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

Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,396 times Debate No: 27952
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)




If you were born after February 1985, [1] you have never experienced a colder than average month. This, coupled with obvious decrease in Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland ice sheets is a frightening sight. [2]

It may seem obvious to most that this is a terrible thing, as sea levels rise and weather patterns change, we could be in a peck of trouble. However, there are always those who believe that Climate Change is just a hoax, thought up by Liberal politicians and science advocates. To them, I say, "Nay!" for you would be incorrect. In the last years, climate change is beginning to gain conclusive evidence to support it's existence.

As the world becomes less of what it was a century ago, we must adopt new technologies and policies to save our Blue Planet and the beautiful life that exists on it (because, hey. No where else have we found life.).

This is our home, and even if it means sacrificing a little of our hard-earned cash to save it, we must do everything we can. I await a wonderfully vivid debate! Thank you.




Hello, Mac, and I am glad you instigated this debate.

My opponent’s arguments rely on three main contentions:

1) Global warming is real and is a threat

2) Global warming is caused by human activity

3) We should attempt to stop global warming

I will refute them as follows:

1. Global warming is real and a threat

My opponent’s main point here is the expected sea level rise. However, some scientific papers have been released showing the sea level rise has been over predicted and that in many parts of the world, sea level rise isn’t happening at all. The IPCC’s data claiming massive sea level rise has been grossly exaggerated and is utterly incorrect. For example, Bangladesh should have been engulfed in water, or should be seeing significant problems. In 2007, the IPCC proclaimed their doomsday. However recent data shows the sea levels there are not rising [1].

My opponent also forgets the possible benefits of Global Warming. For example, parts of Canada, Russia, and Argentina too cold for industrialization and farming would become reachable. Historically, warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere acted as a benefit for the Vikings. Greenland and Iceland’s productivity rose, the increased rain caused better harvests, and lead to the Vikings making landfall in the New World. The increased CO2 would make plant growth easier and enhance the world, making it muck more habitable. Some of the warmest periods in our history, the world flourished with resources aplenty; a warmer climate could easily be good for you and me [2].

My opponents other point here is the reality of global warming, and here I agree. There has been an overall warming trend since 1850, however I dispute current warming. Global warming stopped in 1997, with an overall decrease in temperature since then. Using NOAA data starting from 2000, to avoid the El Niño year in 1998 (which ‘refutes’ the global warming stopped theory) shows no change. A slight decrease in temperature, although the trend is less. There has been no warming since 1997, and no statistically significant warming since 1995 [3].

2. Humans are the cause of global warming

This is the main contention of the debate; if it is awful, but natural, we can’t stop it: changing our ways of life would be worthless. If it is still happening but is natural, we can’t stop it and changing would, again, be a pointless exercise. So, I explain the reasoning on why claiming humans cause global warming is illogical.

First, CO2 and other emissions increase during a good economy. After the 1940’s, a post-war economic boom occurred. At this time, when CO2 increased, is when scientists said humans first began to have a large impact on global warming. Interestingly, temperatures decreased at this time. Alarmists have tried to counter these claims, but their logic fails to hold up [4].

Either way, my opponent has only assumed humans are the main cause of the warming; he has given little evidence himself that we are the cause.

Correlation is always an argument in this debate. People have argued there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, however this is simply untrue. CO2 only correlates r= .44, with 1 being perfect and 0 being none at all. This means the correlation rates fair to poor. The sun scores better, with an r= .57, meaning it rates to fair to good. And the PDO correlates the best, with an 0.83 rating good [5]. It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it.

Further, the current warming should have been predicted, as according to Singers 1,500 sun cycle the current warming was right on time. The majority of geologists—about 50%—believe global warming is a natural cycle and the current warming is right on time [6].

Other explanations, like cosmic rays, also seems like a possible factors. In short wording: Humans likely do not play a major role in global warming, although we likely exacerbate the situation a little bit.

3. It should be stopped—specifically with green energy

If my opponent wishes to bring up another solution, I am all ears. However he currently argues green energy is the solution. Lets go down the list:

a) Wind power

There is a simple problem with wind: the fact that wind is not always blowing, and its upfront capital costs more then outweighs the fact that wind, itself, is free. Wind itself has lees value then its fossil fuel competitors and must be placed in areas with constant (or higher then average) wind amounts, limiting its universality. Unlike Fossil fuel plants, which can be planted anywhere. There is other, in my opinion more real, issues then global warming. Wind stations kill the avian populations and take up a lot of space, often ruining natural beauty. Many rodents actually like the wind farms and live inside the fan. Rodents—a food source for many predators—get killed trying to eat them. And, obviously, other birds will fly through the places and get whacked and die. Some Wind projects take 10 billion pounds of raw materials. If we assume global warming is man made, the CO2 created by the mining and construction often times shrinks the overall benefit.

b) Solar

Potential market chare for solar has been overestimated time and time again and the subsidies that the industry relies on—because it is not competitive with fossil fuel because the marker does not favor it—costs millions of dollars, even more then the Wind subsidies. Thermal solar plants need 1,000 times more the resources fossil fuel plants need. Some studies argue:

