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

Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/4/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 104773
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)




Con may use first round for acceptance and an argument or just for acceptance. If Con uses the first round to argue, I ask that they do not make an argument in their final round to compensate.

Climate Change: the warming of earth's climate that is caused by human activity. NOTE: global warming means the same thing.

Greenhouse gas: a gas contributing to climate change

Emission: the greenhouse gas output of a machine(car, factory, etc.)

Good Luck!



The conditions of the debate are very confusing. It sounds like it was written by a control freak who can't tolerate freedom of speech and democratic processes. Never-the-less I am will to take on somebody who doesn't understand basic science. Yep!, You heard me right. Any person who believes in climate change doesn't understand basic science and politics for that matter.

Introducing Maurice Strong - The dirt bag climate change instigator.
Debate Round No. 1


First, I ask my opponent to refrain from wild ad hominem.

CO2 has gone up.

Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)-;

The spike coincides with the popularization of cars, especially in the US, as the wartime production economy steamrolled on into an age of peace and excess. These factors meant we as humans began putting out CO2 like nobody's

The Earth has gotten hotter

NASA once again has a relevant graph:

These two are correlated

Here, our good friend NOAA helps out, with their interactive climate dashboard(you'll have to scroll down past a few articles):;

And no, the NOAA isn't fake:;

Your ad hominems also reminded me of this:;

In light of the crushing amount of scientific empirical evidence, and my opponent's lack thereof, I strongly urge that you vote pro.


Well, as expected, my opponent has ignored my two references which clearly shows that the whole climate change fiasco is an elaborate money making scam. Then he proceeds to produce false information which has been specifically designed to trick and fool people into believing in climate change. My opponent also suggests that if the climate changes that it will pose a threat to humanity. This is false information as well. This is because the Earth is like a thermostat which self regulates itself. Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will create more cloud which will then cool the Earth back down to an even average temperature.

1. My opponent has ignored 1000 top level scientists who have clearly indicated that climate change science is a fraud.

2. My opponent has ignored that Maurice Strong was an evil person who used climate change as a means of gaining power and personal wealth.

Quote from Quadrant -

'Investigations into the UN"s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong " issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.'

Note - We can plainly see that the instigator of climate change was himself a criminal. Thus, how can we accept climate change and the science of climate change when the originator is a crook?

3. The hockey stick graph trick.
An email was intercepted which reveal that graphs were inverted. That's the trick that was used to create an increase in temperature.

4. Adding more Co2 doesn't increase temperature.

There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming.
Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.
Debate Round No. 2


No, your first two references do not show anything.

The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide any kind of sourcing, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It's basically just a bunch of had hominem calling him and his sister marxists and what not, with the whole point being "he created all of global warming in order to make a new world order". Yeah.

The second one, in which "1000" (It's actually 24) scientists are quoted as saying that they don't believe in climate science. This, of course, is just a massive appeal to authority fallacy.

False Information

What?! You know you can't just say "that's not true" and then have something not be true, right?

Climate change poses a threat to humanity



Aaaand here:;

Earth Self Regulates

Where'd you get that from? The graphs obviously show that the temperature has not stayed level, so this point is just misinformation.

"Hockey stick is broken"

No it isn't, ya silly:

"CO2 increase doesn't affect temperature."

*sigh* Graphs.

What even is this point. It talks about radiation, then some arbitrary distance, then shortening that arbitrary difference, then talks about how distance =/= temperature (reasonable), and finally throws out some arbitrary percentage to top it all off.



1. My opponent seems to think that if a concept was started by a criminal, then, that's O.K. Sorry, opponent. That's NOT O.K. Only an immoral person would create an immoral communist cause like climate change. That's right. Climate change is just communist agenda nonsense disguised as environmental concern. Don't be fooled.

2.Note - Temperature increases precede CO2 increases. This is the opposite of what we are told by the IPCC.

Thus, we are told a whole bunch of lies by the IPCC. Lesson - Don't believe anything the IPCC says.

3. Global temperature has gone up. Really? How did they come to this conclusion?
(a) Cherry picking data from places which have gone up while ignoring places where temperature has gone down. If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose from, then, you can create any distortion in temperature you want. Easy peezy. I think i'll become a climate scientist and earn millions of dollars for sitting on my arse making up nonsense numbers. Every time you get a result which proves climate change right, then, you get another salary bonus. Thus, who wouldn't find a positive result with that kind of incentive. lol Let's all get on the climate change gravy train and make a killing! lol
(b) Oceans are rising? Really?
I haven't seen any increase in the sea level. Note- Its the land that moves not the ocean dummies. Land is constantly changing and moving which may give the illusion that the ocean is rising or falling.

4. The scientist that are on my list are all respected scientists who are leading in their field of specialization. Thus, this is not just some trivial information.

5. Hockey stick fraud.

This is from Dr Christy's damning evidence to Congress:

Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.

6. NOAA temperature fraud.
Debate Round No. 3


1. This is extremely confusing. You start off by saying that Maurice Strong is a criminal. He's not. Then you go on to rant about how climate change is an immoral commie agenda. I assume this is who you re talking about when you say he "created" climate change. He didn't.

