The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,602 times Debate No: 25456
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




8,000 character limit, 72 hours to vote, 1 week voting period, 5 rounds.
I will be arguing for this issue, Ron-Paul will be arguing against. First round acceptance only.
This will be regular debate format, 2 cases in round 2, rebuttals for the rest of the debate.


I accept. I would like to thank Dr.Strangelove for challenging me to this debate. Please state your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


I, in turn, thank you for accepting :) I hope this will b fun and informative.
I'll state my contentions below.
I recently did a very similar debate topic, so my contentions will be virtually the same.
By the way, if there are a few letters missing here and there, I apologize. For whatever reason, my computer does that ONLY on this site :/
It is not my fault, nor am I dyslexic. (In that sentence, I had to correct 4 mistakes).

Contention 1: Carbon content in the atmosphere is increasing

The evidence indicating the increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is overwhleming and undeniable. According to NASA's best estimates, 1950 was the first time in 650,000 years that the carbon content of Earth's atmosphere climbed higher than 300 parts per million [2]. And over the past 4 years alone [1], the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere jumped from roughly 385 to 394.29 and, judging from the linked graph, the rate of CO2 increase will continue to climb.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect is well known and ell documented. It's why venus has become so hot that, unless I'm mistaken, gold melts on its surface.

In the past 50 years, the atmosphric ppm has been growing exponentially [3]. From a scientific stand point, 450 ppm would make the earth so hot, that there will be periods when the arctic is completely ice free [6]. It's why the US government has made it their pledge to keep the earth from capping out at 450 ppm even though oil and gas companies lobby much harder than the renewable resource industry [5].

Contention 2: Why we're to blame.

Using models tracking only natural sources of CO2 output and heat generation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently failed to accurately described observed changes in temperature over the past century [4]. Only by factoring in human carbo output have scientists been able to effectively describe observations about climate change. Over the past century, an increase of 1 degree Celsius has been observed with the majority of the increase being in the last 20-30 years [again, 4] which lines up perfectly with when the majority of CO2 increase occurred.

    4. xD


I would like to thank Dr.Strangelove for presenting his arguments. I would first like to apologize for not posting any graphs; my computer's internet is down and I am writing this from my 4G iPad. I will point out the graphs with their respective sources at the appropriate times. Now on to my arguments:

I. Various Universal Causes

I.i. Cosmic Rays

I.i.a. Position

Every approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling. Currently, we are in a less populated area of the Milky Way, which means that less of these cosmic rays will be hitting the Earth, which means less cloud formation, and of course, warming.

[1] for the source on this hypothesis.

I.i.b The Sun

The sun can also cause it: "The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming. When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic race incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space before hitting the Earth.

Here was a theory, then, that would increase the theoretical impact on climate of an active sun, and better explain why solar irradiance changes might be underestimating the effect of solar output changes on climate and temperatures."[2]

"Since he first suggested his hypothesis over a decade and a half ago, Svensmark and other researchers have slowly been putting together research to test it." The results were: "Scientists found that when shielding was removed and natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically, and it increased substantially again when additional artificial cosmic rays were added. Svensmark appears to have gotten it right."[3] Proof here is in the next sub-sub point.

I.i.c.The Sun: part II

The sun's cycles have a lot to do with temperatures also.

"In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth's atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth."[4]

"Svensmark matched the data on cosmic rays from the neutron monitor in Climax, Colorado, with the satellite measurements of solar irradiance from 1970 to 1990. Over the period between 1975 and 1989, he found cosmic rays decreased by 1.2 percent annually, amplifying the sun's change in irradiance about four-fold"[5]

So, as the sun's activity increases, so does the temperature.

Graph 1: View the Correlation between Solar Activity and Temperature in Source 6.

This graph clearly shows that temperature goes up and down with solar activity, because an increase in solar activity directly correlates with an increase in average temperature 1-2 years later.

I.ii. Rest of the Solar System

The Sun clearly is in a warmer phase, because all of the other planets have increasing temperatures as well.

"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."[7]

"'Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?'"[8]

Two things can be drawn from this. One, that if other planets are warming, that it is only natural for the Earth to be warming as well. And second, that even if all these planets did have natural causes, then that is a sign of Earth's natural climatic change, instead of man-made.