“Solar Two looks good on paper, and it is expected to provide steady baseload electricity as well as late afternoon peaking capacity, but the future of all the central solar generators is in doubt. They are expensive to build, their very scale escalates financial risks--as with nuclear power--and their massive height (in excess of 200 meters) may attract opposition.”[7]

Other Solar industries (there are many) require millions of dollars to operate and to even be on the market and commercialize their products. Many environmentalists have a actually given up on some solar markets, like photovoltaic, in favor of nuclear (something they usually despise) because of the destruction of those solar plants.

c) Hydro

Even environmentalists have left hydro power, uttering the power source in the same breath as they do natural gas, coal, and nuclear. From a conservative standpoint, the construction of Hydro power is actually very invasive on the surrounding community and cost millions. On a more liberal note, the hydro plants take a lot of resources to build and kill and disturb many fish populations. The cost of current hydro plants are 5-6 times more expensive per kilowatt hour then other fossil fuels.

d) Case study: Michigan

There has been no net job growth because of their green energy, they have created jobs in one sector but have taken them away from another. Their energy prices have increased and their prices continue to increase. Other states, like North Dakota, have welcomed fossil fuels and have had a net job growth and prices fall. Studies have shown for every one job created in their oil industry, another three are created because of decreased energy costs [8].


I have proven my opponents premises to be incorrect and his solution of green energy is impractical, harmful to the economy, and, sometimes, not even green.

(longest url's shortened to make room)






6. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. Print.



Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate so quickly.

I would like to begin my rebuttal of the three main counterarguments made in my opponent's last round.

1. Global Warming is real and a threat

As I recall, in my opening round I never proclaimed that there was global warming; merely that there is rapid changes in the Earth's climate as never before documented or noticed in geological records. There is a definite warming in specific parts of the world, [1] but there are also other areas with the same -- or even colder -- temperatures as when weather recording began in the U.S.A. in 1869. [2]

Climate change is not only occurring, according to many scientific studies, but will be a threat if these trends continue. My opponent says that the temperature has not risen since 1995, and all months since have been colder on average. This statement is valid. However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years [3], as well as droughts that will soon rival the Dustbowl of the 1920s (which was a major factor in the Great Depression). [4]

As for the possible benefits of climate change, this massive release of CO2 may, in the short term, bring benefits to organisms that undergo photosynthetic processes, but we must remember that more than carbon dioxide is released through the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon, for example, provided 33% of America's energy needs in 2011 [5]. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of this fuel source in the common steam-turbine is only 35%. Heat is wasted, and adding more heat may increase the efficiency of combustion, but it continues to produce more waste heat and requires even more input energy, raising the output energy by a maximum of 5%. [6] To save time, I will only discuss air pollutants of coal burning. Over 20 toxic impurities are released through this process, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and fly ash. [7]

2. Humans are the cause of global warming climate change*

There are many ways to prove either side of this point. Geological evidence shows that there have been shifts in the Earth's mean temperature many times. The most notable being that of the Carboniferous era from 359.2 (± 2.5) m.y.a. (1*) to 299 (± .8) m.y.a. This era had an atmospheric content of 1,173 ppm (2*), which spurred plant growth unrivaled by any other era. [8,9] However, this change in carbon content took millions of years, and is actually a decrease from any previous time. During this time, the mean temperature in the Cambrian Era fell from 21 degrees centigrade to 14 degrees centigrade, which shows a correlation between carbon content and average temperature. [10]

Now that I have shown the connection between atmospheric carbon and temperature, allow me to refute Con's argument. Not only is the planet being filled with more atmospheric carbon faster than ever before, but it can only continue to worsen as the ice caps laden with carbon dioxide and methane melt. [11] This additional CH4 and CO2 will increase the pace of ice melt, releasing more gas. These ice caps would naturally melt on their own terms, but not as quickly as they currently are. The rapid nature of this melt is set off by humans adding tons of gases each year to the atmosphere that trap heat, and melt the ice. Human induced climate changes also change the temperature of the air and water that flows to the poles, hindering the ability to create seasonal ice in the first place. [12]

We must also remember that this post-wartime economic boom was based in industry, not in the fact that there was a sudden release of CO2. This boom was man made, in the fact that people owed us money, and we had all the goods we could need (for the time being).

3. It should be stopped--specfically with green energy

As of today, we cannot just drop all our fossil fuel consumption. It may be at least two more decades before we can have a 50-50 split between cheap renewable energy and fossil fuel combustion. In the last 10 years, however, we have made many strides forward in the efficiency. My opponent's points are accurate, but we do not currently need to rely soley on renewable energy so we do not, as consumers, need to worry about the inefficiency of the current sources. Within the next few years we will be up to par with our dream energy production, but until then the best a normal person can do to acheive this goal is push for legislation to mandate cleaner sources and support current research.

To give up on these new sources now would be illogical, and prove our years of prior research to have been frivilous.

