The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rammer5678
Con (against)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
rammer5678
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,278 times Debate No: 94797
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

There is so much information on the topic that rather than reiterate all of it I will make a short summary. Also burden of proof will be 51% on my opponent and 49% on me.

Manmade global climate change is the general increase in temperature at rapid rates that is mainly caused by CO2 from industry increases.

Carbon dioxide is at 404.48 parts per million and the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. [0]

Although 1.4 degrees doesn't sound much, it ends up being a lot. This is because not all areas of the world heat at the same rate and such a rapid change is hard to adapt to. There is no signs of relief from climate change.

My opponent will attempt to deny climate change, but please remember how long the cigarette companies held out despite the science being heavily against them. Now we know as sure as the sun rises that cigarettes cause cancer.

I can honestly state that as sure as the sun rises, global climate change is upon us and is a threat. Al Gore's inconvenient truth is still a master piece, and I will not accept defeat until my opponent can defeat the documentary. [1]

Not watching Al Gore's documentary is no excuse. If your a serious climate change denier, it just makes you look uncommitted and shallow to criticize climate change without watching the premier documentary.

Thank you for reading. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate.

Sources
0. http://climate.nasa.gov...
1. http://www.imdb.com...
rammer5678

Con

Your first argument, "Carbon dioxide is at 404.48 parts per million and the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880." That is not a scientific argument. It is a correlation. There is no REAL evidence to suggest that Co2 impact temperature. Especially when 25% of all Co2 produced by man has been released in the last 20 years and in that time there has been NO NET WARMING!!!

You also make it sound like 1.4 degrees is what was predicted by the models showing Co2 causing temperature. I wasn't.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...

You make a reference to cigarette companies. Please remember that we are talking about Man Made Global Warming, not cigarettes. Keep your own habits to yourself.

Al Gores, "The Inconvenient Truth" predicted that all the arctic ice caps would be melted by 2013. In case you haven't noticed, the ice caps are still there. He also predicted the polar bears would all have died out by now. That hasn't happened.
https://si.wsj.net...
In fact, polar bear populations have risen by 20,000 in the last 55 years.
Al Gores, "The Inconvenient Truth" was riddles with lies and misinformation:
https://www.youtube.com...

You should get your info from real sources and not manipulated scientific documentaries.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic with me in a respectful manner. Courage is needed to go against the majority. Second, I would like to note my opponent's response is very dense. To disprove my opponent's arguments I need to take my opponent's statements a few sentences at a time.


"Your first argument, "Carbon dioxide is at 404.48 parts per million and the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880." That is not a scientific argument. It is a correlation. There is no REAL evidence to suggest that Co2 impact temperature." rammer5678


Yes, you are correct as presented it is a correlation. I will now show that there is causation.


""When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase."" [2]


There should be no doubt that CO2 causes global warming.


"Especially when 25% of all Co2 produced by man has been released in the last 20 years and in that time there has been NO NET WARMING!!!" rammer5678


All caps always helps prove science. Temperatures have risen. In 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015 were hotter than 1998.


"Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998.

The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too." [3]


Temperatures have risen in the last twenty years.


"You also make it sound like 1.4 degrees is what was predicted by the models showing Co2 causing temperature. I wasn't." rammer5678


You are correct that not all the models were correct. The overall premise is correct that the planet is getting warmer due to CO2. As for your link from wattsupwiththat.com, this is a known climate change denial site. The site is run by Willard Anthony Watts. He is a paid AGW denier, Anthropogenic Global Warming denier.


"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]" [4]


Your source is not credible. Voters please give me the more credible source points if nothing else.


"You make a reference to cigarette companies. Please remember that we are talking about Man Made Global Warming, not cigarettes. Keep your own habits to yourself." rammer5678


Yes, this is true. Nevertheless this should impact the resolution since it shows historical evidence of how malice and greed can hold science at bay. Cigarette companies show the depths that people will sink to.


"Al Gores, "The Inconvenient Truth" predicted that all the arctic ice caps would be melted by 2013. In case you haven't noticed, the ice caps are still there. He also predicted the polar bears would all have died out by now. That hasn't happened." Rammer5678


Not every prediction in the Inconvenient Truth came true. Nevertheless polar bears are struggling and many ice caps are melting. [5]

As for the polar bears this is due to hunting restrictions and bans.


" The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers." [6]



As you can see, I've destroyed all your arguments while proving causation of CO2 to increase temperature.

A few notes, the polar bears are still in danger in the long term. [7] The ice caps melting has provided less hunting ground for them.

