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

Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/17/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,587 times Debate No: 78892
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (151)
Votes (2)




Thank you to Medv4380 for accepting this debate. However, they have yet to respond and start accepting debate challenges. The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate.

I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising.


Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans.

Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS.

Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life.

Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizes

1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.

2. No semantics.

3. No forfeiture.

4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults

5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited.

6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.

7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.

8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:
Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALS
Round 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original case
Round 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttals
Round 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS
9. No trolling or spamming.

10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc.)

11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.

12. Kritiks of the topic are not accepted.

As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, medv4380.

==Contention 1: The correlation between increase in Carbon Dioxide and global temperature==

Throughout the last 650,000 years, there have been seven cycles of glacial advances and retreats, where the carbon dioxide levels abruptly increased, then gradually decreased afterward. However, in 1950, Co2 levels were at a critical level and kept on rising. As of 2014, the global Co2 levels were at an all time high of nearly 400 parts per million [1]:

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: [[LINK</span><br /><br /><span style=

As we can see above, in the last 650,000 years, the Co2 levels have never grown above 300 ppm, as opposed to now, where the Co2 levels are at 400 ppm. Obviously, this abrupt growth in Co2 levels are caused by human activity, such as mass production, the use of electricity, polluting, etc.

I have provided a youtube video above to show the correlation between the high Co2 levels and global temperature [2]. When both are compared, this becomes irrefutable evidence that man-made global warming exists. Note that this is all over the world, so accusations of choosing a specific area for evidence cannot be valid.

In fact, as of 2013, the average global temperature was 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than when the year was 1880, and 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline [3][4][5]:

Already, on the first contention, we have seen major evidence affirming the resolution.

==Contention 2: The cause and effect of the Greenhouse Effect and what makes it more powerful==

The greenhouse effect on Planet Earth has been occurring for almost its whole life and is a natural phenomenon, since greenhouse gases such as Co2 have existed on Earth from its birth, thus heating the Earth to help sustain forms of life [6]:

"To its credit, the greenhouse effect has been around long before humans began to burn fossil fuels, and it is a natural phenomenon in that makes life habitable for all living things." [6]

The greenhouse effect operates when the sun's heat passes through Earth's atmosphere, heats the Earth's surface and is reflected back upward. Most of this heat is absorbed by the greenhouse gases like water vapor, Co2 and methane. Afterward, the heat is re-emited in all directions, thus starting the cycle again, continuously heating the Earth. Greenhouse gases literally act like a thermal blanket for Earth [7]:

A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts<br>of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).

"A layer of greenhouse gases - primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius)." [7]

From this information, we can conclude that the more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere, the more heat from the sun is absorbed, thus creating a powerful greenhouse effect. Human actvity is causing this to happen.

P1) The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more powerful the greenhouse effect
P2) Human activity is emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
C) Human activity is the cause of a more powerful greenhouse effect, and thus man-made global warming exists.

To further prove this point, let us inspect Earth's neighboring planets, Mars and Venus.

Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, and it's nearly completely made up of Co2. However, it is because of the low atmospheric pressure and lack of other greenhouse gases that the greenhouse effect is not at all strong and thus Mars has a frozen surface without any signs of organisms [7].

"Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life." [7]

Now, let us inspect Venus.

Despite Venus' atmosphere also being almost entirely carbon dioxide, the amount of Co2 Venus contains is about 300 times as much as Mars' or Earth's. This creates a HUGELY powerful greenhouse effect, causing a temperature so high that lead could not stay solid. [7]

"Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 300 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth and Mars do, producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead." [7]

This can be further proven by checking Mercury's temperature compared to Venus' temperature, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus. [8]

"Venus has a very dense atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulfuric acid, while Mercury has a very thin atmosphere with various gases, but very little carbon dioxide." [8]

Again this information is major evidence of the existence of man-made global warming.

==Contention 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels==

It is widely agreed that melting ice from the Arctic and Antarctic and sea level rise is a sign of increasing temperatures. If I can prove that ice is definitely decreasing and that sea levels are definitely rising, then I win this contention.

Here is a chart showing definite decrease in Arctic ice [9]:

Here is another chart showing rising sea levels [10]:

Image of a graph showing sea level change due to ocean warming

Also, recent reports state that the Arctic is losing ice three times as fast as the Antarctic is gaining ice [11][12].

"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."

Thus, I affirm this contention.


I have put forward major evidence and arguments proving the existence of man-made global warming. I have also put out evidence that the greenhouse effect does indeed exist.

Thus, the resolution is affirmed.



Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

I don't intend on reposting any of my opponents graphs, or data. However it is important that I enumerate his graphs.

Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 for 650,000 years
Figure 2: Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index
Figure 3: Greenhouse Explanation
Figure 4: Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice August 1979 to 2013
Figure 5: Sea Level Change

Part 1: Doubt

It's telling that my opponent makes the claim that it is irrefutable, and then uses Figure 2. Even NASA, and NOAA would refute that graph since in June of this year they published serious corrections in an attempt to remove the hiatus from the argument.

Figure 6: Corrected Figure 2

Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014[2]. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction.

Part 2: Methodology Bias

Understanding instrument, and methodology bias is needed to understand what was done in Figure 6, and understand if we should accept the graph at all.

The data that is being corrected is the Ocean temperature measurements done by volunteer ships in the early half of the data. By itself this isn't a problem. The ship data has a higher inaccuracy, but all the ship data would have similar errors, and when compared to the same methodology there wouldn't be an issue. When you mix in other methodologies this error can become a big problem.

What caused these differences isn't hard to understand. Think of a time where we collected temperature data without the aid of a machine. If someone has to go out, and check the temperature, and record it there is always the possibility they missed the true high, and missed the true low. When we get to machine aided recording missing that true high, and true low is drastically reduced. Furthermore the error is unidirectional. Missing the true high will only result in a lower value. Just as missing the true low only results in a higher value.