In Conclusion:

I have rebutted all of my opponent's points which were based on interperatable data and sources, in effect, proving that Climate Change is a threat, it is aided in growth by humans, and we can stop it with more efficient energy. Thank you.





[5] "Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation". Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 21 January 2010. Retrieved 7 November 2010.

[6] "Fossil Power Generation". Siemens AG. Retrieved 23 April 2009.

[7] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22.

[8] Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, J. G.; Smith, A. G. (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521786738.

[9] Cossey, P.J. et al (2004) British Lower Carboniferous Stratigraphy, Geological Conservation Review Series, no 29, JNCC, Peterborough (p3)


[11] Thompson, Elvia. "Recent Warming of Arctic May Affect Worldwide Climate". Retrieved 2 October 2012.


(1*) m.y.a.- Million Years Ago

(2*) ppm- Parts Per Million


1. Global warming is real and is a threat

It was implied that there was global warming, because if there wasn’t this debate would be futile. Hence my wanting to bring it up. My opponent has claimed there has been no rapid changes in climate before. This is untrue, according to the 1995 IPCC our warming really isn’t unusual at all.

So my opponent and I agree, on balance it has warmed since the 1800s, but we differ on when it stopped. My opponent has been vague on the 1995 tipping point, saying it is a true statement but we are seeing the effects of global warming. This makes little sense, however, because if global warming stopped over 10 years ago why are we seeing the effects now? Regardless, the hurricane theory is a weak one. In the 1990s, for example, hurricanes were rare and not intense. Since the 1940s, the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory finds that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes have actually been falling [1]. In the past 50 years, not one decade experienced an above average amount of hurricanes (7 is the average – where we are in our current decade). Within the last 50 years, an average of 5.6 hurricanes hit the US. In the 50 years before humans supposedly began to cause global warming, the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2].

Since 1900, the US hurricane intensity trend has flat lined, and decreased since the 1950’s intensity has fallen [3].

My opponent has also argued Global warming has caused droughts. Plotting the drought severity index over the last 60 years, a new paper published in Nature shows little trend in droughts throughout the world [4]. My opponent links GW to the dust bowl, which is actually odd: even climate scientists arguing humans caused global warming claim we had no impact on climate until the 50’s, after the dust bowl ended. The cause of the dustbowl, although partly not enough water, was also caused by overgrazing and over farming, wearing out (and drying out) the soil, leaving the land with little vegetation giving way to large sandstorms. Land cultivation tripled in the 30’s, causing the plants to wither away. Then drought struck, leaving over cultivated, dry, weak soil, none of which caused by man made global warming [5]. When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on balance) has been increasing and droughts exhibit no trend [6].

2. Humans are the cause of Global Warming

My opponent has argued past climate changes prove CO2 is the cause, however when you look at the data there is actually no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temperature changes regardless of CO2 levels.

Using past historical trends actually refutes my opponent’s argument. Many studies done through ice cores show co2 lags temperature, in other words temperature rises before co2 rises. Lets look at these studies:

Pearson and Palmer, 2000: They show co2 was about 3000 ppm 60 million years ago (mya) with a 0.3 oxygen isotope ratio. However, 13 million years later, the co2 dropped to 500 ppm; the oxygen isotope temperature dropped to zero (meaning a rise in temperature). Temperatures rose as CO2 drastically fell.

Pearson and Palmer 1999: 43 mya it was 5 degrees warmer Celsius, but co2 concentrations were only 385 ppm, below our current concentration today.

Pagani et al., 1999: this study found 150 mya cot concentration was only 180 ppm, but it was 6 degrees celcius warmer.

And the studies go on and on [7]. Past temperature records fail to prove global warming is caused by CO2.

Now, if warming is a natural cycle (I have shown how CO2 correlates poorly, but natural factors correlate much better) then the methane melt will happen regardless, and cannot be stopped. This is only significant if my opponent can argue global warming is driven by human emissions. And it is interesting, my opponents only data point for this I that they are melting too fast. When looking at glacier melt, worldwide there is no overall trend. For example, southern glaciers seem to be melting (Europe wise) but northern ones seem to be growing [8]. Interestignly, glaciers have been melting since 1850. And although arguably still losing mass, the amount they lose each year shrinks. According to Dowdenswel et al., 1997, “Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.”[9]

3. Fixing the problem

I agree we cannot just drop fossil fuels, if we change anything I recommend it is slowly, and preferably to nuclear. My opponent, however, makes weak points and are merely asserted. He does not prove renewable will become cheaper. It would be unlikely, as stated, though. Wind, for example, has no value (unlike fossil fuels). Many good alternatives (like hydro) have been taken out of the picture due to river destruction and invasive buildings (so its not really good). Wind and Solar are inefficient, and current subsidies are costing millions merely for failed companies to fail. These green energies fail to compete with fossil fuels because of their failure to be a viable option [10].

My opponent has conceded my points to be true but argues green energy will, in the future, be viable without little proof. I would also like to note the resolution is in present tense, so unless he can prove green energies will be viable soon or beneficial now he has lost this point.

