!.

Is already stated in my opening argument... Remember Isaac? The devine plan is proof that the devil is real and is the real cuase of global warming. This means that god is making us die so we can repent for our sins. Judgment day is nearing and our Father will Save us. You on the other hand believe that we are the cause of our own sins where it is atually satans fault and he called all the heat and Bushies in Cape town.

3. Global warming isnt in the bible and we still havr winter and polar bears.
The bible doesnt speak of global warming, therefore it is a myth, if it isvproven by scientists then obviously scientists are illuminati. Also if there is global warming how can we have winter and snow, if ice caps are melting, how is we not melting and snow.

4. Global warming is irrelevent.
Even if global warming does exist... Which it doesnt in my opinion, lets say for your benefit that it does... Its still irrelvent because we all die in the end. Think about it, animals dont start complaining about themselves because they are doing things they dont like. So obviously even if global warming does exist and we are causing it why do you even care?

5.Global warming is not our fault
THE BIBLE IS PROOF! ... even if global warming is real which like i said in my opinion it isnt unless satan exists which he does so it is real now. The bible had a plan and you are ruining the plan the work of our Heavenly Father is being destroyed becuase your are mildly possessed be satan himself. It is satans fault and he is telling you to convince humans thag it is our fault ... Our Father be with you save you from this evil ... Lokk inside and pray. In the name of Jesus Chist, Our Lord And Saviour rid this man of the wicked Lucifer, Satan.

6.illuminati controls the world.
The illuminati is the henchmen of satan, they sold their souls to him and now they have money and power while on earth... So obviously satan is controlling the media through the illuminanti. The illuminati also controls the internet so the information you give is biased towards what the illuminati wants us to think. So now we know that the bible is the only way to understand that global warming is both real and unreal... It is only real in the media and when satan convinces us that it is real. But in reality its fake. So its cant be our fault, but technicallh itvis some peoples fault lkke you because you think the media is true and you allows satan to convince and alter your soul and the way you think. So for i'll say its real... But actually for us who have been recognised and visited be jesus christ, it is ckear to us that you livingvunder his possession
Debate Round No. 2



OV1: Instead of rebutting my case, Pro has merely expanded on their own case in R2, contrary to the debate structure. Thus, I shall consider my case conceded via. concession by omission, and shall rebut Pro’s arguments from both R1 and R2 since they’re both part of their case.

OV2: The R2 OV2 has been conceded by omission; thus, Pro must waive the final round to give us an equal # of rounds.

R1) The idea of God

Pro completely fails to establish a link with the idea of God. The idea of God is *irrelevant* to global warming, but Pro says global warming is a part of God’s ‘plan’, but the Bible doesn’t mention global warming.

Additionally, Pro has given us no reason to believe that God exists. I shall, instead, present arguments against the existence of God to refute this argument.

a) Argument from Atemporal Minds

P1: God is atemporal.

P2: God has a mind.

P3: Minds are processes and/or involve processes.

P4: All processes are temporal.

C1: An atemporal mind cannot exist.

C2: Therefore, God cannot exist.

P1 is true as God is transcendent, ergo external to the universe. Outside of the universe, and, thus, outside of the space-time continuum by definition, there is no time. Therefore, God has to be atemporal.

P2 is true by definition, as God is intelligent. Intelligence is incoherent without a mind, ergo God has a mind/is a disembodied mind.

P3 is accurate as we don’t have a quantitative understanding of ‘intelligence’, which here requires a highly specific definition of ‘intelligence’, which must be a subjective property unless it has a process. Subjective properties are incoherent if paired with transcendence, thus intelligence has to be objective for the existence of God as a mind, ergo it must involve a process. To argue a mind is not a process is to also concede that the entity is static, and essentially non-causal, thus the mind must involve a process by definition.

P4 follows as if time doesn’t exist, then there will obviously be no arrow of time. An arrow of time is necessary for temporal passage. For something to coherently ‘happen’, there has to be time, thus all processes require an arrow of time to be coherent.

b) Eternalism

Another reason why the universe must be uncaused is the truth of eternalism. For something to come into being, there must be a state in time where it first doesn’t exist [1]. Under eternalism change doesn’t ontologically happen and therefore neither does causation [2].

In support of this, J.M.E. McTaggart writes, “Changes must happen to the events of such a nature that the occurrence of these changes does not hinder the events from being events, and the same events, both before and after the change. Now what characteristics of an event are there which can change and yet leave the event the same event? (I use the word characteristic as a general term to include both the qualities which the event possesses, and the relations of which it is a term -- or rather the fact that the event is a term of these relations.) It seems to me that there is only one class of such characteristics -- namely, the determination of the event in question by the terms of the A series.” [3]

General relativity also yields eternalism, since it models time as a ‘fourth dimension’ of space itself, allowing for the block universe theory to be likely true. Causality cannot be stressed on unless one assumes the presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of scientific discoveries supporting eternalism, especially special and general relativity. “Many [scientists and philosophers] have argued against presentism on the grounds that presentism is incompatible with the theory of relativity.” [4]

In special relativity, each observer has their own ‘plane of simultaneity’, a small section of three-dimensional space where all events are simultaneous [5]. “Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another’s. ... So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in ‘the present’.” [6] This entails eternalism.