We can actually see this type of bias in weather station dataset call the GHCN Data: [3]

If we didn't accept the methodology bias Figure 7 would present an interesting problem since the average high increase about 4 degrees C, and the average Low decreases by about 6 degrees C. If that was global warming the decrease in the low would seriously outweigh the increase in the high.

Figure 7: All GHCN High and Low Temperature Yearly Averages

Part 3: Addressing Bias

To address bias the bias must remain as constant as possible. Part of the reason for only debating the last 115 years is that the bias for weather station methodology hasn't radically changed unlike in the seventeen, and eighteen hundreds where changes in methodology were much more common.

By just comparing a station to itself, and only looking at the stations delta from hits own average we can show that the abrupt change around 1900 was actually an illusion caused by a large number of stations following a similar methodology, and not an actual change in temperature.
We can see in Figure 8 that the change is more gradual like the low temperature in Figure 7. The disagreement between the two graphs implies that the change is due to method changes, and not due to real changes.

Figure 8: All GHCN Station High Temperature Average Delta

Figure 9: All GHCN Station Low Temperature Average Delta

It would be an error to accept either Figure 7 or 8 as the truth. Both still suffer from a change in methodology bias, but they reflect that change differently. They both also high the noise in the data by utilizing a yearly, and 5 year mean. However, if you do accept Figure 7 as the truth you'd still have to reconcile the issue that Figure 9 shows that the Low temperature being higher than our modern time.

We also have an issue with sample size. At the earliest part of the data there is only 1 station. It's not until the 1870's that we start to get a decent sample size to start to remove statistical sampling errors, but even then it's only at a minimum. At the peak of the data in 2005 we have nearly 14 thousand station, but by 2015 we only have 10 thousand stations. This radical change in sample size can cause. Just as in 1893 we only had 563 stations but in 1894 we had 1353 which is responsible for the abrupt change in Figure 7.

The methodology below is what I will use to address each of these issues.

Methodology GHCN Data Analysis:
1. To process this data the first step is to convert each stations monthly 31 day values into a single monthly median value for each station.
2. Then each stations monthly median values are averages to create the average median for the life of the station.
3. The station average median is then subtracted from the station median to create a delta that represents that stations change away from the average median.
4. Stations are then selected based on the date of operation. For analysis starting in 1900 all weather stations that were operational in 1900 and operational at the end of the analysis must be used. Weather stations that were not operational at the start of the analysis cannot be used because they will induce a change in the region bias.
5. From there the data can be graphed, or each months delta for the year can be averaged to create a yearly change for a simpler graph.

Part 4: GHCN Data Analysis

Figure 10 below is the above analysis applied to the Global Historical Climatology Network Data. The blue dots represent the monthly noise that Figure 2, and 6 hides. We can now see that the average temperature varies by +- 4 degrees from normal, and not the few tenths of a degree that the yearly mean implies. As a note the two largest positive deviations from the mean are March 2010, and 2012 by 6.1, and 6.6 degrees respectively. They are separated by nearly a century, and show that the high temperatures of 2012 are hardly abnormal.

If you notice in the graph between 1930, and 1940 you'll notice a clear bulge in the 5 year mean about zero. This is of note because it correlates with the known heat waves of the 30's that attributed to an climaxed with the Dust Bowl in 1936 as seen in the EPA Heat Wave Index[5]. Anyone looking at this data in the 50's and 60's might actually believe that we were heading towards a global cooling event since in the 70's the median clearly drops below zero. Conversely anyone starting their analysis in the 70's is starting at a low, and thus only see a movement upwards. Which may also explain my opponent's Figures 4 and 5 which start with the low 70's era, and lack any data for the early half of the 115 year period this debate is over.

We can even apply a trend line to see if there is a trend upwards over the time period. There is a slight trend of 0.0009 degrees celsius per year, but this is with an R Squared of 0.0004 which means the significance of that upward trend is almost nothing, and can't be used for any real future predictions. For those unfamiliar with R Squared we really want to see a value as close to 1 as possible. A value of 0.5 is ok for some things like predicting erratic human behavior, but the more significant the claim the closer to 1 it needs to be. 0.0004 is so close to zero that it may as well be zero.

Figure 10: GHCN High Monthly Average Delta 1900 - 2015

I'd present A figure on the Low, but it would be redundant with Figure 10, and given the time and text constraints I will cut it from my argument.

Part 5: Is Temperature the Appropriate Measure?

When we say that CO2 causes the Earth's temperature to rise what we really mean is that the increase in CO2 causes the atmosphere to hold more energy.

The Pan Evaporation Rate can be used to measure the energy in the atmosphere. If you take a look at Figure 11 you'll notice it significantly deviates from a rather consistent trend. I've reduced the time range to 1980 to 2015 to give the largest possible sample of 156 pans in the GHCN dataset.

Figure 11: Pan Evaporation to Sun Spots

If we accept the increase is due to an abnormal warming due to solar storms that track with sun spots then we have a problem from the lack of any significant change during the man made ramp up of CO2 over the last 3, and a half decades. Since the sun's solar output varies by about 0.1 percent[6] it could be that even adding more CO2 has little effect because we've long since been able to absorb nearly all of the available solar energy.

So why is there a spontaneous increase after 2005? In 2008 NASA announced a discovery of an odd phenomena. They observed a Northern polarity Coronal Mass Ejection rip open our Northern Magnetic pole, and thus exposed the entire day side of the planet to solar storms that it doesn't normally get[7]. This resulted in the prediction that solar cycle 24 which would send more northern polarity CME's towards the Earth would, and subject us to an unusually high volume of Solar Storms that our Magnetic field usually protects us from. This would also explain why the shape with many of the same peaks and valleys visible in the data.