II. Earthly Causes

II.i. Ocean Currents

Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature.

" can model past temperatures as a linear trend (that started well before CO2 was added in any substantial quantity) and periodic bumps... ...temperatures over the last 100+ years look a lot like a linear trend plus ocean cycle-driven bumps"[2]

What is causing all the bumps?:

Graph 2: Omitted: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation Has an Enormous Effect on Tempetature in Source 2

II.ii. The 1500-Year Cycle

This has to do with a cycle of the climate that can explain the warming.

"Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials."[5]

Graph 3: 1500-Year Cycle in Source 11

There are two things we can conclude from this graph. First, that up-and-down cycles are normal for the long-term climate. This century's global warming is nothing new. The second thing we can conclude, is that today's global warming is not as bad as the Medieval Warm Period's peak yet, and the Medieval Warm Period was less than the Holocene Maximum Period.

"Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been." In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished!"[9]

"The scientists found evidence that on average, every 1,470 years, plus or minus 500 years, cold, ice-bearing waters, which today circulate around southern Greenland, pushed as far south as Great Britain."[10]

There seems to be a full cycle of up-down-up temperatures of the climate every 1470 years. And this goes as far back as at least 1 million years ago. Currently, we are in an upswing of temperatures, just coming off of the Little Ice Age, the peak to be in a few hundred years, making the peak-to-peak difference between today's global warming and the Medieval Warm Period a little less than 1500 years. So today's Global Warming is a natural, cyclical occurence.


And as a final side note, I would like to present this graph that helps disprove the anthropogenic cause theory, regarding again, ocean temperature anomalies:

Graph 4: Two 51-Year Periods: Which Is Man and Which Is Mother Nature? Source 2.


[1]: MacRae, Paul: "Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears"
[5]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years"
Debate Round No. 2


First off, I admire the amount of organization you have done, it was very good and makes my job a lota easier :)
Second lemme just say one thing: I'm not going to attack sources b/c you and I probably have a different definition of what a "reliable source" is, and so do people on opposite sides of this issue.
Contention 1 refutation:

You have not shown the potential amount of temperature that can be decreased by cosmic rays. The effects of these cosmic rays rely on the sun being less active now than it ever was in the Earth's history. However, that is not true. However, that is simply not true, the sun is MORE active than it ever has been over the past 8,000 years. [2].
"[The paper [you are refering to]] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step... While their results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanism by which GCRs might induce cloud nucleation, they in no way demonstrate that GCRs do significantly promote cloud formation in the real world, let alone support the myth that GCRs drive significant climatic change. [1]"
Simply put, although your evidence allows the possibility of cosmic rays to cause the warming of the Earth (although you omit saying by how much and if it would match the trends we are seeing) it does not in any way prove or even attempt to prove that this is something that is happening at this very moment. Sure, even if once every 135 million years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy (which is a very odd statement considering the entire galaxy rotates at roughly the same speed and direction) you have not shown how this is something that is happening at this very moment.
I really only have one thing to say about this sub-sub point. You have not given specific numbers indicating how this increase in solar radiation hitting the earth would decrease. The warming I have indicated occured over the past 100 years, and really picked up around 1950 and continued to increase after 1990. So your study inadequately explains the global warming we have seen on the time scale and does not give specific numbers, i.e. it does not specify how much it is theorized to increase the earth's temperature by.
"[S]cientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.
The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun's heat.
Researchers credited Pluto's warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.[3]"
In other words, you have successfully proven corrloation, but not causation. Pardon me, but just because some Russian scientist believes that this correlation is cause to blame the sun for global warming, that doesn't mean that it is automatically correct.

I refer you to my second contention source 4. The Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC found that if we eliminate CO2 output by humans from the equation, we cannot accurately dexcribe the temperatures we are seeing now.

Although the medievel period was warmer in some parts of the world, it definitely was not a global event, or at least there is no evidence to support the idea that it was.
"There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth — Europe, for example — but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years [5]."

For reference:







I would like to thank Dr.Strangelove for presenting his rebuttals. I apologize, my computer's internet is still down, so I cannot post graphs, I will just have to post the links.

