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

That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 6/24/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,289 times Debate No: 57125
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)




Lets keep this professional. first round is for acceptance -


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Main point - Every major science academy in the west supports it, 97%-98% of scientist support it.

1. 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. This increase in CO2 was a substantial contributor to the 1"F to 1.4"F warming over the 20th century.

2. Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes.

3. Human produced greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere causing climate change because the earth's forests, oceans, and other "carbon sinks" cannot adequately absorb them all. As of 2009, these carbon sinks were only absorbing about 50% of human-produced CO2. The other 50% is accumulating in the atmosphere.

4. Human greenhouse gas emissions, not changes in the sun's radiation, are causing global climate change. Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979 - 2009, show the sun's energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase. While warming is occurring in the troposphere (lower atmosphere), the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. If the sun was driving the temperature change there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling.

5. Computer models show that increased levels of human produced greenhouse gases will cause global warming and other climate changes. Although these climate models are uncertain about how much future warming will occur and how it will affect the climate, they all agree that, to some degree, these changes will happen. The reality of climate change is not contradicted by this uncertainty.

6. Although the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases may seem small to some people, their warming potential is amplified by the water vapor positive feedback loop , allowing them to cause significant warming and climate change. As greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, it can double the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2.

7. Human greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, and climate models consistently show that this warming causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones. The fact that 1975-1989 had 171 category 4 and 5 hurricanes while 1990-2004 had 269 [51] of them (a 57% increase) validates these climate models and the reality of human-induced climate change.

8. Human-produced CO2 is changing the climate of the world's oceans. As excess CO2 is absorbed, oceanic acidity levels increase. Oceans have absorbed 48% of the total CO2 released by human activities and acidity levels are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use.

9. An 8" rise in the ocean level has occured (1961-2003) due to human-induced global warming. Global sea levels rose an average of 1.8 mm (.07 in) per year between 1961 and 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm (.1 in) per year from 1993 to 2003. [3] This sea level rise is the result of warming waters and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and polar ice sheets. From 1870-2004, a "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occured, an important confirmation of climate change models.

10. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the earth's hydrologic climate. Rainfall is increasing in many areas due to increased evaporation stemming from global warming. Higher temperatures are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western US (1950-1999) were human-induced.

11. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the rate of glacial melt and altering the local climate of many regions. Since 1850, records show a "strong increase" in the rate of glacial retreat. From 1961-2004 glaciers retreated about .5mm per year in sea level equivalent. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, since 1980, glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness (measured in average mass balance in water equivalent).

12. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and soot (black carbon) produced from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is reducing the size of the Arctic ice cap. A smaller ice cap reflects less of the sun's energy away from the earth. This energy is absorbed instead, causing air and water temperatures to rise. From 1953"2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. Climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat through the 21st century further disrupting the global climate. [15]

13. Many organizations believe that human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change. These groups include: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the InterAcademy Council, the Network of African Science Academies, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Royal Society (UK national academy of science), the US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

14. Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 "climate change denial front groups."


I would like to thank CarterWale for presenting his arguments. The resolution is that humans have caused the modern climate change. However, most of my opponent's arguments either deals with the existence of global warming itself, or rules out (rather invalidly) other alternatives. He does very little to actually satisfy his burden of proof that humans are causing global warming. My arguments will be predicated on one simple assumption " that the vast majority of the claimed human impact is the result of greenhouse gas emissions.

Humans Have Not Caused the Modern Global Warming

There are many indicators that point to CO2 emissions not being the cause of the modern global warming.

First, CO2 is actually a lagging indicator compared to temperature. As it turns out, temperature may be what's causing CO2 levels to rise. "The most recent study on this concluded that the results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years." There is also shorter correlations, but again, temperature seems to cause CO2 rise instead of the reverse.[1]

This graph shows just one of the lags:


Second, according to the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface (because the CO2 collects in the upper troposphere first). However, this is not happening. "...satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor."[2]

Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere:

[1] (Blue line is lower troposphere temperature)

Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: "If the greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2... Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Soloman of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. ... report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s."[2]

To illustrate, here is a picture of the southern hemisphere sea ice anomaly, which shows that southern sea ice is actually increasing:


Fourth, current levels of CO2 have very little effect on temperature. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but it doesn't become linearly stronger with increasing amounts of CO2. CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. "The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths."[1][4]

This chart shows approximately the effect that each additional increment of CO2 increase has on temperature:


Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature.