[4] (Only as a reference to a historical fact)
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to my opponent! Reading their arguments I can see this will be a great debate! I'd like to remind my opponent that although this is a rebuttal round, per the rules, new arguments can still be made.

Also, there was a problem with my sources in the previous round. I will present them again:



==Rebuttal 1: To doubt =/= To refute==

My opponent's first argument poses a few flaws. First of all, the new figure that has been presented has *barely changed* looking at the more recent years of the graph. Also, the change at the start of the graph is a difference of what seems to be less than 0.2 degrees Celcius, which doesn't even change the fact that the warming is significant.

But that isn't the point. The point is the question of what to trust.

"Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction." - My opponent

While I can agree that this may pose doubt, I can also ask the audience to *turn* this argument, because more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy, no matter how close they are. Therefore, my opponent's argument here only proves that there was no hiatus and the doubt should be cast on the 2014 update.

Finally, I will stress this as much as I can: *This doesn't refute the notion that humans are a significant cause of global warming, because so far it only focuses on temperatures instead of causation.*

==Rebuttal 2: Methodology Bias==

There is no doubt that methodologies change throughout the course of time, as we advance with new technology. However, shouldn't it be safer to trust more modern methods rather than outdated ones? A lot of my opponent's part 2, 3 and 4 arguments are based solely off the fact that methodologies change, rather than addressing the fact that new methodologies can be used to update old figures, as was done with NASA's figure.

Another version of figure 6 in my opponent's round can be seen here [1]:

s://; alt="Graph showing no slow down in global warming" />

What really matters is what my opponent says about his GHCN analysis of the high monthly average delta graph. He claims that the cooling period might explain why figures 4 and 5 start at a certain point. But there wasn't any major increase trend in ice even before the 70's [2]:

"Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide (Figure 2)." - Skeptical Science [2]

Sea levels have also been rising since the 1800's [3]:

"A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century." - Skeptical Science [3]

The most important part is where my opponent claims that the trend is almost nothing and can't be used for future predictions. This graph closely resembles the one found here [4]:

This figure was created from the actual temperature rise graphs from choosing the most actively reporting stations. Unfortunately, my opponent never gives a reason as to why there was a cooling in 1945 - 1970. The reason to this is actually one of my opponent's arguments: methodologies changed right at that time. This would imply that graphed temperatures rapidly changed, and in this case, dropped. [5]

Not only that, but the cooling was actually due to sulphate aerosols being released into the atmosphere [5]. Sulphate aerosols reflect solar energy back into space. This was not only caused by humans releasing such aerosols, but also by volcanic eruptions [5]. The greenhouse effect would start dominating climate again in the 70s, and the rapid warming has continued until today [5]. Therefore, rather than arguing we are not a cause of either, we should be discussing that we are the cause of both, and that the cooling was just a temporary decline.

==Rebuttal 3: Is The Cause Solar Output?==

The crux of my opponent's argument here is that pan evaporation correlates more with solar activity, and that the sudden increase would be because of a rip in the Northern Pole, weaking the Earth's magnetic field. We both agree that the sun's activity has remained quite constant in recent history. However, if the sudden warming were due to this rip, we can logically conclude that the atmosphere would be warmer within all layers as would happen with a situation where the sun actually increased in activity [6]. However, we have actually seen "a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere." - NASA [6]

Therefore, my opponent's arguments are null.

New contentions

==Contention 4: Positive feedbacks strengthen forcings==

Forcings are factors that "force" climate to change. Feedbacks are factors that amplify or diminish the effect of forcings. Because positive feedbacks dominate climate, the effect of forcings are significantly amplified [7]:

Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.


The evidence I have put out proves my opponent's arguments null and even contradicting as some of his data does not consider other factors. Therefore, so far a conclusion can be made that human effects do play a big part in global warming.



To Con!


I will enumerate more of my opponents graphs.

Figure 12: Global Glacier Cumulative Volume Changes
Figure 13: Proportions of growing and shrinking glaciers in 2009
Figure 14: Sea Levels since 1870
Figure 15: US Stations reporting continuously from 1900 to 2000
Figure 16: Feedbacks vs Forcings Graph

Part 6: Contradictory Glacial, Sea Level, and Temperature Data

Figure 12 is interesting not because it counters any of my argument, but because it puts my opponents temperature, and sea level data in contradiction with it. If you look at 1970 in Figure 12 You'll notice the volume of glacial ice is higher than any point from 1870 to 1970. How did we get more Ice in 1970? If we accept that the melt of glaciers is caused solely by heat, and if we accept ether Figure 2, or the corrected Figure 6 then we have a problem. The dates leading up to 1970 don't show any noticeable decline in temperature that would explain it, and the Figure 14 sea levels don't show any stabilizing or drop in sea level to address where this extra water for the ice even came from.

We're locked into another contradiction similar to the one that I started with. Ether the Glacial data is correct, and temperature, and sea level is incorrect. The Inverse of that, or both are wrong.

There are a couple of issues with Figure 12 that will need to be disclosed and accounted for before we can con to a decision about which data is correct. According to my opponent's source the number of glaciers represented from 1946 on back is in the single digits. It's not until about 1960 that we have about 30 glaciers represented in the sample. If we take a look at Figure 10 we can see that this is the point where the yearly median drops below zero implying slightly colder than average temperatures.

If you look at Figure 12 at 1980 you'll notice the angle of decrease shows a slowing which would imply that the temperature decreased, or had a slower accent than in prior years. In Figures 2, and 6 no such indication is given, but in Figure 10 the early 80's shows another decline in temperatures before the 90's where it finally moves above zero implying higher than normal temperatures, and thus a steeper decline in volume.

In other words Figure 12 is in less contradiction with Figure 11 then it is with Figures 2, 6, and 14.