And also, Graph 3 from my Round 2 is in Source 9, not the non-existant source 11. Sorry for the confusion.

Defending My Arguments


I am going to leave the sun refutation to I.ii., but my original argument here has not been responded to.


First, higher sun activity causes fewer cosmic rays to hit the earth, not the other way around. This can be seen in the graph below:

Graph 1: Cosmic Rays - The Evidence. Source 1.

The graph also shows thst cosmic rays do have an effect on cloud formation.

"With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation."[2] So yes, there is direct proof.

Finally, here is a picture showing the process:

Graph 2: Cosmic Rays's Affect on Cloud Formation. Source 2.

Also, I said last round, " Currently, we are in a less populated area of the Milky Way, which means that less of these cosmic rays will be hitting the Earth, which means less cloud formation, and of course, warming." So yes, I have shown that it is something that is happening at the very moment.

My opponent has claimed that I haven't provided any evidence, but in this and the last round, I have.


I have proved, in my previous round points and in the point above this, that cosmic rays one, correlate inversely with solar radiation and correlate directly with cloud formation.

"...natural cosmic rays allowed to hit the chamber, cloud seeding increased dramatically..."[3]

I have given substantial evidence.


" was noted the planet [Mars] was experiencing rapid warming, similar to what the Earth is currently undergoing.... The Martian icecaps are melting at a perilous pace.... ...and that both [warmings on Earth and Mars] can be explained by changes in solar irradiance."[4]

"Global warming was detected on Jupiter last year, and the warming is apparently behind the formation of a second red spot. Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton has also been noted, with severe atmospheric changes as a result. And even tiny Pluto has experienced moderate warming in recent years, with temperatures rising a full 3.5 degrees.

The common denominator in all these cases, the Earth included, is of course the Sun, which is in the middle of an extremely active period at present."[4]

"It looks as though the atmosphere has not changed from 2002, which is pretty surprising because we expected the atmosphere would freeze out as the planet moved further away from the Sun," he said.

"But so far, if anything, the atmosphere has gotten even denser."[5]

So yes, all of these bodies are indeed warming, and it can all be attributed to increases in solar irradiance.


My opponent drops my argument here. I will cover his original contentions later.


Graph 3: 1500-Year Cycle in Blue. Source 6.

So indeed, the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Climate Maximum were higher than today.

And, there is ample evidence that the Medieval Warm Period and Holocene Climate Maximum were hotter than today:

"Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum based on pollen data and the souther limits of permafrost."
"The Mediterranean region, including the coast of North Africa, got more rainfall during the Medieval Warming period than it does in our time."
"...during the Medieval Warming... . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts."
"...the central Argentinean area had more precipitation during the Medieval Warming than today. Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer due to a southward shift of the tropical rainbelts."
"The largest anomaly was a rapid warming-4 degrees C-between 350 B.C and A.D 450, reflectinga warmer climate in equatorial East Africa. Was this the Roman Warming? The Weizmann researchers noted warming during the same period in the Swedish part of Lapland and in the northeastern St. Elias Mountains of Alaska and the Canadian Yukon."
"On Signy Island, halfway between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America, oxygen isotopes preserved in lake sediments provided a 7,000-year climate record. They clearly show the Roman Warming..., the Dark Ages [cooling]..., the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming-which is cooler to date than the Medieval Warming."[7]
Graph 4: South Africa: Makapansgst Valley proxy Temperature reconstruction. Source 7.

I will keep coming with more. The Roman Warming, The Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Climate Maximum were clearly higher in all areas of the world, not just Europe.

"Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer [during the Medieval Warm Period] than today."[8]

Attacking My Opponent's Arguments

I will not refute individual points, but his argument in general. If I skip anything, it will be because I already covered it above.

First, CO2 levels do not correlate with temperature very well: "In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend (as the UK Met Office and IPCC"s own figures demonstrate). In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC)."[9]

Second, CO2 is a lagging indicator: "...the CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperuatre changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming."[9] So, the theory is reversed. CO2 does not cause global warming, but vice versa.

And finally, the sun correlates better.

Graph 5: The Sun Is more Likely the Dominant Driver of the Recorded Arctic Temperature Variations. Source 10.


Graph 6: Global Lower Troposphere Temperatures and CO2. Source 11.


