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

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 94769
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (50)
Votes (2)




I'm putting this under religion since people are talking faith based approaches to climate change.

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.

The scientific angle, inconvenient truth [1]. Impact, scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth. [1]



I am here to debate the MAN MADE side of climate change. I do not disagree that the world is warming, I only believe the current warming trends are exaggerated and people are freaking out over a natural process.

Man Made Climate Change, The FACTS:

1.There is NO way to test whether Co2 is the most contributing factor to the world"s climate:
Many people I have met say, "Manmade global warming is real and Co2 is the cause!" but how do you actually test that. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data.
Proof that greenhouse gasses don"t have a large impact on climate can be found at the bottom of this page at "Final Proof."
2.The computer models don"t work
The computer models mentioned previously have been shown not to work time and time again. Even the most advanced ones fail and don"t predict the correct temperature. This is because people think that Co2 has more of an impact then it really does so when they program it into the models it messes with the correct predictions. This is why the vast majority of climate models predict temperature is way higher than it is.

3.Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas
According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can absorb, Co2 can only store a miniscule 7% of the amount of heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. Compare this to water vapor, which, in statistics, can store 850% more heat than Co2 can. In addition to this, there is 2100000% more water vapor in the air then Co2. This shows that Co2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas and for it to make an impact you would need much more of it then there is now.

4.There is not as much Co2 as you might think
I have constantly heard, over and over again, that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere. The problem with this statement is that it is just plain wrong. Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph:
Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time.

5.The earth has been warming for 20,000 years now:
Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. This is because the world has been warming naturally for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick in warming started in the 1700s. Both of these time periods were before any humans were releasing any significant amount of Co2. This only proves that the current warm phase is natural.
More evidence would be that there hasn"t been any significant warming in the last 20 years. Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature truly relied on Co2 as its main cause then surely the temperature should have gone up. Especially considering that 25% of all Co2 released by man ever has been released into the atmosphere in the last few decades.

The political side of things:
This is a big topic so I won"t be able to cover everything but I will do the most important topics under this subject.
The 97% number: This number is thrown around way too often and most of the time misused. This number came from a study that stated as its conclusion, "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real" but everyone seems to think it said man-made climate change was real. Another problem with this number is that it came from a survey that completely manipulated almost every scientific paper that was submitted. All the papers in the survey were ultimately sent to one man (John Cook) who categorized based on what he thought they meant. Not only is this a biased way of filtering through papers but what the papers said depended on his opinion, not on their actual statements. This anti-science method of categorizing papers eventually led thousands of scientific papers to be misrepresented in the survey.
Watch this video to hear what I said but in a more in-depth way:

The 2 degree rise: This claim is also completely bogus. The idea that a 2 degree rise in average temperature is going to devastate the world is just plain wrong. The world was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years. Then, before the medieval warming period was the Roman warming period which was warmer then the medieval. Then, even before the Roman, there was the Minoan warming period which was 4 degrees Celsius warmer then today.

The hockey stick: The graph was fabricated and is completely fake and manipulated. I"m too lazy to explain it all so click on the presentation someone else made below to find out why I"m right:

The final proof:
And now, I present to you, the final proof of why man-made climate change isn"t real:
It is known that cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor, which is 850% more potent then Co2, doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other factors in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


Your arguments are long and with little breaks between paragraphs. I'm going to ignore your response and attempt to talk through you. I lost any hope of convincing you when you stated.

"Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. " epidexipteryx

The temperature has increased .87 Celsius. [2]

The 400 ppm mark was hit in 2013. "has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii." [3]

Impact, there is a clear and strong positive correlation between CO2 and tempature. To my opponent's arguments struggle as much as you need against scientific data. Thanks for the debate.



If you wanted a serious debate then you would not have ignored my entire argument. So I guess since you are not paying attention to my arguments I will just have to disprove yours instead of adding to my own.

You firstly say that, "The temperature has increased .87 Celsius." This is true, but you forgot to mention that the warming period that caused this rise started in the 1700's before the industrial revolution. In addition to this, the world has been naturally warming for the last 20,000 years. You ignored large amounts of scientific data in your argument and made a claim that I agree with. The world IS WARMING!!! It just is not caused by man.

According to your second argument, Co2 is at 400 ppm. This is true, but there has been no substantial warming for the last 20 years which is proof of how temperature and Co2 act independently. In addition to this, 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during the last 20 year period. This in itself disproves your claim.

In addition to this, Co2 has been at much higher levels in the past. To restate what I said above,
"Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph:
Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000 ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time."