Experiments from quantum mechanics have also vindicated eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time [7]. An experimenter can choose to entangle photons even when they don’t exist in the present anymore. Other experiments show time is an emergent phenomenon. An outside observer would view the universe as static [8].

There is reason to believe eternalism is true via. God’s nature. God is omniscient, he knows everything possible about the past, present and future. As philosopher David Kyle Johnson argues, for God’s knowledge to be true, there must be the event which makes it true [9]. God’s knowledge about something like, say, a cup on the table is made true by an existing cup on the table. If God’s knowledge had no truthmakers, then his knowledge would be false. What then, makes God’s knowledge about future or past events true?

It would have to be the future or past event. However, since the future is causing God’s knowledge it must exist. If the future is non-existent, there are no properties about the future. Making it impossible for God to know anything about it. This entails the future must exist, as well as the past. Eternalism is therefore implied via. God’s omniscience. As we have shown above, eternalism and a caused universe cannot coexist. Thus, omniscience is incompatible with God’s own properties.

Thus, God probably doesn’t exist, and this argument is refuted.

R2) Global warming is not proven

Now, instead of questioning whether mankind causes global warming, Pro challenges whether global warming exists. There has been a rise in temperatures since the 19th century. The below graph shows the rise in average temperatures of the global land-sea mean [10].

Global average surface temperature.

According to the below graph, there has been a 0.8 degree C increase in overall global land-sea mean temperature [11].

I agree that consensus is not everything, but I have presented reliable evidence from positive feedbacks, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, CO2 climate sensitivity, and temperature rise, that global warming is primarily man-made.

R3) Temperature is cold in some places

With this rebuttal, I will address both the Cape Town argument and the argument from winter. The temperature being cool is irrelevant, since global warming only predicts a rise in temperature--the temperature in Cape Town would have been cooler than it is now prior to the 1970s, for instance. This is a graph documenting temperatures in Cape Town and Calvinia, from 1857 to 1999.

As seen in the graph, the average temperature in Cape Town has risen from 16.5 degrees to 17.25 degrees, a rise by 0.75 degrees.

R4) Scientists are all part of the Illuminati

The Bavarian Illuminati was an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776, and declined finally in 1787 [12]. Thus, the Illuminati doesn’t exist today anymore.

The resolution is resoundingly affirmed.














StonedDragon69 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend all arguments. Vote Con!


StonedDragon69 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Wow... you can actually lose votes because you wrote "Vote Con" instead of Pro... that's surprising...
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
*Correction in Round 5: Vote PRO!
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
That was an *accident*!!!! D: D:
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
>Reported vote: ImmortalVoddoler// Mod action: NOT Removed<

Voted for Con (Select Winner). Reasons for voting decision: pro told me to

Reason for report: Voted for Con when Con FF'd, and I (Pro) said nothing of the sort.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Pro did indeed tell the voters to vote Con in Round 4.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
You're welcome. Want me to forward the challenge to you?
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
I could totally noob snipe this.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
You can use semantical too. It is a more nonstandard way of saying it. Plus, saying "I thought of a semantic argument" sounds ugly.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
@16k: *sobs* The adjective of 'semantics' is 'semantic'...
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Thanks captain obvious...(eye opener)
Posted by Eye0pener 2 years ago
Wrong the sun is responsible for 25% and growing. However we play a roll.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. I can analyse your arguments if you want me to, pro, and provide an RFD based on argumentation
Vote Placed by Varrack 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Ff :p
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. If needed I can give a full RFD if need-be.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Rules 1 and 12, as set out in Round 1, were subsequently broken by Con by his multiple forfeits. Hence Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last two rounds, which is against Rule 1 and merits an automatic loss according to the debates rules. Same for exploiting R1, in violation of the debate structure. He tried a semantic argument by saying that not all places are warming, but Pro had already defined GW as a rise in AVERAGE temperature, rendering it invalid. His God and unproven arguments were refuted by Pro using atemporal minds, eternalism and data, and he made no attempt to defend them. Pro cited an impressive array of peer-reviewed studies that show CO2 climate sensitivity is high, and that the earth is warm compared to past climates, and that this corresponds directly to the increased CO2 levels. Con's claim of irrelevance is false as the resolution itself is about global warming, and the sharks argument pertains only to local temperatures; the figure is also astonishingly huge and would need a source, which he didn't provide. Pro successfully refuted the Illuminati argument by citing its dissolution
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff. Con violates SEVERAL rules and didn't follow structure. Pro wins. Additional comments: This is a terrible challenge from Con. I absolutely hate it when a debater doesn't really debate, while the other side spends a long time researching and clearly presenting their ideas. Second, Con's argument about Idea of God is absolutely silly. I believe in God, but how does it follow that if God created the world, then men couldn't cause global warming. No explanation. I don't need to provide an extremely long RFD, but Pro's argument are supported by scientific facts, and Con didn't challenge them. Con presented the Bible proof, and as a Christian, I find it outright silly. I laughed when I read "Even if global warming does exist... Its still irrelevant because we all die in the end." What does this have to do with the resolution?
Vote Placed by ImmortalVoddoler 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: pro told me to