"The scientists found evidence that on average, every 1,470 years, plus or minus 500 years, cold, ice-bearing waters, which today circulate around southern Greenland, pushed as far south as Great Britain."[12]


[6]: MacRae, Paul: "Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears."
[7]: "Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years."
Any graphs that are not found in the sources can be found somewhere in this album: Just look at the title and look through my album to see it."
Debate Round No. 3


  • I forgot to add this as a rule, but if you agree, I think Round 5 should be going over voting issues only. If you don't agree, then it can be a regular round.

First, I will defend my own case and then I will move on to my opponent's case.

Your 9th source twists the data that I have presented and does not present an accurate depiction of the facts.

While it is true there was a drop in temperatures in post-war Europe and America, there were significant increases in temperature that more than made up for this after that period. In addition, the recent expansions in industrialization of Asia, America, and Europe are reflected with the increase in surface temperatures in these areas [1]. The models from the IPCC also show that this drop in temperature is not necessarily an anomaly because it is still. within the range of what is predicted by climate models that use anthropogenic as well as natural forces

The cooling you describe after the war did not take place on a world-wide scale, in fact temperatures have been rising steadily in the past 30 or so years according to the graphs I have already presented. I cannot emphasize enough, however, the importance of these being SURFACE temperatures rather than troposheric temperatures. I'll get to that later.

You also seem to be arguing that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist, which is kind of, well, rediculous. The fact is, the first time in 650,000 of Earth's history, the PPM for CO2 rose above 300 [2]. This is a very UNnatural phenomenon and can only be explained by humans' increased industrialization. What the evidence you have shown suggests is that the CO2 rise and temperature rises were TOTALLY unrelated. As you have failed to prove why the cooling temperatures caused CO2 reduction, I think we can disregard that piece of evidence entirely.

Furthermore, "Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450±100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades...Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less that." [3]. This is from NASA, and I fail to see why we should trust your sources (which may or may not be financed either in secret or publically by the Koch brothers or others in the gas industry) over an organization belonging to a government whose congress has 49 climate-change deniers [4]. Considering the oil and gas industry spend millions every year in lobbying congress (more so than environmental groups) [5], it would make more sense to say that it is those who were lobbyed by the gas industry are fixing data. Not the other way around.

I will now refute my opponent's case.

I'm going to refute his main points based on what his theory is to make it a little less confusing

Cosmic rays

Sorry for causing confusion, but what I meant was that you have not been able to successfully prove that there has been corrolation between the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth and SURFACE temperature increase. In fact, your graph from source 1 of sun spot frequency shows absolutely no corrolation with surface temperatures when we look at just the last 100 years, implying that there are other forces involved besides solar activity OR that solar activity holds a neglegable sway over surface temperatures here on earth.

I will leave the glaxy-placement argument alone b/c it ties in directly with what I am saying here. I.E. you have proven that solar activity/cosmic rays could POTENTIALLY cause climate change, but you have failed to use them to consistently describe the climate change we saw over the last century, in fact matching your graph from source 1 last round with my graph from source 1 this round proves that solar activity has little to no significant effect on the temperature (since your graph is unlabeled, I have to assume the black line is average number of sun spots b/c it does not match at all the temperature increase according to the IPCC)[1].

In addition, recent studies done on the "Maunder Minimum" indicate that the bimming of the sun was only fractions of a percent and probably did not cause the "Little Ice Age" [6]. " 'The situation is pretty ambiguous,' said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum." The article goes further, saying
"Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report."

Global Warming on celestial bodies

If we were to accept global warming on other planets as the main cause for global warming, it would make sense that we would see either roughly equivalent global warming on planetary bodies or, the farther from the sun we go out, the more warming we would see. However, using your evidence of warming on Pluto totally destroys that possibility because the warming there is much greater that the warming here on Earth. If it's the thickening of the atmosphere that's to blame in Pluto's case, then that means humans ARE to blame for the warming on Earth b/c we ARE thickening the atmosphere with the CO2 we are pouring into the atmosphere.
Moreover "The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent [of the sun's total output]—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say" [6].
All this points to the fact that the sun is NOT the main cause of current climate change which has seen recording breaking temperatures, CO2 levels, and rising sea levels.