Obviously we should not brush aside these sources, but combating climate change with them at the current time, and in the near future, would be illogical. Here is my solution: nuclear power. Its not a renewable, so I am not conceding the resolution, and it is “green”. I only support it due to its efficiency and ability to compete. If we cut down regulations, this solution would work (if you are worried about CO2, and if you’re like me: it would work if you are worried about our economy).


I have proven (1) CO2 is likely not the cause of global warming, (2) even if it is, global warming is not dangerous and will likely benefit mankind (see round one, too)[11], and (3) combating global warming, a natural cycle, would be frivolous, and even if it is real green energy would be illogical and non-renewables such as Nuclear should be preferred.







7. Here is a sample of the studies:




11. My source from last round, proving global warming might not be that bad and might help mankind. I just wanted to bring it up again:

Debate Round No. 2


Before I begin, I would like to bring up a prior statement you made from Round One:

"Correlation is always an argument in this debate...It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it." (See Round one for full quote.) . I would like to point out that this is true, but the Regression Factor of CO2 would of course not be as effectual as the Irradiance of the Sun, as that is where all energy on our planet originates. The r=.44 of Carbon is not as large as the PDO and AMO (Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillation), but .44 still means that there is a strong enough correlation, that it may affect our mean temperature.

Of course, the .83 r factor of our currents is more effectual, since a large amount of our world’s heat is stored in our oceans as shown in the following chart: [2]

Notice that there are more high temperature areas in the oceans (mostly since the ocean is 75% of the Earth's surface area), and that they go farther North and South than the land masses do. This was meant to be included in my last round, I'm sorry for including it now.

1. Climate Change is real and is a threat

There definitely have been natural warmings of our planet, but never as fast as these last 162 years in which we have kept records of our planet's weather. In the last 7 years alone, Carbon counts globally have risen 18ppm according to various studies. [1, 3]

In regards to the end of a noticeable rise in temperature being 1995, I still wholly agree. However: it is well known that just because one thing happens, the effects of it are not immediately felt. Just as how we are only now seeing light from stars that shone that light millions of years ago. The ocean's currents will not change immediately, but slowly over a few years, as will sea level. Though sea levels aren't rising worldwide, they are growing by an average rate of 3.11mm per year, an increase in the average (documented prior to 2000) of 1.63mm more per year. [4]

"However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years," is a quote from my Round Two which you referenced in your rebuttal: "Regardless...the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]." (See Round two for full quote) I would like to point out that I never said there were more hurricanes, only that these storms were stronger than before. Again, I will cite this: [5]

As for your claim that hurricane intensity has flat lined, realize that your source only documents hurricanes post-landfall. Landfall is when the eye of the hurricane is only on land, and hurricanes begin to lose force as the storm's boundaries cross the shore line, so most hurricanes are documented at a weaker strength after they have already done the majority of the damage they can. [6]

Allow me to define climate: noun.

1. The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

2. The prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.


According to this, the dust bowl was an effect of climate change, and my opponent even says that it was caused by humans through over-farming.

2. Humans are the cause of climate change

First thing I would like to say in this section is that your source 7 is out of date, as many more have been released since then that contradict what is put forth here. [3, 8]

As for Carbon ppm being 3000ppm 60mya, I must cry false, as 3000ppm is only a few thousand ppm lower than during the Cambrian era, in which the mean temperature was 7 degrees centigrade higher than today. 60mya, Carbon ppm was, at its highest peak, 1700ppm during the last years of Cretaceous era, and 500ppm only 6 million years later in the Paleocene era. [9-11]

In accordance to your claim that glaciers are growing, I will argue that, saying that they grow in height, but not enough to compensate for the amount lost -- or not even gained in the first place -- each year. I can agree that these ice masses slowed their ice loss, but they resumed to lose more after your source 8 and 9 were published. [12, 13]

3. Fixing the problem

Renewable energy sources are continuing to become more efficient. Remember: it took us, as Hominids, 400,000 to achieve the level of efficiency we have today in combustion. [14, 15] To dismiss our strides in renewable energy so quickly is rash and immature as a species.

Sure, wind turbines are dangerous to avian life. Hydro plants are obtrusive and change the local climate due to human interference. [16] Solar cells are expensive and large, and the output is not always sufficient. However! These innovations are from the last century, and in the next decade, we will have technologies that will far surpass what we have today as a renewable source. Even now, the photovoltaics which Con so easily dismissed are being produced and developed more than any renewable source (nuclear excluded, not renewable) with 1/100th the cost and 50% more efficiency. These are simply trial versions as well. [17] Wind kites can harness energy for the average home with no human maintenance and a 30-50-killowatt/hour range, with even more effective versions in development. [18] Biomass fuels are becoming more common [19] and soon may be one of the must substantial sources of fuel. Nuclear energy is the best we have (for now) in lieu of a completely clean renewable energy.

If these energies were more substantial in countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, etc., the crisis we may be facing in the next decade can be stopped before it even starts.

