The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
YatesUni
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

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...
YatesUni
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 94657
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0]

Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat.

0. http://www.nytimes.com...
YatesUni

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue.

http://tinyurl.com...

Now onto the rest. Science is highly unreliable when in the climate sphere. Back in the 70s virtually every scientist agreed that we were going into a massive ice age, and now they have flip flopped and now think the globe is warming. Science has been doing this forever, one weakly supported claim is said so much that it basically becomes fact. Also, reliable science shows that we are coming out of a minor ige age. So this warming trend it natural. Also, the climate is constantly changing, and it has been doing so since it was formed billions of years ago. For us to think that it is controllable or that we caused it is completely unethical. My whole point is that science argues more against climate change then for it, and it's not that hard to understand, its really common sense.

Also, I understand that ice is melting and sea levels are rising. But a recent study shows that while arctic sea ice is melting antarctic sea ice is expanding. Another study shows that the sea level rise rate has decreased.

And your comment to the pope is completely irrational. The Pope's opinion is not fact, just because he is a figure head for the Catholic church doesn't mean he speaks for it. You can be Catholic and still disagree with what the pope says.

Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected, we are coming out of a little ice age and we will be fine, the Roman Warm period was warmer and they had no carbon emissions to blame it on, just because things are changing and the public didn't know enough to expect it doesn't mean we blame it on something based on the first half-baked argument we hear.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 rebuttals

"I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue." YatesUni

Agreed.


I've read the rest of my opponent's argument and I see nothing to significantly impact the resolution and thus ignore the claims, except this claim.


"Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected" opponent


No, this claim is blatantly wrong. Co2 levels are way above what we would expect if man was not involved.

Overpopulation, deforestation, over fishing of the oceans, destruction of marine habitat, and destruction of the rain-forest [1], are all major contributing factors. Use your common sense, we cannot destroy the environment at this rate and expect no consequences.

Hurricanes are forming in places they haven't formed for at least one hundred years. The places that usually have hurricanes have more intense hurricanes. Remember hurricane Katrina? That hurricane was more intense due to global climate change. People in the middle east died in summer of 2015 due to unprecedented heat waves. We are in the middle of a mass extinction.

Global climate change is real and a threat. Thanks for the debate.

Sources
1. http://www.greenpeace.org...




YatesUni

Con

Your lack of rebuttals makes me think you're stumped. You only responded to one thing I said because you think it is the only important thing I said, and didn't even bother to bring up the evidence I used to support it. You simply said that Co2 levels are higher then we expected. Which is not what I said was expected, what I said is that a warming trend is expected, as we have recently entered an inter galacial period as part of the paleostine ice age. You see, the climate is constantly changing, and my point was that the Co2 theory is becoming more and more flawed. Now you bring up hurricanes, again, this is all part of the warming trend. And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in danger because of hurricanes, then you are on the wrong path. When a developed country gets hit by a hurricane, the effects are far less devastating than when a hurricane or typhoon hits a less developed country. Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of climate change, and focus on bringing those countries out of poverty.

Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today. Now, Co2 levels cannot be used to blame your stated problems on. For instance, low plant growth, if anything, can be blamed on low Co2 levels, as the optimal level for plant growth is 4x higher then ours today. And our high levels of Co2, as noted by satellite imagery, are actually making the Earth greener in terms of plant growth, as plants and forests begin to regrow at noticeably fast rates.

Now, I have made legitimate claims and backed them up accordingly, and I would appreciate it if you acknowledge these claims, instead of cherry picking for one group of words to attack.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

"Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today." Yatesuni



What are you talking about? Co2 levels are higher than expected. You provide no outside links on this subject.


" The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now." [2]


As you can see we are about to break the record for highest CO2 concentrations in human history 400 parts per million. All signs indicates the concentration will get higher and higher.


Your claim about plants growing faster is also flawed. "But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. " [3]


You dispute mainstream science and popular opinion with weak arguments. Meanwhile human population is still above 7 billion. There is no sign of electric cars becoming main stream, people still eat factory farmed beef, and so forth. Thank you for the debate.


Sources
2. http://www.climatecentral.org...
3. http://news.stanford.edu...
YatesUni

Con

The greenhouse effect is a thing, and hypothetically it would raise temperatures. But adding more and more to our atmosphere does not infinitely raise the temperature, it only raises it to an extent. Yet again I see you have ignored the very important claim that we are coming out of a galatial period, which explains the warming trend, and everything you think it has caused.

Also, few climate scientists actually worry where we are headed, those are environmental activists, corrupt politicians, and a few scientists hired specifically to prove it is man made. In most cases, you will see that studies that indicate a rapid change are botched, as seen in my 97% debate.

And may I ask you some questions you are free to answer in the comments, what have you done. Are you yelling about a problem you are part of? Do you drive an electric car? Do you plant? Have you actually gone out as I have and contribute to a worthy solution?

And what does population have anything to do with climate change?

Also, may I end with an argument that I may have benifited from starting with. The only constant is change. When the media makes these claims, they leave so much out of the picture. As you have done with my arguments. They take one thing, leave out the rest, which makes it easy to destroy its foundation. If we actually see the whole picture, and know the problem for what it is, then we can come up with actual solutions that can make an actual change. Not just weak EPA political action.

Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SchinkBR 9 months ago
SchinkBR
Stupidape: Did you even read your own source?

"Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope"s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching."
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
SchinkBR

I'm pretty sure it does.

http://www.catholic.com...
Posted by SchinkBR 9 months ago
SchinkBR
Stupidape, Catholics are allowed to disagree with the pope. He's not infallible (except in very rare circumstances).
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
Wow, my opponent actually made an argument, I was expecting an easy win. Will get back to you.
Posted by Stupidape 9 months ago
Stupidape
Cooldudebro

You are catholic according to your profile. How can you not acknowledge climate climate change?
Posted by Cooldudebro 9 months ago
Cooldudebro
I may accept this
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 9 months ago
SchinkBR
StupidapeYatesUniTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro uses studies and articles. Con only cites a previous debate he had and leaves their major points without sources. Points to pro. Arg: R1- Pope - Con points out that the opinion of one man isn't fact. Pro drops it. Con. 97%, both opponents agree. Tie. R2: Little ice age: Pro tries to refute this by saying it's wrong without elaborating as to why it's wrong, point to con. C02: Pro says "Overpopulation...destruction of the rain-forest [1], are all major contributing factors." Pro doesn't formulate an argument beyond this but his source does explain the impact rainforests have on C02 levels. More on this in R3. Hurricanes: Con refutes this by pointing out that hurricanes would increase under natural warming trends to and thus the point is irrelevant to the debate. Point to con. R3: C02, pro never associates rising C02 levels to rising temperatures, which weakens the point but Pro wins the point by citing studies indiciating its upward trend. Ultimately, con wins more poi