Medieval Warm Period
I'm sorry, but your books got their facts wrong. According to multiple climate models which recorded global temperatures over the past 1200 years, temperature fluctuations were less significant than those of today's [7]. NOAA goes on to say "In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years" [7].
Why should we trust your book (who's author may or may not have been financed by members of the oil and gas industry) over an agency that works with an international organization, both of which have more resources and more data with which to study climate change and who's funding is more transparant? In addition, your sources still only prove that in these specific locations there was warming- not on a global scale.

Holocene Climate Maximum
The Holocene period WAS warmer than today. However, only in the summer and northern hemisphere. It WAS due to astronomical forces causing heating. However studies have shown that this cannot be the cause of today's warming due to changes in the earth's orbit and rotation [8].

Oceanic trends
In the last round I have refuted this with data from source 1 indicating that using natural forces alone is not sufficient in explaining the global warming we have seen recently, which remains unrefuted. I therefore win this argument.











I would like to thank Dr.Strangelove for again presenting his rebuttals. I accept my opponent's fifth round offer, as long as I can offer a short conclusion in addition to going over voting issues.

I. Attacking My Opponent's Case

My opponent here confuses the cause of global warming. I agree that we are currently experiencing a warming trend, but it's not anthropogenic. The temperature dropped about .7 degrees C between 1945 and 1975, based on the graphs I have provided. Also, here is a graph that shows that more highly developed countries don't necessarily have higher temperatures:

Graph 1: Holocene Temperature Proxies, Top of page 5, Source 1.

The increase, then decrease, than increase in temperatures do not suggest a CO2 cause, which is always increasing. The two do not correlate.

The graph I just presented shows that the slow-down occured in almost all locations. And temperatures may have been rising for the past thirty years, but because there was a slow-down, there isn't a correlation between CO2 and temperatures.

I won't cover surface vs. tropospheric temperatures until you get there.

As for the greenhouse effect, it isn't that promenant. Why?

First, by the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface, but this is not happening: "...satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations... it [the surface] is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating is. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor."[2]

Here is a graph relating to the point, showing the decrease in upper troposphere temperature anomalies, disproving the greenhouse theory here:

Graph 2: Global Tropospheric Temp. Anomalies in Source 3.

Second, CO2 levels do not correlate with temperature very well: "In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC)."[4]

Here is a graph showing the fallacy of the CO2-temperature correlation:

Graph 3: Global Lower Troposhere Temperatures and CO2 in Source 5.

As shown, CO2 does not correlate with temperature. This next graph compares solar activity and CO2 to temperature. It is easy to see which one correlates with temperature more:

Graph 4: The Sun is more likely the dominant driver of the recorded Arctic Temperature variations in Source 6.

Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: "If the greenhouse thoery were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2... Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper... saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of CSU and Susan Soloman of NOAA also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. ... report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s"[2]

"Greenland has also been growing colder over the last half-century...""... examined the temperatures for the entire Arctic for 1951 to 1990, he [Rajmund Przybylak, Polish climatologist] reported, 'no tangible manifestations of the greenhouse effect [could] be identified"[2]

This graph shows the arctic temperatures. The blue line is the melt point. Clearly, it spends little time there:

Graph 5: Daily Mean Temperature in Source 7.

This graph shows that Antarctic sea ice extent is rising:

Graph 6: Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly in Source 8.

Fourth and finally, CO2 is a lagging indicator: "...the CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperuatre changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming."[2] So, the theory is reversed. CO2 does not cause global warming, but vice versa. I've provided evidence for this, you haven't refuted it.

"... if you look closely at the higher CO2"levels, you see they FOLLOW the increase in temperature. In other words, higher temperatures appear to cause higher CO2 levels. There is no historical or statistical evidence to indicate the reverse is true, that higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures."[10]

Now on to my case:

I. Cosmic Rays

Correct. I have not proved the direct tie between cosmic rays and temperature. But I have proven the correlation of cosmic rays to low clouds and low sun radiation.