New Section:

4. The animal effect

Concentrated atmospheric pollution kills millions of animals and gives humans living there life-threatening complications. [20] As these animals die from new diseases, pollution, and habitat loss (also climate change), we face a grim future.

The complex chain of animals in our environment is so precarious, that one extinction or introduction could topple a whole ecosystem, throwing that climate in to turmoil, domino-ing the whole planet.

In Conclusion!

I believe that this round gives a broader view of the problem than Con is willing to propose, but cannot be neglected. VOTE PRO






[6] NationalHurricaneCenter (2009). Glossary of NHC Terms: Landfall. Retrieved on 2009-02-05.








[14] Price, David. "Energy and Human Evolution". Retrieved 2012 December 10.

[15] James, Steven R. (February 1989). "Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A Review of the Evidence".


[17] Streep, Abe. "The Brilliant Ten: Greg Nielson." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 47. Print.

[18] North, Dave. "Blueprint: Higher Power." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 18. Print.


[20] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22.

*for sources 9-11, use chart in upper-right hand corner



My opponent has argued that the moderate to poor correlation of CO2 is enough to be considered major, however this is illogical. First, I never said CO2 had no effect, I argued it was not the main cause. Second, it is unlikely increasing CO2 has a large impact because CO2 increases are logarithmic, in other words the more CO2 there is the less warming effect each unit has. If we double the amount of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (we have gone through 30-50% increase) then warming per I increase would be extremely small. A 20 ppm increase of CO2 would be much less then 0.2 degrees Celsius [1]. Second, the climate is not very sensitive; a better way to put it would be an increase in CO2 would have little effect. The evidence claiming climate to be sensitive are very flawed, they ignore climate feedbacks and other factors relating to sensitivity. If CO2 were to double, only a 1 degree increase would occur, we have not doubled CO2 levels from the pre-industrial era and have warmed less then one degree Celsius. With current emissions it is unlikely we could argue CO2 is the main driver of climate change, when sensitivity is taken into account [2].

Second, my opponents rebuttal to the PDO and AMO argues the correlation is due to the seas space, however he ignores the fact the PDO and AMO go into cooling cycles and the correlation I cited showed when they cooled, the earth cooled, and in a warming phase the land warmed. Dr. Roy Spencer has argued the PDO may cause three quarters of the current warming due to its effects on clouds (therefore our albedo) winds, and obviously tropical winds. And it heats the pacific, obviously warming the earth in that way too. Spencer has argued, "mankind"s CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming we"ve seen over the last 100 years." And that "Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather patterns over much larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern Hemisphere (which is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority of global warming has occurred).[emphasis added]"[3] For my opponents argument to work, he would need to prove the PDO and other currents would only affect the regional areas (as he argued with his map). However, the cloud cover changes caused by the PDO would change the earths albedo and cause warming for the entire northern hemisphere, and as he noted that"s where the warming is primarily occurring.

1. Global warming is real and is a threat

My opponent has argued this warming is unusually fast, which is interesting, as I have argued above that warming has stopped in recent years. With the stop of warming in recent years, it is odd to argue it is rising unusually fast. Models have overestimated the effect of CO2, claiming over the last 15-20 years the warming should have increased"a lot"however the warming has stopped [4]. The earth has actually been significantly warmer throughout its time period, when comparing us to other time periods in geologic history we are in an ice age. According to the 1995 IPCC report, our warming as been extremely insignificant and fairly normal. Climate geologists, generally, oppose climate alarmism. Many of the most well known geologists have argued the current warming is "right on schedule". Nothing about our warming is odd, different, or one of a kind [5].

The sea level raises my opponent points too are exaggerated. There is vast evidence that sea level rise is meager to nonexistent. A 2003 study finds sea level rise has only been about .5 mm a year, half of what my opponent has argued. A 2004 study finds before 1940, sea level rise was about 1mm per year"my opponent"s number"but finds there has been no sea level increase (overall) after that date. Another 2004 study found, when you averaged the whole 20th century, we get 1.8mm rise per year, but when you break it into chunks (1950-2000) no sea level rose in that time period. And yet another 2004 study finds that the sea level increase is overall uncertain. They note in their study they believe sea level has risen 2 mm per year, however they failed to control for regional variability. They said their study answers many questions and creates many more, and conclude one cannot conclude anything. A 2005 study finds no increase in sea levels since 1950. And the list continues, the evidence that sea level rise is meager is growing [6].