You also make some inflammatory remarks like Al Gore's documentary was riddled with lies. Many of the predictions have come true. Also, there is a large difference between a falsehood and a lie. The models could not take in every single factor. As time prorgresses we get more and more accurate models. You have provided no evidence that the documentary was manpiulated. A person with the best of intentions can come to the wrong conclusion.

Thanks for debating. You are making me work for victory.


Sources.
2. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
3. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
4. http://www.sourcewatch.org...
5. http://www.nasa.gov...
6. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
7. http://www.nytimes.com...

rammer5678

Con

My opponent accepts that his first argument is a correlation so there is no need to strengthen my argument there.

My opponents second argument states, """When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase."""

To disprove this I will do it line by line.

Line 1: When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit
This line is true but only in some cases. For example, the mini ice age, which we exited 1000 years ago, was not initiated by changes in the earths orbit.

Line 2:
This line is just wrong. The oceans do store Co2 but what is released when they warm is mostly water vapor, not Co2. This water vapor then causes more clouds which then cools the Earth. This is common knowledge among scientists because this is exactly how cosmic rays cause cooling.

Line 3: Yes, rising temperature causes more Co2 to be released but by simply looking at ice core data we can see that this does not cause an infinite rise in temperature. The temperature then drops and rises again independent of the Co2 that was released from the previous rise. For an example, look at this graph:
http://www.geocraft.com...

My opponents next argument is just plain wrong. My opponent states, ""Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998.

The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too." "

To disprove this all you need to do is read the caption at the top of the graph below where it lists its source.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
As you can see, the graph was not based on temperature estimates but the "global mean temperature change..."
I don't know where you got the idea that 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998 but from your sources it seems that this data is only true once you remove the El Nino. My question to you is why hasn't the Earth warmed since the El Nino. In the 20 years since the temperature maximum temperature doesn't increase at all. In addition to this, the El Nino just proves the fact that there are other influences in climate that influence temperature more then Co2 or enough to distort data.

For my opponents next argument he states that my source is not credible. This is just not true. Just because the maker of the website is paid to research evidence against man made global warming does not immediately make all of his evidence untrue. My opponent does not provide any actual contrary evidence to debate this point but to satisfy their needs I will give a link to multiple graphs sourced from other websites showing the same thing.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com...
http://www.drroyspencer.com...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk...
http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com...

My opponents next argument is not relevant to man made climate change.

My opponents next argument states, "Not every prediction in the Inconvenient Truth came true. Nevertheless polar bears are struggling and many ice caps are melting. [5]

As for the polar bears this is due to hunting restrictions and bans. "

I will cede this point to my opponent as it is a result of warming and not relevant to man causing the warming. I should not have brought it up and while I still have arguments to dispute it do not wish to argue this view any longer.

As for why the documentary was manipulated, I do not wish to argue this any more either for the same reasons listed above nevertheless I will provide a short article to explain my first argument. I know that the article does not provide much info on the subject but if you really want to understand the argument then you need to research it yourself.
http://www.newsmax.com...

Nextl, to strengthen my point of the debate, I will argue that Earth is not the only planet warming.
The entire solar system seems to be going through a sort of "climate-change phase." Within the last 20 years scientists at NASA and around the world have realized that the planets we are looking at now are different than those in 1900s.
This indicates that the entire solar system is in some sort of solar-system wide climate change.

For example, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking (indicating warming) and the atmosphere is gaining clouds and ozone, Pluto is experiencing a growth of its mysterious dark spots and is experiencing a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure (indicating warming), Saturn is giving off large amount of x rays and there are new appearances of "hot spots" in its atmosphere (indicating warming), there have been polar shifts on Uranus and voyager 2 picked up large storm spots In its atmosphere that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming), Mercury is growing a magnetic field, Jupiter"s "white ovals" are disappearing and melding together in its atmosphere (this is theorized to have been caused by an 18 degree Celsius warming and this is supported by the new large storm spots appearing on Jupiter for the first time), Venus has had a 2500% increase in green glow which symbolizes oxygen in the atmosphere, and Neptune is experiencing changes in light intensity.

As you can see from the long paragraph I have provided above, the entire Solar System seems to be warming or experiencing some sort of weird climate change patterns. This indicates more then just a global event.

To conclude my argument, I will provide a graph of Co2 and Temperature over the long term that should, on its own, disprove entirely the idea of man-made climate change.
http://www.paulmacrae.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent's argument seems endless and confusing. Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is to make the problem more complex and cast doubt. I make only a few arguments and my opponent makes at least 4 arguments for each argument I make. Making the debate grow in size and complexity until nobody can tell who won.