However, Figure 12 also suffers from exaggeration of features due to changing sample size. This is address in my analysis in step 4, and when I brought up the causes of the differences between Figure 7 and Figure 8. Adding in a thousand weather stations radically altered the graph which is why step 4 restricted weather stations to existing at the start and end of the analysis.

So where does the sampling look like for Glaciers? My opponent's source is very nice to graph it out for us to see on their intermediate discussion of glacial ice.

Figure 17: Number of observed glaciers

As you can see just prior to 1976 there was only about 45 glaciers in the data. Then it spontaneously has about 20, nearly half of the prior sample, added in. This continues until the early 80's where that with a sample of just over 90 has doubled the sample. Then throw out the 90's regular sampling increased, and this would further exaggerate the changes because we hasn't sampled the glaciers in that method in the past.

Now I'd love to download the generate the data properly myself. My opponents source does point people towards it here:

However the data isn't high quality like the GHCN dataset, and would require more time than I have in this debate to properly process. It also doesn't have what I would consider a high enough quantity of data. It barely has 30 glaciers sampled regularly, and I'd personally prefer 100 before I started making definitive claims about what the data says. Even the source claims that they have 228 glaciers in the data, and the only way for that to work with the sample graph is if glaciers skip years, and aren't fully represented every year, and across every season in a year.

Part 7: Hiatus Proof?

My opponent is under the mistaken belief that I've proven the hiatus to be false. Unfortunately Part 1 of my argument does everything, but that. I've proven only that two parts of the global warming argument about the hiatus are in stark contradiction with each other. That only proves one, or both are wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't prove which one is actually wrong. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are the evidence that undermines Figures 2, and 6 strongly suggesting that data in both cases is flawed. It's up you the judges to choose which you believe. However, using my opponent's reasoning that “because more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy” is counter to logic, reason, and debate. It is an appeal to the authority of newness, and not a rational reason at all.

Part 8: Correlation vs Causation

My opponent seems to be under the impression that my only focuses on the temperatures, and doesn't refute humans as the cause. There is a phrase in statistics that you may have heard. “Correlation does not imply causation”, but that's only half the phrase. These other half is, “There is no causation without correlation”.

Simply put if there is no correlation between global warming and human activity as Figure 10 shows then humans are certainly not the cause. However, if you believe Figure 2, or 6, and that they correlate to human CO2 activity then there is the additional burden of proving that the correlation causal, and not just correlational.

It's an unfortunate asymmetry in statistical arguments. There is a possibility that even if there isn't a correlation that maybe the correlation is just smaller than can be measured with the available data, but that would yield that human activity is an insignificant factor in global warming.

As for correlation issues my opponent has another problem. If we believe Figure 14 we'd expect out CO2 emissions to map over it, and show a visible correlation. Now both CO2, and Ocean levels have gone up over time, but just going up isn't enough. Sea levels have a nice smooth mathematical curve built into it. I'd have loved to have put both the CO2 and Figure 14 together, but my opponents source linking to the data to do that leads to a 404 error:

Figure 18: CO2 Emissions

If you notice between 1950 and 200 there is a bulge in out CO2 emissions, and between 1980 and 2000 a different rate of increase until 2000 where it is in line with an exponential trend that started in 1870. These features would be expected in the Sea Levels data if they were strongly correlated, but it looks like by the seal levels that it's an exponential trend that never varies in the way out CO2 emissions do. My data is courtesy of Source 8. Now if my opponent can find the source for this Figure I'd be happy to merge the sea level in so we can see just how much it doesn't correlate. Most other sources only give about 10 years of data.

Part 9: Solar Activity
My opponent is under the impression that he can wave his hands, and assert an argument, and data is null just because it doesn't conform to his world view. He'd have to explain the lack of movement in the past data, and give an appropriate alternative for Cycle 24 correlating, but not prior. NASA's assessment in 2008 on the effect of Solar Storms due to this unprecedented phenomenon had no prior data. Outside of the last decade this was never observed before. Claiming that we should see all layers heat up as he claims to try to ‘nullify' is nothing more than an unsupported assumption.

Part 10: Dust Bowl
My opponent makes the claim that I hadn't explained the downward change in the median, and then attempted to assert that it must be from a change in methodology. Though I'm not against this possibility claiming that a change in any of the graphs is due to a methodology change requires further explanation. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are extensive explanation of methodological errors.

However, I did explain the change in the graph even if it was indirect. In the 1930's there was a excessive drought, and heat waves. Part of this being clearly represented in the data is due to the United States having the best most consistent weather station data for the last century, and even more so in my opponent's Figure 15 because it is only the United States of America 600 weather stations vs my sample of 1170 weather stations. Now this event very much did occur, and is verified in the EPA Heat Wave Index that shows the 30's were exceedingly bad even by today's standards, and you can read source 5 to see further analysis on this Great Depression causing event if you doubt the 30's heat waves weren't hell on Earth.

Now why the 30's was Hell on Earth is anybody's guess. We know it was bad, and man made CO2 emissions were even lower so blaming them enters into contradiction with the present high emissions. Personally I'd love it if there was enough pan evaporation data to verify that there was, or was not a correlation with sunspots, but the available GHCN data is too small for that period evaporation data.

Part 11: Contention 4
My opponents 4th contention appears to be missing an actual argument to go with it, or even a time period to show the change in forcing, and feedbacks over time. Perhaps he will clarify in the next round what he was going after with it.

Part 12: Earth, Mars, and Venus
I'm out of time, and characters so I will have to cut my response a bit, and hope to come back to this part if possible.
I await my opponent.

Debate Round No. 3


Thanks to my opponent for such a great debate!


==Counter 1: Contradiction?==

My opponent asserts that my glacial, sea level and temperature figures are contradictory. He never considers the fact that there were sudden but brief drops in temperature near to the increase in ice, which both his and my figures agree upon.