My opponent has admitted no increase of hurricanes was argued. In other words, even if intensity increases but the number falls, we are left with a wash. However, even the intensity argument fails. Pro argues my data is incomplete"focusing on landfall hurricanes"although that"s what really matters (or at least matters more) then sea hurricanes, his argument still falls when I extend the data set. So let me again note: the number of hurricanes overall has fallen, and my opponent overall drops that point. Many studies project a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, however a 2005 study (although concluding higher intensity) says that number is twice as high as it should be. Other studies have found intensity to be the same or actually decrease. The 2005 study agreeing with my opponent, in a way, argues reducing CO2 emissions (which would occur by using green energy as the resolution states) would not change Hurricane intensity. A 2006 study finds there is no correlation between global warming and wind speeds in Hurricanes. A second 2006 study replicates the results, arguing there is no current correlation between Hurricane intensity and warming. Multiple 2007 and 2008 studies replicate these findings, arguing "if there is an increase in hurricane activity connected to a greenhouse gas induced global warming, it is currently obscured" (Chylek, P. and Lesins 2008) and that "no evidence that the distributional mean of individual storm intensity, measured by storm days, track length, or individual storm power dissipation index, has changed (increased or decreased) through time." (Briggs 2008) [7]. The evidence is pretty compelling: no Hurricane intensity changes have occurred. Remember: this is using non-landfall data too (making my opponents objection refuted). And there is some evidence that global warming reduces the total number of hurricanes meaning an overall decrease of extreme weather occurs.

My opponent plays semantics. In this debate climate change, as implied in round one, is global warming. The dust bowl, as I argued, was caused by farming and not a warming earth. Therefore, his objection is irrelevant. A drought in the 16th century has been deemed a mega drought by a 2000 study. It was the largest drought in human history, before humans could have caused it. Droughts within the last 1000 years are much more severe then now, and a 1998 study noted there was a decrease of droughts in the 20th century. Warming has no correlation with droughts, however overall sun intensity (which, sometimes, means warming may correlate with droughts) and regional warming from the suns rays caused droughts, not human processes [8]. Hunnington (2006) has pointed out rainfall globally has been increasing. Many studies have concluded rainfall will increase because of global warming; plant growth will increase, decreasing the possibility of a drought [9].

2. Caused by humans

My opponent uses flawed data, my data was 60 million years ago, and my opponent has used data from the creations, 5-6 million years before. As CO2 naturally fluctuates with climate change"climate change often causes more CO2"it would not be unheard of for the ppm levels to be close too, or far from, other dates. My opponent also falsely correlated CO2 with temperature; by arguing it cannot be that close, the Cambrian was warmer. As stated, the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature is nonexistent, with CO2 lagging temperature or not correlating at all. The CO2 was 2000-3000 ppm 60 mya, by measuring oxygen isotopes. This data is impeccable, and my opponents Cambrian objection makes little sense, its not odd that CO2 was not much lower at this time period, as CO2 and temperature historically don"t correlate well his Cambrian objection is a weak one [10].

My opponent really doesn"t refute my lagging argument, only posts links. Those links only talk about modern temperature trends, meaning source seven stands. And when looking at data millions of years ago, it won"t matter if the study was published in 1999 or 2012. But if date is what he wants, recent papers back my findings too [11].

3. Fixing the problem

The resolution is in present tense, so saying "it will get better later" is against the wording of the resolution. However, lets refute the "future" argument. It is impossible to replace fossil fuels with green energy, New York would need 60 square miles of wind turbines and the wind to be blowing 100% of the time to power the city. Wind power has always been more expensive then fossil fuels, and new research has still failed to fix that problem. Bio fuels and other sources are quite inefficient and waste other resources in the process. Current renewable are a joke, and billions (if not trillions) of dollars are needed to make them competitive, which is not worth the cost, especially as I argued warming may help humans and more CO2 = more plants. Green energy is not a logical solution [12]. If the Kyto agreement would not stop warming, and is only a first step, converting to green energy would likely have no effect [5]. Further, photovoltaic"s are inefficient, and uncompetitive [6].

4. Extinctions

First, CO2 is not a pollutant, meaning his position is illogical here.

Second, mass extinctions are not occurring. A 2009 study notes, ""after five years, a re-visitation of the summit areas revealed a considerable increase of species richness at the upper alpine and subnival zone (10% and 9%, respectively) and relatively modest increases at the lower alpine zone and the treeline ecotone (3% and 1%, respectively)." In addition, with respect to threats of extinction, they reported that "during the last five years, the endemic species of the research area were hardly affected," while "at the highest summit, one endemic species was even among the newcomers."[14]

As we can see, animals are not being affected by warming.


Global warming is (1) exaggerated, (2) not man made, (3) fixing it is impossible, and would not help anyone, and (4) extinctions are a widely popularized myth that has been refuted.
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank 16kadams for a wonderful first debate, here at DDO.

I also must admit that my opponent has put forth very valid arguments, some of which I greatly agree with. I hope that in the future -- when I am a more developed debater -- I may challenge him again.

As for my correlation of CO2 to warming, I must stand strong with it. I am aware that it was not the largest factor, but this correlation rate will continue to drop as the ppm of Carbon Dioxide rises, as it is an inverse equality. This is not me conceding the fact that there is a correlation, but that as our world becomes more laden with CO2, each molecule will have less and less of an effect.

1. Global Warming is real and is a threat

I do not believe in Global Warming, as it means to show that the whole planet is warming (which I do not believe), but I understand the general use of the term now, even in ways to describe climate change. I believe that there is a vast change in our climate, and will continue to be as such. Perhaps now our data is biased on both sides, pro- or con-climate change.

