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

Resolved: Man-made Global Warming Exists.

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: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,004 times Debate No: 62917
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)





Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make her opening arguments.

Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes.

Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion.

Round 4 Com makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon."

If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points.

No swearing

No trolling

man-made- manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings; specifically (

Global Warming- Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels


Global warming is significantly man man made

Here is a general website that debunks anti man made global warming folks, claim by claim

Here is proof that carbon dioxide has nearly doubled and increased exponentially since the industrial revolution

Here is a similar graph that shows temperature following a similar fate

Here are websites that tie together co2 and temperature, and debunks any claims about why co2 and temperature carbon are not always tightly correlated

There's no question that temperature and CO2 is correlated. You can see that in the links i provided, historically.

Here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together

Here is a graph showing the thickness of polar caps melting exponentially

Here is a scientific article that refers to the ice caps being doomed


Warming not caused by volcanoes and the Sun cycles

'The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.
The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).'
I'd also add, that the common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. Consider all the pollution, places like LA. I'd bet California itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?

Scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -
* American Geophysical Union (AGU):
* American Meteorological Society (AMS):
* American Institute of Physics (AIP):
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):
* American Meteorological Society (AMS):
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):


-We rule out major causes like the sun and earth's rotation
-Our north pole just melted completely a few years ago. this is a historic event that doesn't occur very often at all.
-If we look at ice levels in polar regions... we can see carbon and darker ice during the industrial revolution... and it's noticeably lighter at the point the clean air act was introduced... this is simply evidence, but tangible evidence that this stuff is in not only the sky but everywhere.
-If we look at temperature increases... yes, it shows we are getting hotter. We are setting records at a more frequent basis.
-If we look at natural temperature increases... we see we've been increasing for thousands of years. But, we see that it's been accelerating in recent history, particularly the industrial revolution where pollution occurs. This is in reference to the infamous "hockey stick" graph. No, we can't deduce from that alone that we're the cause, but we can give it as supporting the fact that there's an accelerated increase, especially at our time.
-Studies have been done that show CO2 being a cause of warming. we might squabble about how much warming, but we know it causes some.
Debate Round No. 1


Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase.

My opponent states that CO2 levels have never been this high, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels.
Fig. 2. C13 fraction variations contained in seasonal versus, interannual versus decadal variability, compared to known geophysical sources.
The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. ( This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming."
This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (
Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been.
Contention 2: Earth is cooling.
If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day? You can also see that Pro's graph is actually in the 500 to 10 thousand years before present and we can see that fallowing those trends that the temperature has actually leveled off.
I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. ( The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC.
How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (
Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (
Contention 3: Artic Ice.
First, I would like to state that Pro's claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus.
Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now.
Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (
Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity.
Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (
We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier this year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (
How about Al Gore. The man who brought Global Warming to our attention? In 2009, the man breaks down in tears stating how it's nothing, but hot air and how he fabricated everything just for the money! He said the arctic sheets are not melting and CO2 is not responsible for depletion of the Ozone. (
Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare.
1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice.
2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago.
3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (
Contention 4: Sea Levels

Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as Pro claims then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land.
The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. ( The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all.
This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. The source is the PDF within the link.


i argued that we are getting warmer due to humans, one step at a time, irrefutably. con's sources are unreliable and largely inaccurate. 98% of scientists agree with me. if 98% of engineers said a bridge was unsafe, would you want to travel down it?
Debate Round No. 2


I'm going to extend across all of my other arguments as they have not been refuted.

Contention 6: Global Warming Public Opinion

First off, in a recent poll in the United States showed that 53% of Americans do not believe in Global Warming. (

In a study done amongst GeoSceintists they found that 645 found that Global Warming is not a problem and that it does not exist. This study was done last year. (



we each have directly contradictory facts. my sources are reliable. yours are scattershot.

plus 98% of scientists agree with me. if 98% of engineers said a bridge was unsafe, would you want to travel down it?
Debate Round No. 3


When it comes to scientists there are a total of 2,500 scientists that do believe in Global Warming, but when it comes to not believing in Global Warming there is a large amount that have signed a petition stating that they believe that Global Warming is a hoax. There is a current count of 31,487. ( and (


In conclusion, we can see that most of my arguments have gone unrefuted by my opponent and I have shown countless times that even scientists believe that Global Warming is fake.

So with that, I thank you and please vote Con.


now con resorts to making up facts about the beliefs of scientists.

98% of scientists agree with me. if 98% of engineers said a bridge was unsafe, would you want to travel down it?
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
This was the saddest debate I've ever seen. How does that level of stupid survive the dangers of living?

Good work Lannan. I'm going to read your stuff more thoroughly. Glad to see someone else use hard evidence in a Global Warming debate.
Posted by oneredball 2 years ago
Global warming is caused by the Sun, that big hot thing up in space. Not man. How arrogant of man to think he warms the planet!
Posted by Dpowell 3 years ago
Actually, sciences have shown that global warming is made by both man and nature.

Man: green houses, cars, and factories release gases and chemicals that cause our atmosphere become warmer than it usually would be.

Nature: this does pretty much the same (but with more natural gasses and chemicals) but due to the tilting of our axis, our weather has changed a bit, so anything can happen, from extreme heat to really cold temperatures.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just provided tons and tons of evidence and pro barely responded to any of it.
Vote Placed by Dpowell 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: He had graphs and charts that showed evidence of his position in the debate. Plus it's a known fact that global warming is made by both man and nature.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro largely fails to rebut con, or make her own cases.