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

Should Global Warming be dealt with

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 84701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




The planet Earth has been terrorised by global warming since i could remember. People know about it but wont do anything about it. They say "Its not a issue, dont worry" but in reality its a big issue. If they want to think life is all pony rides and rainbows its their faults, but dont kill the kids for your stupidness.


I accept this debate and will show that Global Warming does not exist and hence doesn't need to be dealt with.

Contention 1: CO2 and Temperatures.

First, let's bring up just how much these accused compounds exactly warm the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 for example has the global warming potential of 1. Here are the other numbers.

Carbon Dioxide -- 1
Methane -- 21
Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310
CFC's -- Various
Water Vapor -- 0.25 [1]
Now, I just want you to keep this in mind for this next part here. We may observe that humans release approximately 35 gigatons of CO2 a year. [2] This is only 4.3% of the total amount of all Global Warming Gasses, however it is incrediably small when it comes to comparing the rest of the Global Warming gasses. If we observe the chart bellow we can see that Water Vapor is a large Contributor to Global Warming at 95% and CO2 comes in second. But here's the kicker. If we look at the Human contributed part that I'm about to post in the graph bellow we can see that it's very miniscule of 0.117% of all total Warming gasses. Now let's do some quick math here. CO2's increase was from what my opponent is claiming is from 295 ppm to 400ppm, a total of only 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is the equilivent of 2.13 ppm. [3] This means that increase of 105 ppm means a total of 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature. This is a very measly amount and we can see that with my opponent's claims a simple 0.15 F increase isn't enough to melt glacers and have the effeccts that he is speaking of and it proves that this is NAUTRAL not man-made to fulfil his effects if they were real.
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. [4] This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming."
Let us observe the above graph. Here I would like to point out the that the increase from Pre-Inustrial to Industrial era and the doubling of the CO2 leveling lead to a decrease in it's temperature. Also we can see that the 10 mile "hot-spot" above the tropics is actually absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong." [5]

Now if we observe the above graph of the past 400,000 yeasrs we can see that the CO2 rates in our atmosphere has flutated the exact same way in this cycle both before and during the existance of human beings. We can see that the temperatures and CO2 levels have been going up and down randomly for the past 100 thousands years and it is observed that this occured before the industrial revolution. We can also see that right now we are in a warming period so that arguing that humans are because of this is post hoc. Not to mention that we are in the coldest of the warming periods in Earth's history!

We can see that once again despite contrary to belief we can see that though there may be warming the fact is simply that there is no human warming.

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?
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. (6) 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. (7)
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. (8)

You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium.

You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (9) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section.

Once again, we can see that the IPCC and Al Gore are inccorect as the hocky stick graph is a bust. As I've shown in earlier rounds and they have been dropped in showing that the Earth's temperature has indeed been way hotter then current and on an average basis at that. My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory.

Here we can see that even though CO2 levels are increaseing that the temperature in recent years has actually decreased on the linear scale.

Also, the US Senate Committe on Envirnment and public works also took a stab at this issue. They found that the Hocky Stick graph was also bogus in 2006.

Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick’ is broken,”Senator Inhofe said.“Today’s report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths.

Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.” [10]

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter had shown through his research at University of East Angila in the United Kingdom that the Climate Change increase had actually froze from 1998-2006 showing that this so called Global Warming had actually stopped. [11]

Sources in the comments.

Debate Round No. 1


What about the factories that put most of the gasses in the air. They are using fossil fuels as-well. We are almost out of fossil fuels and our ice glaciers that hold most of our fresh water is melting as a result to heightened temperature. Also as a result to heightened temperature alot of our water that we need and drink today is disappearing. Droughts are more and more likely and happen more and more often.


Most of my arguments went unrefuted so I'll extend them across the board.

I have shown the Greenhouse gas usage and it doesn't pose a significant effect on the envirnment. This was unrefuted from my Round 1 argument.

I realize we're using fosil fuels, but you have no evidence we have reached peak oil/coal. You argument doesn't hold any weight, plus there are other forms of energy that could be used and the market generally adats to these things.

I have shown evidence that the Temperatures are dropping and our ice caps are growing. Your argument is irrelevant.

This is also false. If we look at the past two years we can see that there is less drought as rainfall has increased. [1]

1. (
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has not made an argument and has dropped all of my points.

Please Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Robkwoods 2 years ago
Wasting no time Iannan13
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this is an easy vote. Pro dropped all arguments in the last round and instead spammed sources. This is poor conduct, but also a poor use of sources. Furthermore, dropping all of Con's arguments in the last round ensures he can't win the arguments points either.
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro drops all of Con's arguments. Pro does not make many arguments, but the arguments Pro did make were negated by Con showing that GW doesn't exist. Thus Con wins arguments.