Even if I defeat one of my opponent's objections, he/she just simply moves onto another.

https://thinkprogress.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
rammer5678

Con

My opponent does not counter-argue even one of the points I made in my previous arguments/in the comment section. Instead he accuses of of making the argument grow in size to confuse people. Not only is this not true, but it points out how little my opponent understands my argument and this subject. If he had simply read the counter arguments I provided, you can see clearly that I do not try to distract from the topic at hand.

Seeing as my opponent made no further arguments and did not make any comments about how I disproved all of his (relating to man causing the warming) claims, I am only left with the option to strengthen my own argument.

Fact 1: Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method in science used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can store/release, Co2 can only store 7% of the heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. This is minuscule, especially when compared to water vapor which can store 850% more heat then Co2 can.

Fact 2: There is not much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the rest of the earths history and history tells us there is little to no correlation of temperature to Co2 over long periods of time. It is as simple as looking at this graph:
http://www.paulmacrae.com...

Fact 3: Almost every single planet in the solar system is exhibiting some sort of characteristic attributed to warming. If every planet is warming simultaneously, then why is Earth warming not natural. (For more info check the comment section where there was a mini debate on the subject or my previous debate where I explained the attributes each planet it expressing)

Fact 3: There has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. We have already discussed this topic and my opponent brought up a good argument against it but I disproved it in my last argument (and the comment section). (Keep in mind that in the last 20 years 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during that period)

Fact 4: The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick started in the 1700's, before the industrial revolution.
https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com...

Fact 5: Sun spots and ocean currents correlated stronger with temperature then Co2 for the majority of the 1900s.
Yes, sun spot numbers decreased towards the end of the 1900s but that is also right before temperatures flat lined.
Sun Spots Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) )is .57 1900-2004)
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu...
Ocean Current Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation here is .85 1900s-2007)
http://i0.wp.com...
Co2 Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) is .47 1895-2007)
http://zfacts.com...

Fact 6: Cosmic rays prove that greenhouse gasses do not have a big impact on the atmosphere.
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 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 variables 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.

Fact 7: Almost every single climate model prediction warming from Co2 was wrong
(see earlier argument for graphs)

Fact 8: There is no way to scientifically test, through a controlled experiment, whether Co2 causes enough warming to drive the atmosphere. You can test that the Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but you can't test that it is a strong enough greenhouse gas to impact global climate. This just proves that the idea that Co2 causes warming is not based in science. It is based off of faith in computer models or flawed logic.

In conclusion, I have now proven, beyond any doubt, that Co2 cannot be the main climate driver. I have given historical evidence, explained the flaws in the logic presented through cosmic ray induced cooling, shown how Co2 driving climate can't be scientifically tested, explained how we are not the only planet experiencing warming and described how much stronger other climate drivers are then Co2 by presenting correlation strengths of each driver. My opponent has effectively given up the argument and accused me of distracting the readers from the problem at hand. As you can see, just by reading the 8 facts listed above, I have not distracted, I have not manipulated. I have provided clear, easy to understand, proof to why my opponent is wrong. I have disproven all of his arguments, whether in the comment section or in my arguments presented above and given countless examples of evidence to why my side of the argument is correct.
Thank you for reading this long debate and I hope you are certain of the right choice when you vote.

To my opponent: I will be very surprised if you are reading this because it seems you have been ignoring my arguments from the beginning. You are so biased towards your own opinion that I am surprised you even decided to read any of my arguments instead of saying, "oh, he didn't separate the lines into enough paragraphs!" and ignoring them. I have looked at your past debates and concluded that, while you have done a good job at defeating some people, Retroz and maybe Epidexipteryx have both gotten the better of you. Even in your past debates (including the ones you have won) you have not been able to prove anything you claim. You attack sources, you focus on grammar, but you don't focus on your argument. This is why you attacked the whatsupwiththat website without providing any actual evidence showing the data I presented from it was wrong. In fact, you even admitted it was right! This just proves that attacking sources doesn't get you anywhere with your argument. Just a side tip, if you are going to attack anyone else's sources in future arguments, skeptical science isn't a trustworthy website either. It is run by John Cook who is known for manipulating and masking real information as he did with the 97% consensus.
Go to 3:02 in this video or watch the whole thing:
https://www.youtube.com...
Here is an article saying the same thing:
http://www.forbes.com...
Keep in mind that this renders almost every single one of your arguments useless so if this debate actually focused on how credible sources are, I would instantly win.