2. Caused by humans

I am well aware of the natural cycles of warming in Earth's geological history. Never before have we experienced such a sharp upward clime of Carbonppm without a natural calamity (such as eruptions, meteor collisions, etc.). To refute Con's claims on the 2,000-3,000ppm pf Carbon 60mya, I will use the same data as in my round 3. I used data from 66mya, 60mya, and 58mya, just to make sure I had all my bases covered, in case of his 60mya figure being an estimate.

My attempted refute on your round2 source 7 was based on the grounds that our methods of measuring have become more efficient and accurate, so the data could be deemed inaccurate today (only a speculation).

3. Fixing the problem

We are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy.

In conclusion I have done the best in my ability to refute the claims Con has made and stabilize my views and hopes for the future. I hope to one day challenge another debater to a similar topic when I am more experienced. Vote PRO!


I would also like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent has admitted CO2 is not the chief cause in global warming, but that it has an effect. I have never denied CO2 has some effect, however I denied that it had a large one. My opponent has not negated this contention, and with it unrefuted it stands that the CO2 effect (and therefore the anthropogenic effect) is negligible, and taking a stand with green technologies would be a waste of money and effort.

My opponent has also dropped my PDO argument, conceding that the natural factors cause at least ¾ of the current warming. This only leaves ¼ of the current warming for any man-made forcing, and as stated the sun correlates better with climate. Accepting the fact that sun spot length correlates extremely well with climate, and other forgings such as cosmic rays and our position in the galaxy hint we should be warming, it leaves a small percentage of the current warming for man-made causes [1].

With this in mind, and global warming mainly a natural cycle, my opponent has failed to meet the BOP and prove global warming is man made and should be stopped.

1. Global warming is real and is a threat

My opponent has admitted that global warming does not exist. To be honest, I am confused by this statement. Is my opponent assuming global warming has stopped, or that it is mainly in the northern hemisphere? Regardless, it seems as though he has conceded that a global phenomena of global warming exists. I only partially agree. There was global warming in the 20th century, but the rate of warming has slowed and no warming has occurred since 1995 [1]. My opponent then continues saying he thinks warming will continue. This seems like a contradiction from his first point here. No matter, he has conceded multiple times the warming has stopped. So it seems illogical that it will keep increasing if it has already backtracked.

My opponent finished by saying our data is biased. Yes, it is. The question, however, is whose bias is correct. I have given, in my opinion, a more compelling case that my bias is correct and my side on the correct side of history. Therefore, biased data is irrelevant, but whose bias is correct is relevant. And I hope the voters, and others reading, can see my bias is correct.

My opponent has also dropped (and therefore conceded) that global warming does not cause hurricanes. I have provided many peer reviewed studies denying this effect, proving global warming is not a threat.

My opponent has also conceded my point that global warming helps the human race (see round 1 and two). So even if warming is man-made (it is not) then why should we stop a beneficial force?

2. Global warming is anthropogenic

My opponent starts with a NASA favorite: records breaking CO2 levels. However, when you look at the ice record, CO2 levels are at an all time low [1]. Interestingly, if we move the data back in time we see CO2 was breaking record in 1750 with 284 ppm, before human emissions where significant. From 1750 – 1875, CO2 rose 10 times faster ten anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It took humans 100 years to catch up with CO2 emissions (new emissions, not the total. We are less then 5% of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere). The CO2 growth rate, although fast, is not “out of control” [2].

I would like to reiterate my sensitivity argument. Doubling CO2 would only increase temperatures by one degree Celsius. We have warmed .6 degrees Celsius (less using satellite data). We have only increased co2 35%. Therefore, CO2 likely had little effect on the current warming.

Now to my opponents data:

-- The first data set was irrelevant, it was before the date

--The other data was far before the respected time period

--Only your last data applied

The last data Wikipedia cherry picked as I stated Pearson 2000 documented the carbon ppm 60 million years ago. It said ppm was actually 500 ppm, we agree, but “the oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the "large and predictable effect" of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed.” Meaning carbon dropped but temperature rose. And the drop was substantial, showing co2 is not a strong climate driver [4]. My argument was that the spike near that time increased ppm to 3000, while temperature fell. The argument has been misinterpreted. We actually agree on the carbon count, but my opponent misses the point that there is no correlation between carbon and temperature.

I tried to post this in round one; it didn't work. It is the same point (so I am not bringing up anything new here), it merely makes it visual.

CO2 and Global Temp.? No correlation!

And my opponent only speculates on the age of my data. If you read the source (round two, source 7) you see they used ice core data and tree ring proxies, still used in the climate debate and is a widely accepted proxy today.

