The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 590 times Debate No: 94868
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (63)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Full topic: The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true or false is to dramatically reduce man made levels of Co2.


We need to take drastic measures to reduce man made Co2 levels ASAP. I've become convinced of this due to the climate change deniers. Simply, put the climate change deniers are correct, there is not enough evidence. Therefore, we need to accumulate more evidence via experimentation.

Thus far all we have done is endlessly discuss if climate change is real or false and collecting observation evidence. Empirical evidence is split into two grounds.

A. Observation evidence
B. Scientific experiments

All I've seen is A, thus far. We need B, and we need to know soon. The only way I can imagine to test this theory of global climate change is via experimentation. We must take control and change a variable. I vote Co2 is the best variable.

Now as Co2 as the variable we have two choices, to raise or lower Co2 levels. Considering it would be immoral to raise Co2 levels given the observation evidence, we can only lower Co2 levels.

Since a small decrease in Co2 levels would be more difficult to determine, a large decrease in amount of Co2 produced by man made sources is the only solution. That way if climate change is caused by a confounding factor we will have a better chance of acknowledging that confounding factor and taking corrective actions.

To recap, we need more evidence for whether or not climate change is true in the form of experimental evidence. Lowering man-made Co2 dramatically is the best and only moral option.

Thanks for reading and accepting the debate in advance.
harrytruman

Con

This would not be the best way to determine if climate change is man made because we alread know that it isn't, and if we reduced our CO2 emmissions this would cripple our economies severely.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Outline
I. Intro
II. Man made Co2 Causes warming
III. Humans > money
IV. Conclusion
V. Sources



I. Intro



Harrytruman thank you for accepting the debate. It takes courage to challenge the status quo. First, lets examine why you most likely think climate change is fake. You have probably been fooled by professional deceivers. [0] People who can convince you that cigarettes are safe. Greenpeace has shown that the Koch brothers are secretly funding these deceivers. [1]

The corporate funding effect is potent. [2][3] Corporations have been known to fund research which ends up producing results in favor of the corporation.


II. Man made Co2 Causes warming


Now, I will prove that Anthropic climate change is real. First the science is settled, anthropic climate change is real. [4] The main argument that deniers use is reverse causality between Co2 and temperature. First, let's look at the ridiculousness of this claim, that scientists some how overlooked the possibility of reverse causality.




Second, I will prove that Co2 causes temperature to rise. [5] We know this due to Milankovitch cycles. The Earth tilts raising temperatures, which causes the oceans to release Co2. The Co2 then warms the Earth further. Also, we know this due to the ocean's acidity. The acidity of the ocean is increasing, showing more Co2 is going into the ocean than out. [6]


III. Humans > money


I have proven that man made climate change is real. Now to your claim that we would suffer economic loss. First, you never estimated how much we would lose nor linked to any outside sources. Second, how does economic loss compare to losing the possibility of losing the entire human race? Human race > money.

Bill Nye shows that terrorists groups are using water shorages caused by climate change to recruit. The pentagon views climate change as a threat. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. [7][8][9]


IV. Conclusion


We need more information, to get this information we need to conduct an experiment. The best way to conduct this experiment is to dramatically lower Co2 levels. Thanks for debating.


V. Sources
0. https://thinkprogress.org...
1. http://www.greenpeace.org...
2. http://nutritionfacts.org...
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
4. http://iopscience.iop.org...
5. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
6. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
8. http://www.nytimes.com...
9. http://www.usatoday.com...
harrytruman

Con

CO2 accounts for 400 ppm of our atmosphere, or 0.04% of the total gas in the atmosphere, and only 5% of CO2 emissions are man made {2}, this means that mankind has altered the atmosphere by approximately 0.002%, with CO2, a greenhouse gas that is actually very weak. {3}

My opponent also claims that money is worth more than humans, even though this is a nonsensical argument. My opponent is arguing for the senseless obstruction of infrastructure in the name of a false threat which will unemploy millions.