Fifth and most importantly, the predicted "hot-spot" 10 miles above the tropics that would be a signature of CO2-induced global warming is 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."[1]

Here is the plot of predicted temperature changes due to CO2:

However, here is the actual observed temperature changes:


The hot spot is completely missing, which is pretty much a knockout blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory.

Even so, CO2 has not correlated well with the climate anyway. Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration.

Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations versus temperature over the past 600 million years:


Note especially how high CO2 concentrations were earlier in Earth's history, reaching as high as 7000 ppmv. It was around 4500 ppmv during the very cold Ordovician era.

Considering My Opponent's Arguments

I was going to wait until the next round to consider his arguments, but after reading them, I thought I would discredit the majority of pro's arguments, as they aren't even worth arguing against.

Arguments 1-3 are irrelevant - they don't show how human-emitted greenhouse gases have caused global warming. Argument 4 eliminates (rather invalidly) that the sun is not causing global warming " that still doesn't show that humans are causing global warming. Arguments 5 and 6 are relevant and I will consider them. Arguments 7 and 9-12 just show evidence for global warming " not anthropogenic global warming. Arguments 8, 13, and 14 will be considered.

So essentially, only arguments 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 are relevant to the resolution that pro made. All the rest either only prove global warming itself or demonstrate that humans have caused the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, and so have no bearing on a debate considering anthropogenic global warming.

I will consider those relevant arguments and those arguments only in the next round, along with any objections pro has to my own arguments.


[2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Debate Round No. 2


First off the arguments are not irrelevant. Second I would like to say that the fourth round will be a closing statement and no new points shall be brought up, sorry I forgot to say this in round one. Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically that humans influence climate change, not that they're the cause. Now for round three I will also be using graphs and videos to present my argument.
- Videos
- Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action
1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3.Academia de Ciencias de la Rep"blica Dominicana
4.Academia de Ciencias F"sicas, Matem"ticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9.Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal
10.Acad"mie des Sciences France
11.Academies of Arts Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12.Academy of Athens
13.Academy of Science of Mozambique
14.Academy of Science of South Africa
15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy
23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24.African Academy of Sciences
25.Albanian Academy of Sciences
26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27.American Academy of Pediatrics
28.American Anthropological Association
29.American Association for the Advancement of Science
30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
32.American Astronomical Society
33.American Chemical Society
34.American College of Preventive Medicine
35.American Fisheries Society
36.American Geophysical Union
37.American Institute of Biological Sciences
38.American Institute of Physics
39.American Meteorological Society
40.American Physical Society
41.American Public Health Association
42.American Quaternary Association
43.American Society for Microbiology
44.American Society of Agronomy
45.American Society of Civil Engineers
46.American Society of Plant Biologists
47.American Statistical Association
48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49.Australian Academy of Science
50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51.Australian Coral Reef Society
52.Australian Institute of Marine Science
53.Australian Institute of Physics
54.Australian Marine Sciences Association
55.Australian Medical Association
56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58.Botanical Society of America
59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60.British Antarctic Survey
61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62.California Academy of Sciences
63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64.Canadian Association of Physicists
65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66.Canadian Geophysical Union
67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68.Canadian Society of Soil Science
69.Canadian Society of Zoologists
70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71.Center for International Forestry Research
72.Chinese Academy of Sciences
73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77.Crop Science Society of America
78.Cuban Academy of Sciences
79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80.Ecological Society of America
81.Ecological Society of Australia
82.Environmental Protection Agency
83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84.European Federation of Geologists
85.European Geosciences Union
86.European Physical Society
87.European Science Foundation
88.Federation of American Scientists
89.French Academy of Sciences
90.Geological Society of America
91.Geological Society of Australia
92.Geological Society of London
93.Georgian Academy of Sciences
94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96.Indian National Science Academy
97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences
98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102.InterAcademy Council
103.International Alliance of Research Universities
104.International Arctic Science Committee
105.International Association for Great Lakes Research
106.International Council for Science
107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109.International Union for Quaternary Research
110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117.l'Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal
118.Latin American Academy of Sciences
119.Latvian Academy of Sciences
120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration
130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131.National Association of State Foresters
132.National Center for Atmospheric Research
133.National Council of Engineers Australia
134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136.National Research Council
137.National Science Foundation
138.Natural England
139.Natural Environment Research Council UK
140.Natural Science Collections Alliance
141.Network of African Science Academies
142.New York Academy of Sciences
143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147.Organization of Biological Field Stations
148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151.Polish Academy of Sciences
152.Romanian Academy
153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155.Royal Astronomical Society UK
156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157.Royal Irish Academy
158.Royal Meteorological Society UK
159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162.Royal Society of Canada
163.Royal Society of Chemistry UK
164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166.Russian Academy of Sciences
167.Science and Technology Australia
168.Science Council of Japan
169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173.Slovak Academy of Sciences
174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175.Society for Ecological Restoration International
176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177.Society of American Foresters
178.Society of Biology UK
179.Society of Systematic Biologists
180.Soil Science Society of America
181.Sudan Academy of Sciences
182.Sudanese National Academy of Science
183.Tanzania Academy of Sciences
184.The Wildlife Society International
185.Turkish Academy of Sciences
186.Uganda National Academy of Sciences
187.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
188.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
189.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
190.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
191.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
192.World Federation of Public Health Associations
193.World Forestry Congress
194.World Health Organization
195.World Meteorological Organization
196.Zambia Academy of Sciences
197.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
And military's and etc... Cant list every organization or I'd run out of room.
- Graphs
- Conclusion
Ever since the Industrial Age earths temperature has been rising at an alarming rate, and we should be aware. Also You brought up CO2 in almost every paragraph. As the UN climate summit approaches, we must remember that over 50% of climate change is caused by gases and pollutants other than CO2. Like black carbon, CFC's, and etc.