I don't agree with the way my opponent presents why the amount of ice on Earth is increasing. More glaciers =/= more ice. Simply because there are more glaciers being observed doesn't mean the *amount* of ice is increasing. Don't count on trusting the use of his graph, because it is in a way irrelevant to what we are trying to discuss on this contention.

==Counter 2: Hiatus==

[Remember: The hiatus is said to have happened in more recent years, so more recent data can be cited.]

Con tries to save his argument by stating that I made an appeal to authority to newness, and assumes that it is "not a rational reason at all".

So what is he implying here? Is he implying that we should trust older methodologies simply because I supposedly committed one logical fallacy that isn't even that much of a negative effect? So far, that's the only basis he has for his argument, and the reason why we can't accept his basis in this case is because it is simply common sense. In most, if not all debates, we are inclined to use the newest and most updated sources, thus more trustworthy sources. We shouldn't try to attack the sources of others simply because it is "an appeal to the authority of newness", because it isn't - it's just common sense.

Where his argument is relevant is interesting, because he seems to not know which one is right or wrong. Even so, the graphs would *still* support my argument. Con doesn't even know if either of them ACTUALLY ARE right or wrong. And with the huge consensus and observed evidence supporting it, the answer leans way towards the Pro stance [1-3]:

==Counter 3: Correlation vs. Causation==

Here my opponent essentially nitpicks the slightest flaws in correlation and claims these flaws are deciding factors. First of all, there isn't even supposed to be a direct correlation between CO2 and sea levels - they are FAR from correlating to each other. The CO2 is emitted, then temperature rises, then ice melts, THEN sea levels rise. You can't expect a perfect correlation when they are that far away from each other. Secondly, why must it correlate so perfectly? If they correlate and they are reasonably close, then what does it matter?

==Counter 4: Solar Activity==

I am shocked that my opponent has assumed that I made an unsupported assumption, *when it is undeniably clear I made a citation supporting my argument.* Let me repeat that. Clearly.

And why would we need data from prior to the alleged increase when this is simply logic and facts? The reasoning I had given *perfectly* fits with the scenario being discussed.

But if my opponent still isn't happy about that, then I'll explain why it is still null. The warming on Earth is known as global warming. Warming means steady temperature increase. Key word: temperature.

So if temperature increasing means pan evapoation is increasing, then why is temperature almost universally agreed to be increasing yet there seems to be no trend in figure 11 for pan evaporation? Obviously this doesn't make sense.

So is that figure very trustworthy? The answer: probably not.

Also, just to top it off, figures agree that the increase is solely due to human effects [4]:

==Counter 5: Dust Bowl==

My opponent continues to not give me a valid reason for the decrease in the median. Of course, he did talk about the droughts and terrible heat waves, but since when did we find out that the aftermath of heat waves would be sudden and big cooling worldwide?

And yes, Con did provide extensive explanations about methodological bias, but that wasn't the only thing that caused figures to show a sudden cooling. The other thing was the fact that humans started to use more sulphate aerosols, which cool the Earth [5]. So Con has yet to come up with another reason for the decrease.

==Counter 6: Feedbacks and forcings==

I apologize for this contention - somehow it got cut out. I will not present the previous graphs, but rather build onto it.

So far, we can conclude that positive feedbacks dominate climate and thus amplify the effect of forcings significantly.

Climate sensitivity is essential in climate science - it is the rise of equilibrium global land-sea mean temperature each time CO2 concentration is doubled [6].

"It is defined simply as the global mean warming that is reached in equilibrium (that is, after a long time) after doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." - Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the facts [6]

With feedbacks, climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees Celcius [7]:

Various estimates of climate sensitivity

The increasing CO2 emissions are predominantly anthropogenic. Combine the forcings increase with the feedback amplification, and you get increasing temperature caused by humans.

My opponent seems to not be able to respond to the planets contention, so I will allow them to respond in their next arguments.


Con fails to disprove the evidence I have put forward, making assumptions that are difficult, if not impossible to justify. Thus, I affirm.


[6] 4)

I await my opponent's arguments!


It's unfortunate that my opponent decided to write up his response to the contradiction in his data so rashly. Perhaps if he had taken a day to digest the argument he would have been able to come up with a better response.

Since this is a long debate I'm going to use this round as a tldr to summarize the evidence, and give my opponent one last chance to attempt to refute the challenges he's chosen to ignore, or breeze past.


Not Human Caused
1) 1970 has more ice than 1870

My opponent seems to be unable to read his own graph, Figure 12. According to his own data, which he did not decide to toss out, the Sum total of Ice loss in 1970 was between -300 and -400, and in 1870 it's clearly more than -400. Because it's going with a communalative total this means there was an increase in Ice.

Now I gave my opponent, and you the judges lots of leeway to reject the evidence completely. However, he has not, and misunderstands what I was talking about with the change in the number of sampled glaciers. When you add in a large amount of sample like in Figure 7 when the number of Weather Stations goes from about 500 to over a thousand the graph becomes exaggerated. According to Figure 17 that's exactly what happened with the glacier data around 1976 where the sampling nearly double.

2) Weather Station data shows no correlation change with human activity in the 115 year range of this debate.

This is simply a fact that can't actually be refuted. The truth is that when you do a comparative analysis for weather stations that use the complete set. In other words. they exist at the start, 1900, and exist at the end 2015 you get no noticeable correlation with an increase in temperature. My opponent was even nice enough to find a second source confirming this with a smaller more restrictive dataset.

So, why would you want to include a bunch of weather stations from 1970 that have no records going back to 1900 when you want to know what changes in weather can be observed from 1900 to 2015?

The answer is simple. Figure 10 shows 1970 as a low point in temperature, and, if Figure 12 is not discarded, is corroborated by the ice data. The several thousand stations added thought the 70's can only show an increase because they started at the bottom, and have no past beyond that, like the high of the 30's, to be compared to. It results in the increase being exaggerated, in much the same way Figure 12 has exaggerations.