I thank you for participating in this debate, it was very fun, and I hope that we can both part from this as friends (or people that know each other online and happened to do a debate together whichever you prefer)
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: retroz// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments), 3 points to Pro (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro started out strong showing causation between CO2 and Temperature in his second argument, and Pro showed how Con's source wattsupwiththat is flawed. Con struggled to develop an argument in the beginning. However, I give con the argument points because of his solar system arguments, which Pro had no response to. By showing that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, etc. all showed signs of warming on their planet, it shows that Global Warming may not be Man-Made Also, Con did a petty good job at refuting "an Inconvenient Truth", by showing the predictions that never came true. I'm giving Con a Conduct point because of a rude comment made by pro "All caps always helps prove science" and Pro (instead of refuting points) complaining about the length of Con's argument, in Pro's 3rd round. I will give Pro reliable source points for showing the flaws with wattsupwiththat. Pro's grammar was superior, examples include (con)"Al Gores" instead of (pro)"Al Gore's", also Con had several run-on sentences

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than point to perceived rudeness in the debate " it must be clear that one of the debaters personally attacked someone, forfeited a round, or posted inappropriate materials. Merely being snide is not a sufficient reason to award conduct. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess sources given by both sides, and not solely base a source vote on one side's ability to refute a single sourcce from the other. (3) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to only award this point in instances where one side's S&G is bad enough that it impedes reading comprehension. That isn't shown through the voter's examples.
******************************
Posted by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
Um, can someone vote on this debate... same topic
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by SchinkBR 1 year ago
SchinkBR
Conduct wise this debate was terrible. Content wise it was great up until Pro quit.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
epidexipteryx
i agree but I don't think that we are going to enter an ice ag. This is because we are already in the Pleistocene ice age. We are just in an interglacial period which is why ice does not cover the entire planet. I do think that there will be a cooling trend starting soon though.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
TheBenC
One last comment...we are overdue for at least some form of an ice age. That means our planet has been heating up for far too long. The cycle has to restart at some point and this rapid heating of our planet is most likely due to the fact that we have not had our ice age yet.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
epidexipteryx
Sorry mistypes, they are not my arguments. Did not mean to take credit away from Rammer
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
epidexipteryx
Nice idea Retroz. It would make more sense if my arguments had credible sources :). Its just that when I did my research I forgot to make a citations page in my notes so I didn' t get any of the sources!
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Information and overload and impatience. I had to drop one debate, to stand a chance on another.
Posted by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
This was actually pretty fun to read, I had never heard of the warming solar system argument, and I will look into it. TBH, you both need to work on not citing blogs as a source, wattsupwiththat is a blog, and most things labeled .wordpress are often unreliable (I do that too sometimes, in a topic like this, especially for con, its hard to find sources).

@stupidape, y did u do what u did for ur third round? You probably would have won if you actually posted a counter-argument to the solar system argument.

But, overall this was a pretty fun debate to read, I would've loved less emphasis on grammar and sources, and more emphasis on numbers and science, but still pretty interesting
Posted by rammer5678 1 year ago
rammer5678
Also, your sources say that the snapshots of Mars happened before and after a dust storm, not during it. Before a dust storm there is no brighter dust being kicked around by the wind to lower the temperature (same idea for after a dust storm) so this argument is false.

The argument against Neptune is that climate modeling of its atmosphere suggests that is is entering a summer phase which could be the cause of increased warming. This may or may not be true but keep in mind that the recent models scientists have been using have not been very reliable and often show incorrect information. If we can't even predict our own atmospheric temperature how can we predict Neptune's seasonal changes and temperature?

The argument against Jupiter is that the warming is fueled by its own internal heat. This is true. This does not support non-interplanetary global warming because if we are in a higher energy patch of space you would expect it to give off more internal heat as it absorbs more energy. This actually helps my argument so thanks.

The source my opponent gave only covers these 3 planets. I have disproven all the evidence supporting that these planets warmed of natural causes on that planet while my opponent still has yet to address the planets Pluto, Saturn, Mercury, Uranus and the Suns sudden increase in magnetic field.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 1 year ago
SchinkBR
Stupidaperammer5678Tied
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: Cond: Neither (tie). Both parties were disrespectful to the other. Normally I'd vote against con for adding new arguments in R3 but given the insults throughout, I've decided this balances out Sp: No errors noted Sources: Calling out a bias source is a good thing to do debate-wise pro, but the same could be said about your sources. Bias is hard to filter out in today's world, and con provided other sources to back up their original one in the next round. Tie. Arguments: CO2 v Temp: Pro does a good defense in R2, both con dissects it line by line. Pro fails to defend in R3, Con. Polar Bears: Con points out in R2 that this is an emotional argument that doesn't prove what is causing warming, Con. Al Gore: The only thing specifically mentioned from the movie by pro was the climate models, which con proved to be inaccurate. Con. All points won by Con in R2. It was looking to be a pretty good debate in R2 but then Pro gave up in R3. I also disregarded the new arguments con brought up in