My opponent has not made a single argument for his position or a refutation of my arguments. His entire argument in round 3 is a source war (when the debate revolves around the number of sources each debater can put forth). Not only does it not satisfy his burden of proof, it is no way to argue. In this argument, I will first consider his introductory points, then proceed to refute the relevant arguments he made from his first argument, and finally show how his source war does not prove his point, especially on scientific topics.

My opponent has not shown how his arguments are relevant, as he hasn't addressed my arguments as to how they aren't relevant. Also, from the resolution and the arguments you have put forth, you have been arguing that humans have been a significant, if not the main cause of the modern global warming. I've been showing how they're not.


Climate Models

Climate models are far from perfect. In fact, they have consistently overestimated warming. "The computer models predict that the 20th century temperatures should have increased by 1.6 to 3.74 Celsius, while the actual observed 20th-century temperature increase was about 0.6 Celsius. A model that fails to history match is useless for predicting the future."[1]

Here is a graph showing various climate model predictions to actual temperatures:

"The IPCC models projected the global 17-year SST trend ending August 2011 at 0.15 C/decade, but the observed rise was only 0.02 C/decade... The quoted error on a single measurement is 0.05 C. The probability that the IPCC projections overstate the warming in greater than 90%." I could go on more about this, but since my opponent has provided no proof of the validity of climate models, this will suffice.[1]

To conclude, here is a prediction made by a climate model:

Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15
Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 " 0.5
General Conclusion " by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed.[2]

Why should we believe the models that predict excessive warming instead of models that predict a decrease in temperatures.

Water Vapor Feedback

Once again, the predictions to not match up with the observations. The feedback predicts relative humidity to remain constant so that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor with increased temperatures. However, humidity has actually fallen. This doesn't only negate the supposed positive feedback, but if the decrease is large enough, it may actually become a negative feedback.

Here is a graph showing relative humidity over the last 60 years:

"This shows that the actual water vapor content in the upper troposphere has declined by 13.7% (best fit line) from 1948 to 2012 at the 400 mb pressure level. The climate models predict that humidity will increase in the upper troposphere, but the data shows a large decrease; just where water vapor changes have the greatest effect on global temperatures."[1]

Ocean Acidification

Actually, claims of ocean acidification have been greatly exaggerated and misinterpreted. The mean drop in pH levels as a result of CO2 increases is around 0.3, but the sea can experience changes of almost 1.4 in as little as just a day. "On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.""At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico"s easternmost state, on the Yucat"n Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs.""Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that 'Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3"0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.'"[3][4]

This is the paper's hypothesis: "This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions"[3][4]

The Consensus

This argument has employed by pro in both his first argument as an argument, and in this round to support his position. However, both instances commit both a fallacy and a gross inaccuracy.