3) The Pan Evaporation Rate is by far the most important fassett of this debate.

The fact that this rate stays relatively constant from 1980 to 2005 corroborates the conclusions drawn from Figure 10. The fact that it changes in late 2010 to strongly correlate to solar cycle 24 which NASA has predicted in 2008 would subject the Earth to an unusually large volume of Solar Storms because of an effect with our Electromagnetic field suggest some important things. Most importantly that is shows changes in the Earth's Energy footprint, and second that the changes that it shows has nothing to do with the actions of man. So if we blame the heat waves of 2012, and the record heat of 2014 on global warming the real culprit is solar storms made possible by a weird effect in our electromagnetic field, and a dual peak, 2012 and 2014, in solar cycles 24.

Man Caused Evidence

1) Sea Levels

On the surface it may seem that sea levels support my opponent. However, this requires that he reject his own glacial data. After all if the Volume of Ice is high in 1970 than it was in 1870 where did this ice come from? Then without the dataset to recreate the graph we can't reliably show the CO2 and Sea Levels side by side to see how well or not well they correlate. In my view the bulge of CO2 from the 70's isn't visible the poor quality graph of the Sea Levels, and the source for that dataset has long since taken it down, or moved it. It's even possible that sea levels, and the Ice Data are both correct, but that would require believing something like our pumping of groundwater could have had an impact on the amount of available water, but that's not global warming if you accept that.

2) Mixed Methodology Temperature Graphs

A good portion of my argument involves a bit of education about how mixed methodologies can warp a graph. The easiest way to resolve this kind of an argument is to separate out the methodologies, and treat each of them separately. I've done this with the weather station data.

Now his latest temperature graph does attempt at showing a correlation between CO2, and temperature. However, if we accept the Round 3 temperature graph there are a few problem. First I'm glad my opponent finally has a graph that shows a clear run up in temperature for the 30's unlike his others. However, this exposes that the correlation only exists for about 1960 to 2000 maybe 2015 since it's hard to tell on the edge of a graph if the trend is continuing, or not. In his graph the temperature is noticeably higher compared to the CO2 levels breaking the correlation for the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Then in the early 1900's it's noticeably lower breaking the correlation yet again. Finally in the 1880's it's noticeably higher than the CO2 would imply. If CO2 so definitively correlates for a brief period in the 20's and from 1960 to present why does it deviate so violently in the other periods? It could be that the CO2 measurements in that graph are an over smoothed representation of the truth, or it could be that the correlation never really was to begin with.

3) Venus

This is actually a minor point, but I'm aware that some people will look at the example of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and think that it is somehow proof.

Fact, even if we burned all the Coal, and Oil on the planet, and even if we were in the orbit of Venus we still wouldn't even approach the temperatures of Venus. The reason has to do with Atmospheric pressure and Ideal Gases. CO2 and O2 are close enough to Ideal Gases that they actually obey the Ideal Gas Laws.

When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2. Now we just need to apply Avogadro's Law.

Avogadro's Law
“equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules”

This means that the atmospheric pressure will remain the same at 1 Bar for Earth, but Venus has 92 Bars of pressure, or 9200%. No amount of burning will cause us to add atmosphere. We can only convert it. Now volcanoes can inject CO2 without burning, and that's one of the few ways it can be approached.

However, even with the same exact atmosphere we'd still be colder because when our electromagnetic field is working we don't get the additional heat that Venus does because it spins too slowly to have a field large enough to deflect them.

This is why the Venus, and Mars analogy is false. It is a gross over simplification of the truth. It neglects that we don't add atmosphere, but rather convert it. It also ignores out electromagnetic field which is the main difference between Earth and Venus, and Mars.

Thank you, and I await our final round.
Debate Round No. 4


Thanks to my opponent, it's been fun.

I will respond to the points my opponent has made in this round, and clarify my case.

But first of all, I am sure that I hadn't ignored a piece of my opponent's case. Don't trust this claim as just because a response is brief doesn't mean it's not valid.

==Rebuttal 1: 1970 has more ice than 1870==

My opponent is correct that the data is cumulative. However, he drops my response to this when I stated that there was an apparent but brief drop in temperature caused by sulphate aerosols. I don't agree with how my opponent states I must drop the evidence simply because his basis is that there was an increase in ice for 20 years (even though the line starts dropping rapidly). If we were to apply a trend line the line would most definitely be slanted downwards towards the right. His argument doesn't explain the rest of the graph showing sharp declines in ice. I find that my opponent nitpicks at every little flaw that doesn't seem right even though the rest supports my argument, and he ends up dropping the rest of the graph altogether.

I think what my opponent focuses the most on, however, is how figures are exaggerated as more and more climate stations are set up, and he attempts to apply that to temperature record figures. However, the notion that temperature record figures are untrustworthy is false, as has been shown throughout the debate [1]:

Fig 1

"For example, a study by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link toglobal surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two[.]" - Skeptical Science [1]

==Rebuttal 2: No correlation==

This point as a large relation with the first point, and doesn't affect much in the debate. Basically my opponent states that we can't trust graphs that start in the 70's because it was a low point in global warming. There are two points to make:

(A) Again, my opponent doesn't focus on the rest of the graphs with clearly agree with my case in the debate.
(B) The only figures I gave which started in the 70's are the ones I had replaced with other data.

Again, this point is null because it has little to no weight in this debate.

==Rebuttal 3: Pan Evaporation==

My opponent drops my response to this argument, where I gave the two statements that (a) we cannot use the method because no sources or figures measuring temperature correlate with pan evaporation, and (b) global warming is found to be affected by human causes the most, as shown in the last round.