There may be a clear and strong positive correlation between Co2 and temperature but this correlation has been weak compared to that of sun spots. For the majority of the 1900's sun spots correlated MORE STRONGLY to temperature then Co2 did. This means that sun spots had a bigger impact then Co2 on the temperature. Yes, I know that sun spot numbers dropped around the early 2000s but that is irrelevant because for the majority of the 1900's, when tons and tons of Co2 were released, the temperature was affected more by sun spots then it was by Co2. Another thing to point out, when sun spot numbers started to drop is when the flat line in temperature began.

In actual statistics, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007)

In conclusion, not only have you ignored the majority of my first argument, you state claims that I am not even trying to disprove. You obviously don't understand what I am trying to debate or don't know how to debate my claims. In addition to this, you gave almost no evidence to support your claims, only sources of where you got the information. If you want to have a real debate, maybe reading my arguments would help.

Your welcome
Debate Round No. 2


I'm just going to give up at this point. I can't even understand most of what your stating let alone formulate a response. I've had other debates on this site that even after months of reviewing my opponent's argument I still couldn't make heads out of tails out of my opponent's arguments. Maybe, just maybe if I had a year to respond I could defeat you.

Thanks for the debate.


Thank you for being honest and admitting you don't understand my arguments. Many people would not do that and it is a very honorable thing to do. I strongly encourage you to do your own research into both sides of the argument. That is what I did and ultimately found that the con side has a better argument.

Two things that could help you get started in your research into the con side are these YouTube videos:
1. The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie ( I know this is long but if you have the time then watch at least some of it)

2. Climate Change in 12 minutes - the skeptics case

These two sources are really great and show a lot of flaws in your side of the argument

Sadly, I only saw them yesterday so I couldn't use their points in this debate :)

Thank you for debating and I hope you look into both sides because there are legitimate reasons why people don't believe in man made global warming.
Debate Round No. 3
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by distraff 1 year ago

Lets just address these claims one at a time. This graph is from a study in 1982 and uses data from the 1970's. So it doesn't include the warming since then. Also, it uses a 50 year average so it also doesn't quite show all the warming in the recent years relative to the study. When you correct for this and include recent data this graph while showing a large middle age bump show today was a bit warming and the current rise is very rapid compared to the middle ages:

Also it uses data from Central England and not global data. The author even describes the graph as only a "scematic" and not a precise reading of global temperature. Back then climate science was in its infancy and we only had a little bit of data. Lets not use a scematic from 40 year old data from Central England in place of modern global data from numerous studies in recent years.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
As I have mentioned before, the source, whether biased or not, does not disprove the claims that come from it. Only the method to how the claims were achieved. If the method is tampered with to get certain results (cough hockey stick graph cough) then it is unreliable data.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
Also, using website like source watch is susceptible to bias because whoever runs it can decide which websites are bias or not.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
Climate depot is bias. It's a website ru. By Mark Morano, a known skeptic and a big part in the movie Climate Hustle.

It is an ok website that features a database of articles giving evidence against global warming. I don't use it much but the link I posted below was a good one so I decided to quote it.

If you want to talk about bias, skeptical science is the essence of bias. It features hundreds of claims made by skeptics and tries to disprove them without stating the other side of the argument, just like climate depot. They are the same site just on opposite sides of the argument.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape seems bias.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
Sorry I keep posting about this but I keep coming across it in my research.

Here's another example of why the medievel warm period was global:
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
Since you haven't posted your argument for the past correlation of Co2 and temperature here is another report on the medievel warm period in Australia and New Zealand.
These two countries are in completely seperate areas of the world from Europe and yet they were both affected by the medievel warm period.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
I agree with starting to only discuss once topic (past correlations of Co2 and temp)

There are many data points, from the IPCC and other sources, showing that the medievel warming period was warmer then today. For example:
Then, this graph was replaced by:
Which was debunked by two Canadian scientists.
This leaves us with the first graph to show temperature change over the last 1000 years. The data I provided in the PowerPoint was just pointing out that, yes, the medievel warming period was more prominent in Europe, but it also affected other places.

Another source explaining that the medievel warming period is warmer then today is here:
Posted by distraff 1 year ago
By the way, on the medieval warming period I looked at page 16 and it only shows a few temperatures from random places. This created the risk that the data was cherry picked. Is there any study that combines all the global data together?
Posted by distraff 1 year ago
I think we have started talking about too many topics at once. I really enjoy reading your arguments. What about we both go back to one topic for now and see where that takes us? I will be addressing the past CO2 and temperature correlation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by distraff 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't present any arguments to support the resolution and instead kept insulting con. Easy win for con even though I disagreed with con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.