3. Fighting the problem

We are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy.” – My opponent

My opponent invests his whole argument in faith that it will improve. Although passive solar houses might be a good idea (for those off the grid), my opponents point will always fail: the sun isn’t always shining, the wind not always flowing, the water not always flowing, but the pumps will keep on drilling and the nuclear plants will keep on burning. Fossil fuels should last 200 years, nuclear another 100. These estimates keep growing because we keep discovering new oil every day, not to mention some sea exploration would likely add the oil count by hundreds of years. We really don’t seem to be running out of oil because we keep finding more. Either way, green energy is not a constant or reliable energy source. Fossil fuels and nuclear power is. Take that how you wish; facts vs the faith of my opponent.


--Global warming is not man-made, stopping it would be pointless

--Global warming is not harmful, and it is beneficial, why should we stop a good force?

--Green energy is impractical

--My opponent dropped (and therefore concedes as the truth) the: PDO, warming stopped, extinctions are not happening, the harm of global warming, droughts, and the fact that sea levels are not rising

Reading the debate (I hope) and my conclusion, I believe the voters should see it logical to vote for CON.

1. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. Print.




Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MacGruber 5 years ago
I don't believe in God, but thank you.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 5 years ago
By unbiased you must mean knowledgeable and not swayed by your poor arguments and superficial statistics. I didn't think you wanted the truth anyways. You are most likely a liberal and will only belief the rhetoric the left spews out anyway. Good luck in the future and I hope you can break a smile when you get older and realize someone once gave you the truth and you ignored it. That's all for me on this site people, may GOD bless you all and have a fantastic Christmas!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
He can challenge me if he wishes
Posted by MacGruber 5 years ago
I just want to thank you, Adams. It's been alot of fun, and I hope to maybe debate you again some other time. Debate magicr on Equal Marriage rights after christmas break, if you would. he's been dying to debate you on that.
Posted by MacGruber 5 years ago
Yes it does. This flock of 2.5 billion passenger pigeons was a massive food source to many birds of prey. They ate and transferred seeds, spurring forest growth throughout the United States. I reconsidered challenging you, as I would rather spend my time with a better, unbiased, debater.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 5 years ago
The passenger pigeon was drastically reduced from 1870-1890 by idiots netting way too many of the birds. In 1829 they were estimated at 5 billion, yes I said billion and in 1902 the last one died at the Cincinnati Zoo. It is said and definitely wrong but it did next to nothing to change the environment. Actually many people were happy because when they were popular square miles could be covered with
pigeon guano. If some industrious individual would have used his mind he could have made a fortune off of it!!!
NO! One extinction does not affect the whole world, continent, state or even the county.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 5 years ago
I have no idea where you get that from!?!?!?! I am trying to get people to understand things not follow someone other person's agenda. I have been against the lies that have cost people jobs and money for the profit of the government officials since I was 12 years old!
So where is this challenge?
Posted by MacGruber 5 years ago
Sheeping. The act of blindly following a leader.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 5 years ago
It is obvious by the information above that this is not my debate. They have a comment section here to leave comments. If you don't want negative comments don't be wrong. You DID have global warming. The definition of Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is verbally expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values. I did not express my view to attempt appeal. I am stating the truth no matter who likes it or dislikes it. I guess it is the new "inconvenient truth"! How do you strongman in a comment??? Then you say sheep party bias. Sheep are comforting animals and do not like confrontation at all. How can I be a panderer, strongman and a sheep????? Make up your mind am I strong or weak? If you choose weak then why would I have posted something that could generate confrontation and why would you challenge me? Are you a bully??? I have a right to say I think you are spewing rhetoric and you have the right to ignore it. I can't help it if you are sensitive and can't handle criticism. I welcome negative criticism, it helps me to see if I am wrong or if the other person just isn't informed. I never take it badly. I accept your challenge but please be aware I do not fake my feelings. If I think you said something stupid I will say it and expect the same from you. We are not running for office here!!!
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 5 years ago
The company invests money in Big Green. And Al Gore is a big part of it. Up until now, he hasn"t said a whole lot about it, but now he has added it to his little slide show he does. After telling the audience about how they are all going to die unless global warming is stopped by putting a cork in CO2 emissions, he then starts shilling the companies he invests in
For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world
Read more:
The global warming conspirators has been peddling this hoax for nearly a decade generating millions of carbon credit dollars for Al Gore. He of all people isn"t going to change his tune, otherwise, his fear-based fortune would dry up like the Sahara desert
The Sun, Water vapor, Earth's orbit, Volcanoes, Interstellar clouds, Cosmic rays, Tectonic plates, Land use, CO2, Sunspots, Gravitational pulls, Ocean currents and Solar flares. Imagine each one of these as a 100,000 piece puzzle and mix them all together. Now randomly take out 1/4 of all the pieces and try to put it together. This represents our world and its environment.
Global Warming Lies was created because when you do an internet search on global warming 99% of what you find is how the Earth is doomed and we are all going to drown from global warming. This isn't the case, in fact most climatologists will tell you differently.
15. NASA was actually caught faking "warming" data. They simply copied September temperatures and submitted the same figure
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument and refutations seemed to stand better in the end than Pro's did. Pro dropped arguments.