After doing some research, I found that pan evaporation did have to do with climate, but not with global warming. This extends the point of my rebuttal [2]:

"Pan evaporation is a measurement that combines or integrates the effects of several climate elements: temperature, humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. Evaporation is greatest on hot, windy, dry, sunny days; and is greatly reduced when clouds block the sun and when air is cool, calm, and humid. Pan evaporation measurements enable farmers and ranchers to understand how much water their crops will need." - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopediia [2]

Wikipedia states that pan evaporation helps farmers and ranchers to correctly water their crops. But never does it say anything about energy in the atmosphere.

==Counter 1: Sea Levels==

My opponent seems to make a valid point about the glaical and ice contradiction, but it isn't valid. Glaciers hold less than 2% of the water on Earth [3]:

"The amount of water locked up in ice and snow is only about 1.7 percent of all water on Earth[.]" - Textile Waste Diversion Inc. [3]

Glaciers were just a part of my argument to show that ice was melting. The fact that glaciers hold so little of the world's water barely makes any difference in the rise in sea levels, especially since most glaciers exist inland, but not near the oceans, as most glaciers are of the Himalayas, which are inland [4][5]:

"The Himalayan–Karakoram (HK) region has among the largest glacier coverage outside the polar regions[.]" - Estimating the volume of glaciers in the Himalayan–Karakoram region using different methods [5]

This alone means that glaciers can be used as evidence for global warming, but NOT to disprove its existence. My opponent's rebuttal is null.

==Counter 2: Mixed Methodologies==

This, again, is an example of the nitpicking my opponent has done throughout the debate. Correlation =/= imitation.

But if my opponent still can't accept my graph, here are the reasons why my opponent's rebuttal isn't coherent:

1. My opponent emphasized a lot on the heat waves of the 30's, so the fact that he's using that to try and prove there isn't a correlation is beyond me.

2. Where the temperature drops out (more so not) of the correlation is so insignificant that it may as well be part of the correlation. Somehow my opponent thinks that a difference in correlation about a millimeter or less for a graph THAT size still counts as proof that the correlation is false.

==Counter 3: Other planets==

"When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2." - Opponent

My opponent now suddenly agrees that CO2 has a heating effect, which is different from the last few contentions. But if this is untrue, see my previous counter.

My opponent also agrees that we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere, even though oxygen is being taken out of the air. It's basically a concession of this point because my opponent agrees the atmosphere on Venus is thick with greenhous gases.

P1) More CO2 in the atmosphere = Earth heats up
P2) We are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere
C) We are heating up Earth.

As for the electromagnetic field, my opponent ignores that Mercury does not have a major electromagnetic field either [6].

"Mercury’s magnetic field is 150 times weaker than that of our planet, however." - [6]

And with a distance much smaller from the sun than other planets, you'd expect that Mercury would be hotter. However, BECAUSE Venus has such an atmosphere it is simply that much hotter.

==Dropped arguments==

My opponent drops many arguments in the debate, which is lucky because they seem to be important points.

He drops the points:
- That natural causes have a much smaller heating effect than with human effects
- That positive feedbacks amplify heating effects
- That the increase in glaciers is probably due to the brief drops in temperature that were only temporary and caused by humans as well
- That methodology changes don't change the actual temperature
- That we can't use pan evaporation because it is not relevant to the debate
- That temperatures are perfectly fine evidence in terms of this debate
- That the corrections made in NASA's graph do not make much difference
- That newer sources are usually more trustworthy, especially when made by a government website

Those are the ones that I can think of at the top of my head, and there could be more. Don't let my opponent respond to them because it is unfair if he responds when I can't.


There are huge holes in my opponent's argument, as well as big contradictions. Their arguments are more like theories (or even just hypotheses) because they nitpick at things if something isn't perfect. And my opponent can throw any theory he wants at me but scientific research somehow, as tylergraham said, always seems to fly in his face.

The resolution is soundly affirmed.



Final round to con!


You the judges are presented with a problem. Whose statistics, whose figures should you believe?

In order to help you I'm going to tell you a short story paraphrased from Professor Helen M Walker that you can find in a book titled “How to lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff published in 1954 starting on about page 62. If you wish to debate any statistic, or figure you might want to consider reading the book in full.

As women get older they toe out more as they walk. It seems like an absurd conclusion, and indeed false, but it is something the data would say at the time. To reach this conclusion you simply survey a large sample of women, and plot their age and angle of their feet, and it would say that at the time. Women who were younger didn't toe out as much as women who were older.

However, it is wrong because it's assuming the younger women are a valid reconstructed past of the older women. The issue is actually that the older women toed out more even when they were younger as well because it was a generational fad that faded over time with each generation. The correct way to do this analysis would be to take women born at around the same time like 1900, and measure them once each year over a period of time like 115 years. Only then would you be able to tell if women toe out more as they grow older.

This highlights the major problem with global warming data. It assumes that adding in a large volume of weather stations at different periods of time that have no past to compare to won't cause any deviation in their data. It assumed that adding in data from volunteer ships for the first half of the century, but not the later half wouldn't affect their data until adjusting it in a favorable way appeared to remove part of the argument.

If we had no choice I'd agree that this method is flawed, but there exists no alternative. However, we have a sufficiently large number of weather stations that have been in operation from 1900 to Present. But this basic analysis for checking to see if sampling bias, and methodology bias is the actual cause of the change is ignored. There exists no funding of additional projects that says there is no measurable change in temperature in the last 115 years. There is no renewal of tenure for the professor who can only publish once that there is nothing here on a subject, and then must find another controversy to publish on.

As for the Hiatus, if you understand my argument at this point you should have a clue as to what it actually is. Over the years we've added so many weather stations that by the mid 90's that ability to manipulate the data by adding more sample would require adding 5 to 10 thousand samples. They'd finally reached the point where the law of large numbers overwhelmed them, and adding a few hundred only accounted for a few percentage points to the total sample. The cost of adding non randomized weather station sample exceeded their desire.