Low clouds means warmer temperatures: "So there you have it, by the work of independent scientists, it is suggested that Dr. Spencer's hypothesis of just a small change (1-2%) of cloud cover has been observed in their study. This can account for the global warming changes observed. Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s."[9]

More solar activity means warmer temperatures: "However, there is a direct correlation between the solar activity and the temperature of the earth during that same period."[10]

Here is a graph showing great causation:

Graph 7: 4th Graph down in Source 11, black and white.

"With that said, there is significant correlation between sunspot number trends and temperature in many time periods, provided that an appropriate temperature indicator is utilized."[11]

Graph 8: Correlation Between Sunspot Number and Temperature, just below the previous graph, source 11.

So, since fewer cosmic rays increase both of these things that cause warming, it is an obvious deduction that fewer cosmic rays cause higher temperatures.

Finally, "On these time scales, most variation in incoming galactic cosmic ray flux is caused by changes in the solar-driven interplanetary magnetic field. Those changes have a major relationship to sunspot trends but are not exactly identical in timing. For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '...has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present.'"[11]

I will get to the historical records later.

II. Global Warming on Celestial Bodies

Here are some solar system wide effects:

"Sun -"Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and"magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%
*300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system
Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases
Venus " 2500% Increase in Green Glow
Mars " Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone
Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and"Jupiter"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 " recent increase in storms
Io -"observing same changes -"200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus
and Ionosphere 1000% Higher
Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected
Ganymede - 200% brighter
Saturn"s - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years
Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in"2004 than in 1999
Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range " 1996 " 2002
Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming
Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure."[12]

You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious."

III. Historical Trends

My opponent can find over 100 examples that the MWP and HCO were warmer than today in source 2, and a little bit more accessible in source 13."

Here is yet another graph:

Graph 9: 4th graph down, source 14."

You cannot deny the existence of the 1500-year cycle and you cannot deny that the MWP and HCO were warmer than today."

In fact, in an earlier report by the IPCC, they said that the MWP was warmer than today. [2]

IV. Oceanic Trends

"The PDO goes through warm and cold phases, and its shifts can have large effects on temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere."[15]

"A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas. Since El Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in North America."[16]

Ocean currents do have an effect."

The resolution is negated."


[2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years."
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to thank Ron-Paul for the very enlightening debate. It was very fun as well as informative.
(Sorry if I appear to be a bit of a jerk here, it's how I was taught to debate).
Since I am giving a summary of the debate so far and simply going over voting issues and I will also be weighing each of our case. I will briefly go over the round and explain why I have won.
Note: All evidence brought up is for reference only and none of them are actually new.
We need to take a step back and look at the issues as a whole. Here's what they have basically come down to.
  1. The Greenhouse Effect/oceanic trends
  2. Celestial bodies.
  3. History.
  4. Da sun.

1. The Greenhouse Effect/Oceanic trends
I have given graphs on current warming trends that show general pictures of what is going on with world temperatures in contrast with what my opponent has done which was look at data on relatively small scales that "prove" the cooling of the planet. A miniscule temperature change between the years 1996 and 2000 is not representative of an overall trend. I will restate my position on the Greenhouse effect and the evidence supporting me.
A) I have stated that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is greater than it has been in 650,000 years, thus making historical analysis especially difficult. This argument remains untouched [1].
B) Regardless of whatever the theory is, the surface temperature increase over the last century has corrolated very well with CO2 increase. Since this point remains unrefuted, I win this argument. [2] [3]
C) The biggest point in this regard which still remains unrefuted is the IPCC's graphs on this topic. My opponent has not been able to even touch the fact which I have already asserted that if you eliminate anthropogenic factors of temperature change, climate models fail completely to accurately describe the temperature increase over the past century. In fact, as stated earlier, the temperature decrease you describe is not an anomaly and was within acceptable deviations and were described by climate models of this period. This fully covers the oceanic trends argument. [3]

2. Celestial Bodies
I don't need to win this argument b/c it does not relate to global warming on Earth very well. But as I have already said, if the sun is the main cause of global warming, then we would logically see roughly equal global warming on all of the above mentioned celestial bodies. But at the very least, the farther out from the sun you get, the less effect you would see on that body's climate. Since you have clearly proven that this is not the case, I win this argument as well.