The greenhouse effect was discovered by a French physicist named Joseph Fourier in 1824.

the first correlation beteen CO2 and temperature was discovered in 1900, by a Swede named Knut Angstrom.

Mauna Loa began working in 1958.

The first concern about climate change came in 1965, when the President was warned about climate change by a council of scientists.

So tell me, how did Maurice start ALL of climate change?

2. This is a blog, and the IPCC is much more credible source.

3. (a) That's not how climate or averages work. They average thousands of sites across the globe, and they all indicate warming.

(b) Oceans are indeed rising. YOu have no clue how continental drift works either, do you? COntinental drift doesn't happen at that rate, "dummy". Here's a source:

4. It is not trivial, but it is appeal to authority fallacy.

5. Please read the sources I've provided. They'll help. Hockey stick was not broken, and many replications have shown the same result.

there it is

My opponent has repeatedly used incorrect information, fallacious reasoning, faulty logic, ad hominems, and has his whole argument structured around proof by repetition. Therefore, i strongly urge a vote to the pro(affirmative).


1. Maurice Strong -
In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world's first "state of the environment" report.

The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983.

Thus, Maurice Strong was the first instigator of a United Nations led Climate Council. This is not confusing, this is fact.

2. Mauna Loa.
My opponent is using information from a volcano site as being average for global CO2 levels. Hmmmmmmm?????????
Does anybody with half a brain see something wrong here????????
Gee Con, that must be why the graph suddenly shot up all of a sudden because they started using a volcano site as their average. lol
Good work, Swede named Knut Angstrom. lol Nut alright!!!! lol

3. Sea levels rising?

If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel M"rner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr M"rner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

5. Authority fallacy?
Drrrrr???? Never heard of that one before. Gee, does that mean that I should disbelieve all the IPCC and NOAA garbage? lol
Debate Round No. 4


1. Maurice

You still haven't proved that he's a criminal, and all I have is that he slapped his name on a few things. Not the first instigator, not by a long shot. And even if he was a criminal, it doesn't disprove the science. Isaac Newton had people killed(he was in charge of killing counterfeiters), should we discredit all of his findings? This is nothing but an ad hominem.

2. Mauna Loa
This point, apart from being extremely childish, is basically appeal to the stone. Also, see:;

3. Sea levels.

This is appeal to authority to the max, and you didn't even back up the authority that you gave him. And you still have clearly not even clicked on my sources.

(#4 doesn't exist for some reason)

5. Appeal to authority.

Jesus christ, I shouldn't have to link this to explain, but here you go:;

Nota bene: when your argument begins with "Drrrrr????" and ends with "lol," you should probably rethink it.

Aaaand then it's topped off with a juicy false equivalency. NOAA and IPCC are groups, do have peer review, and use the scientific process. Individuals are not subject to this.


I strongly urge a vote for affirmative(pro), as my opponent has not provided any real evidence, nor countered my own points, his arguments devolving into personal attacks, proof by assertion, and childish rhetoric.




1. I didn't post an argument in the first round. I just posted some information which gave you an opportunity to react to, rather than just letting you waffle on about subjects that I am not interested in or concerned about. Regardless, if you didn't post an argument in the first round that is your fault and not mine. You just wasted a valuable round, that's all.

2. My opponent keeps using Wikipedia references and seems to think that these are highly reputable and contain infallible information which can't be disputed or challenged. This is nonsense and a contradiction of his own authority fallacy theory. The Wikipedia website is just a collection of articles which could have been written by any random person. Its the editing that is the problem. I have made many edits in Wikipedia and after about 7 days my edits disappear and the original text comes back again. Thus, the site is managed by a bunch of conservative bureaucrats that hate new ideas or changes to old theories. Thus, if you are looking for exciting new ideas and scientific breakthroughs, then, you won't find any in Wikipedia.

3. People who are innocent don't run and hide in far off distant countries like China where they will be protected by the corrupted communist system.

4. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments. I have shown that my opponent has supplied false and misleading information. I have shown that the concept of global warming is a fallacy. I have shown that Maurice Strong was a criminal. I have shown that the oceans are not rising. I have shown that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. I have shown how the IPCC deceives the public.

Vote 1 Akhey !!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 6 days ago
How about Galah as an abbreviation. lol
Posted by arugula278 6 days ago
Also, RFDs are not required, so it isn't at all changing the rules.

Hey, Akhey, what should my catchy name shortening be? Aru, maybe?
Posted by arugula278 6 days ago
"pro is a tantrum thrower and a sore loser"

Posted by Akhenaten 6 days ago

It appears that the bureaucrats have stepped in and changed the rules so that Pro can win. Thus, I have proven my point that the SYSTEM is corrupt.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
>Reported vote: Subutai // Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: RFDs are not required for this debate.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is correct. RFDs are not required for this debate, hence any RFD, even the absence of one, is not moderated.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 week ago
Pro is a tantrum thrower and bad loser. Vote 1 Akhey.
Posted by arugula278 1 week ago
Posted by Throwback 1 week ago
@Backwardeden, lol, as far as it goes.
Posted by arugula278 1 week ago
But I guess this should be easy
Posted by arugula278 1 week ago
Con what the hell READ THE TITLE
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 1 week ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFDs are not required for this debate.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 week ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: CVB
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 week ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-