The evaporation data by itself is all that is needed to prove man is not a significant player in global warming. The rest is ether to confirm the finding like how stable evaporation had been prior to 2005, and 2010. Or to discredit, and confront the poor methods used to support my opponent's argument.

If the evaporation data couldn't show changes in the Earth's Atmospheric energy then it would remain flat regardless of any change in the environment. However, we know it does change, and changed with the predictions from NASA that the Earth would be subjected to more solar storms than we normally do for Solar Cycle 24 due to an unexpected effect in our electromagnetic field. The correlation is so pristine that it even has the same peaks and valleys. If it can change for that in such a fine tuned way then why doesn't it so the change for man caused global warming? There are only two answers. Either man caused global warming is insignificant compared to the solar effect, and is drowned out by the subtle noise. Or that it is nonexistent. Ether conclusion fully supports my argument.

I've undermined, and instilled doubt into my opponent's argument. That isn't to get you to vote for me. That is only to give you a reason to listen so that I can give you the time of day. You will vote for me because you will have looked at the evaporation data I've presented, and come to the same rational conclusion.

Man Made Global Warming has nothing to do with the enhanced levels of energy in our atmosphere over the last decade, and is insignificant, or nonexistent compared to the natural cause: Solar Storms breaking through our Electromagnetic Field.

Thank you for letting me give you the time of day.
Debate Round No. 5
151 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Skynet 12 months ago
Dear participants and commentators,
First off, I AM biased toward Con's position, but only because I have seen stronger arguments for his position. But holding a position on a debate beforehand should not disqualify someone. No one could vote on anything important then. In the recent past, I was a...supporter is too strong a word, I believed man made global warming was significant because of a previous set of evidence I was presented with. That being said, I tried my best to be even-handed in my judgement and criticized and praised elements of both Pro and Con's arguments because I didn't want to unfairly vote for the person I agreed with, I needed to judge based on the merits of the arguments in this debate. Niether of you seem to be weak debaters, and both made good, effortfully researched points, and neither FF or threw big immature fits in the debate, though some passionate statements were made. I had to do a lot of reading and thinking, and I had to summarize my decision about a great number of data intensive, highly detailed arguments in a very brief space. After reading the criticism, I do agree that my decision could have been better explained, but not by much considering I only had 177 characters left after writing what I already did. I also think that there are more than 4 days of voting left, and that my vote would not seem so bad if I were not the only one willing to read through the whole thing and cast a vote! Pro may be losing by 100% as of last page refresh, but come on, I'm the only decided vote! I've had to put up with plenty of very bad voting that was not removed, and plenty more I didn't even bother to report.
BLAHthedebator: I respect your debating ability, you put a lot more effort into this debate than most people on DDO seem to, all that happened was you failed to convince one voter on one debate. Most of my debates don't attract any voters!
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
And what, exactly, have I "avoided like the plague"? I addressed it the round after you had made the argument, and that rebuttal was one of the arguments *you yourself* dropped.
Posted by medv4380 1 year ago
@BLAHthedebater That's not surprising since his vote is based on the statistical argument against yours that you avoided to address at every point. I'm only surprised he understood it, but I'm not surprised that you don't since you avoided it like the plague.

As for the others. Anyone who would claim a vote is illegitimate, and not vote. Ether they didn't read the debate, or cannot come up with a reason to vote. I've removed the threat of my objection if that is why they do not vote.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
Normally I'm not this salty, but I just find the vote to be unbelievably biased.
Posted by medv4380 1 year ago
@AdithyaShark and @tejretics There is nothing stopping ether of you from voting, and showing how you think it should be done. I have zero interest in voter suppression so feel free to put up any opinion you feel my opponent wont report you for because I wont. I resigned myself to a loss long before accepting this debate solely due to the side I was taking is unpopular.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
My sentiments exactly
Posted by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
That vote was downright horrible...
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
Vote moderation is not meant to involve looking through an entire debate, finding out if the voter has addressed all of the arguments given, and then removing votes that fail to cover dropped arguments. That would make my job insanely difficult, requiring that I read through every debate before I address removals. It would also change the voting standards. I'm not saying his vote is good, just that it's sufficient to meet the standards we have.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
??? I am shocked.

I don't see how his vote is valid when his RFD disregards ALL of the responses to ALL of the arguments Con made mentioned in the RFD.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Skynet// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I'd have given spelling/grammar to Pro. Pro also made a good argument as to glacier levels only proving but not disproving global warming. However, Con poked several holes in Pro's arguments that make his position seem less believable. Adding stations and methodology changes in such large numbers would make continuous trending inaccurate over the transitions. Not enough information about the details of magnetic fields relating to temp were given to flesh out the arguments on either side. Pro's p1 p2 c arguments need work. Just because there is a greenhouse gas being emitted does not mean that that particular greenhouse gas can be overridden by other factors. When you are talking about a fraction of a degree difference over a century, looking at very small details should not be referred to as "nitpicking."

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote could use a more cohesive evaluation of what each argument meant to the final decision, but the voter does show a general knowledge of what happened in the debate and makes his decision based on specific arguments given, albeit with some vagueness in the process of that determination.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 1 year ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: 0
Vote Placed by Skynet 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I'd have given spelling/grammar to Pro. Pro also made a good argument as to glacier levels only proving but not disproving global warming. However, Con poked several holes in Pro's arguments that make his position seem less believable. Adding stations and methodology changes in such large numbers would make continuous trending inaccurate over the transitions. Not enough information about the details of magnetic fields relating to temp were given to flesh out the arguments on either side. Pro's p1 p2 c arguments need work. Just because there is a greenhouse gas being emitted does not mean that that particular greenhouse gas can be overridden by other factors. When you are talking about a fraction of a degree difference over a century, looking at very small details should not be referred to as "nitpicking."