First, the fallacy. Science does not work by consensus. The number of researchers or organizations has little bearing on whether what they believe is actually true. Michael Crichton has said, "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." My opponent has said that petroleum companies supporting climate change deniers is a conflict of interest, but so are governmental organizations, because legislators want them to provide information that will support the legislation will support. Politics in science hardly makes for objective conclusions.[1]

Even so, the consensus doesn't even exist in the first place. Over 31,000 scientists (with at least a Bachelors' degree in relevant fields) have signed a petition saying that global warming is not anthropogenic. The Heartland Institute has conducted an international survey of 530 climate scientists in 2003. The survey asked if the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed with the statement, with nearly half (45.7 percent) scoring it with a 1 or 2, indicating strong disagreement. Only 10.9 percent scored it with a 6 or 7, indicating strong agreement. Most of the organizations my opponent lists are governmental, meaning that they have that conflict of interest I mentioned earlier.[5][6]

The graphs my opponent provides are either irrelevant, are refuted by my argument against the consensus above, or show a rough correlation between CO2 and temperature that I have already shown to not exist. It is also relevant to note that the r^2 correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century is only 0.44, which is considered poor.[7]

Also, as for the other greenhouse gases, my opponent has not argued for them specifically, concentrating on CO2 in his arguments. Regardless, I will simply refer to my fourth argument in the last round on greenhouse gas absorption. Methane has an absorption band (at 8 micrometres) that largely overlaps with water vapor, so an increase in methane has little effect on temperature. In addition to methane, the wavelengths of light that nitrous oxide absorb largely overlap with that of water vapor, so an increase in nitrous oxide also has little effect on temperature. Those are the main greenhouse gases. I will address these more if my opponent considers them any more than he has.[1]


My opponent's entire argument in this round is a fallacious attempt to make his position seem valid when he can't refute the arguments I made in the first round. Again, science does not work by consensus, and even so, there really is no "consensus". Pro has never gotten near satisfying his BoP that humans are causing climate change.


Debate Round No. 3


I see little relevance with your graphs about humidity and such that has anything to do with the actual topic. But since round four is for conclusion only... And as always, thanks for debating. I have learned a lot and you seem like quite the genius. Though my stance on the subject stands and I believe my arguments had relevance. But again thanks it was fun.


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate as well, although he doesn't address any of the concerns I had with his arguments or his own arguments' relevancy. The humidity graph had to do with the CO2/water vapor positive feedback loop you argued for in point 6 of your first argument. Thank you again.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
Posted by ramramgeorge 2 years ago
One thing I seriously don't get about "non-believers" is that they seem to be pulling up the same arguments every time again and again.

Here is how it is: It is estimated (according to scientific american) that human activity pumps out 30 billion tonnes of Carbon dioxide every year (and that's just Co2). Co2 has been proven time and time again that it indeed traps solar radiation. Since you are a physicist guy (Subtai) you should know that Co2 does this. Otherwise you are going to a university that teaches you nothing.

Now all intellectuals agree that the golden rule (one of at least) of science is: "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". So please explain to me Mr Intellectual how pumping 30 billion tonnes of Co2 that is a PROVEN insulator of heat and solar radiation (along with a couple extra billion tonnes of methane- several times more powerful than Co2 as a "insulator")- 30 billion tonnes over the course of five years is 150 billion tonnes, times 10 (which would equate to 50 years) is 1,500 billion tonnes- would cause... no change. You cannot dare say you have a grasp on science if you are ignoring the golden rule that every scientist abides by.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
If this debate were with a more contending opponent, Subutai's arguments would probably hold less weight. For the most part, he argued the ice cap theory. Which is fine if he can prove it, but that doesn't necessarily prove humans are not causing it as well.
Posted by CarterWale 2 years ago
I got it to work.
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
I'm honestly not sure why it's doing that. I suggest refreshing the page, or going back and clicking review. That actually sounds like a problem I used to get trying to send friend requests, and repetition usually fixed it.
Posted by CarterWale 2 years ago
I will just try it on a different computer later I suppose.
Posted by CarterWale 2 years ago
Well every time I push review after typing the whole argument it says I need to sign in even though I had already signed in. I tried it multiple times but it keeps telling me that I need to sign in again
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
I've never had that happen. Can you give me a detailed description of what happens?
Posted by CarterWale 2 years ago
HELP. I cant post my argument because it keeps signing me out? What do I do?
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
The hypothesis the humans have caused the recent global warming is far from certain, as I will show in my arguments.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 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: Wow, I don't even have to write an RFD. PRO basically had no arguments last round and dropped everything con said...
Vote Placed by texans14 2 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro consistently forgets to make some of his words plural. Both parties conducted themselves pretty well and provided decent arguments with reliable sources.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Looks like an intresting Science debate, although before giving argument points, I tend to want to understand what exactly is being argued, and I skimmed through some of it. What I did notice, is that the final rounds for Pro were more or less dropped. You can't drop sources and expect them to argue for you, nor can you drop an entire round final round. Conduct for now, and I'll try to come back later to vote for arguments.