3. History
Sure I can deny it. In fact I do. My opponent has still not refuted my sources, you have simply restated your other sources the warrants for which are not good compared to the IPCC. I will repeat what I have said already on this subject: The IPCC's graphs which are based on many different climate models of the MWP (which is more than my opponent has said for his graphs) have disproven this MWP myth. [4]

4. Da sun.
I'll be brief. I have already refuted this argument successfully without question. The sun has NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on Earth's climate. This point remains unrefuted and I therefore win this argument as well.

"The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.

Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report." [5]


Looking at the evidence presented, it is easy to see why I have won this debate. In general, my opponent has made a habit of picking data about small, relatively insignificant specifics while I have made broad statements about general trends, which more accurately describe...general trends like global warming.
In addition, my opponent has neglected to refute the fact that only by including anthropogenic factors of climate change can we successfully describe the temperature changes we have seen according to the graphs I have offered.
Finally, the graphs he has offered up are from a variety of sources and various websites with a clear anti-global warming bias. The only bias my sites have is for facts.

Thank you, and I hope you have enjoyed this debate as much as I have.



I would like to thank Dr.Strangelove for this great debate. It has been fun (and no, you aren't being a jerk. I do it all the time).

I'll do the same thing as my opponent regarding the conclusion.

This debate comes down to five seperate points:

1. Cosmic Rays
2. The Sun
3. Oceanic Trends
4. Climactic Trends
5. The Greenhouse Effect

On to the points themselves:

1. Cosmic Rays:

My opponent has never really responded to this argument very well at all.

a) He has completely dropped my point on galatic positioning.
b) On cosmic rays from the sun themselves, he has also basically dropped this point. He has not disproved that more cosmic rays cause more cloud cover, that more cosmic rays means lower solar activity, and that both of these things have an effect on global warming.
c) He has not argued against that cosmic rays are in smaller frequency.

Fewer cosmic rays are a significant contributor to global warming. [1][2]

2. The Sun.

My opponent here has made erratic, dubious arguments.

a) He has never refuted that the sun causes global warming on the Earth. The audience can see the correlation.
b) He brings up an interesting point on celestial bodies, that the changes are erratic in effect and that the effect would diminish the further out one goes, however, both are flawed.
b.i.) For the first one, my opponent does not control for the effect that each celestial body is experiencing different internal climatic conditions. Some have more reflective atmospheres, some have less; some are bigger (more radiation), some less.
b.ii.) The total effect might diminish but percentage effect wouldn't too much. Also, if my opponent had read the long list I provided last round, he would see that there is diminishing effect the further out one goes. 2500% down to 40%.

The sun is the only body that causes warming on Earth. It is the main cause of global warming. [3][4][5]

3. Oceanic Trends.

My opponent is dening the existance of a correlation. There is a strong one. [6][7]

a) There is a strong correlation.

4. Climatic Trends

My opponent is denying the existance of all the climatic changes I have provided and proved. He is dismissing ice core, tree ring, and soil data from over 10 different, worldwide locations.

"Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change " ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea crea- tures. There are also shorter-term proxies " cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.
Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth"s frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). Other substantiating findings followed:

● An ice core from the Antarctic"s Vostok Glacier " at the other end of the world from Green- land " showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length.
● The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe.
● Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported
in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years.

Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines.
None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers."[8]

And this isn't the only study: [9]

Audience, please read source 8.

5. The Greenhouse Effect.

I have many times refuted the CO2-global warming correlation. But, to provide even more:


I have disproved the greenhouse effect on various occasions and have proved that CO2 does not trap heat or cause global warming. [13]


My opponent basically dismisses my arguments without refuting them very effectively. I have very well proved my case that fewer cosmic rays, the sun, oceanic trends, and the Earth's natural 1500-year climatic cycle, when combined, will create measurable warming. The Sun heavily influences the Earth's climatic cycle.

I have disproved my opponent's case by proving that the many stipulations the greenhouse theory has are not holding up (i.e. no significant warming at the poles, no correlation, incorrect atmospheric warming, etc..). My opponent basically repeats the same arguments after I have already disproved them.

Also (this isn't a new argument since you pointed out mine were biased), the IPCC produces flawed ans biased statistics because of publicity, money, and power. Their "hockey stick", "contradicted hundreds of historical sources on the MWP and LIA and hundreds of previous scientific papers with evidence of those major past changes in the Earth's climate... In effect, the IPCC told us to ignore the overwhelming historic and physical evidence of the MWP and LIA."[13]

As for my studies, they are backed up by real Earth climatic data, historical analyses, and they are not in it for the money (how much could they possibly get compared to the IPCC? I mean if they were in it for the money and bias, they would jump on the IPCC bandwagon).

Thanks to my opponent for the wonderful debate. I have enjoyed it.


[13]: Singer S. Fred and Avery Dennis T.: Unstoppable Global Warming
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
As for the PDO, I think pro won the point. Con showed the PDO can influence the trend because of its large effect on the northern hemisphere, however pro was able to prove it is not the MAIN forcing. Con showed there is indeed a good correlation, however I feel he failed to prove it was the main factor. So does it have a factor? Sure, and it is substantial, (con, look at my debate I had a month ago, it offers better evidence) however pro proved (in respects to what is provided in this debate) it was not the main cause.

As for CO2, I think con proved its forcing was minimal but one of his points worried me... he argued co2 does not trap heat (wanna bet?) however to me this at least proves the CO2 heating effect is minimal. He showed many direct observations at SHOULD be happening if co2 caused warming, but weren't. When science fails to predict phenomena, it really isn't science. So, overall, CO2 was refuted.

Based on this debate, con wins.

P.S. Con, you should have attacked climate models as they where the basis of pros case, destroy them and win the debate (

P.S. Pro, thanks for the better organization then con. Con, use bold for the titles. Also, pro, try to use more then the IPCC as I think some debators (RoyLatham, me, and a few others) would have quickly been able to have shoot it down... mostly Roy... and be glad ron didn't
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Cosmic rays actually controlled much of my reason to vote con. Pro kept arguing more cosmic rays less sun. This drops the point. Con showed our galactic positioning means we are getting LESS cosmic ray nativity, meaning the sun can still be active even using his point. And, due to the fact he ignores galactic positioning (which, even if pros rebuttal is 100% true, could control these rays and still prove cons point) gives con essentially the auto win in this point. And I read both of their sources on this point, and found cons sources had more scientific merit. The decreased cosmic rays caused more clouds and based on the data, 40% of warming. And Roy Spencers theory shows a 1-3% difference in cloud cover (con directly cited this in the debate btw) could explain the modern warming. As con showed there has been less cosmic rays, which lead to less clouds, he shows the change might be able to prove a natural, not anthropogenic, cause. I really think this gave him an edge and essentially gave him victory. Lets look at the sun, too.

I, at first, bought into pros correlation/causation rebuttal when pro brought up Mars warming, however cons rebuttal showed Mars's temperature trends have been similar to ours, and as the Sun is the only heating agent for Mars (and the main one for us) it seems likely the sun plays a role in current climate change. Also based on cons 1,500 cycle argument the current amount of warming is to be expected and, therefore, natural. Overall these points go to con...

I have 400 characters left, I might as well go to the second comment. End of part one
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I am taking a break from debating.
Posted by Dr.Strangelove 4 years ago
I'm not going to get into a flame war. If you want to discuss this further, challenge me to a debate. I'll bite.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Those claims aren't really absurd, they have always had false predictions, have hidden data, attacked skeptical scientists and prevented them from writing studies (they are forced into geological journals), and are subject to review by government. They are not a scientific institution.
Posted by Dr.Strangelove 4 years ago
Oh and Ron-Paul has cited evidence from the IPCC, NASA, etc. making any attacks against such organizations hypocritical.
Posted by Dr.Strangelove 4 years ago
Yes... I've heard the claims made against the IPCC's validity. Unfortunately since my opponent hasn't brought up those argument, it's a little late now. Besides, those claims are pretty absurd.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
You used the IPCC to contradict the sun? LOL
Posted by Dr.Strangelove 4 years ago
Ok, thanks for the heads up :)
Still relatively new to, so I appreciate the tip very much :)

(It isn't actually that crucial, I didn't think of any other way of introducing it)
Posted by Chicken 4 years ago
Dr strangelove you can lose conduct points by posting arguments in the comments section during a debate. (Even if it is for your case, there's a wordcount for a reason)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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: Comments