The real reason for all of this global warming propaganda is to cripple the economies of developing nations to prevent them from getting a better quality of living. My opponent wants to destroy millions of lives, as well as prevent others from getting better ones, then he talks about how humans are more important than money. Humans are more important than false threats.

{1}. https://www.theguardian.com...
{2}. http://www.ncpa.org...
{3}. http://notrickszone.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

I couldn't get your 2nd source to load, also many of your sources are less credible. I use a scholarly peer reviewed source [4], therefore I should win on more credible sources.

As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing off the balance. [10] Nature balances out, we are upsetting that balance. To top it off there is a positive feedback cycle which leads to amplification.

Co2 increases temperatures, higher temperatures means more Co2 being released from the ocean is one example.

" It\'s also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low." [11]


Even though the amount of Co2 is small the amplification via feedback cycles is makes the effect more potent. Thanks for the debate.


Sources
10. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
11. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
harrytruman

Con

We aren't upsetting any balance, we changed the hearts atmosphere by 0.002%, do you know how insignificant that is? That is less than 1% OF 1%, it is 20% of 1% OF 1%, and our temperature increased by 0.6 Celsius over 76 years. Global warming is not a threat.
Debate Round No. 3
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SafeWalk12 5 months ago
SafeWalk12
To elaborate further, Con, you cannot just keep on going back to a single fact as your argument. 2 rather unreliably sources doesn't help you much here.

"The real reason for all of this global warming propaganda is to cripple the economies of developing nations to prevent them from getting a better quality of living. My opponent wants to destroy millions of lives, as well as prevent others from getting better ones, then he talks about how humans are more important than money. Humans are more important than false threats"
What the hell is this? Where did you get this? And why would they do it? Accusing someone of genocide in a climate change topic? What are you trying to achieve?

"Yeah, you know what, Jim, let's tell the world that CO2 is climate change just for the reason that developing countries should just go die"

"Great Idea Bill!"
Posted by SafeWalk12 5 months ago
SafeWalk12
I am struggling on whether CO2 really does make a difference, but isn't human made climate change something that we all should acknowledge? Maybe it's not CO2, but there is underwhelming proof for anthropogenic climate change is real.

Also, Con, you were sort of an jerk in this debate
Posted by Overhead 5 months ago
Overhead
(Cont from votes)...At best we can say there is a dispute about whether or not it is real. Nothing else actually deals with the implementation of CO2 reduction as a method of seeing if climate change is real, just with disputing the idea of climate change itself.

In terms of conduct PRO is polite with comments like "Harrytruman thank you for accepting the debate. It takes courage to challenge the status quo. First, lets examine why you most likely think climate change is fake." while Con basically accuses PRO of wanting genocide with statements like "My opponent wants to destroy millions of lives, as well as prevent others from getting better ones". PRO manages to make similar claims about the effects of following the opposite policy without hurling them as personal criticisms, e.g. "We are in the middle of a mass extinction" - making a statement about the effects of a particular policy without blaming that policy entirely on the other debater.
Posted by epidexipteryx 5 months ago
epidexipteryx
Also, Harry Truman is right. You give no evidence to disprove anything he says. If we impose carbon taxes on developing nations, we prevent them from using the cheapest and easiest energy source which destroys their economies and prevents them from developing. If rich countries like the U.S. cant even mass produce and use solar panels to power major industry how is a developing nation supposed to do it?
Posted by epidexipteryx 5 months ago
epidexipteryx
Stupideape, you said, "Now, I will prove that Anthropic climate change is real. First the science is settled, anthropic climate change is real. [4] The main argument that deniers use is reverse causality between Co2 and temperature. First, let's look at the ridiculousness of this claim, that scientists some how overlooked the possibility of reverse causality. " But you didn't prove anything. All you did was say "the science is settled, anthropic climate change is real" This isn't an argument, its a statement. You also say that you are going to disprove the idea that Co2 causes temperature rise but all you do is state that Co2 causes temperature rise through amplification of Milankovitch cycles. You show no evidence of this actually occurring historically.

Also, its anthropogenic, not anthropic. Anthropic means the philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.
Posted by SafeWalk12 6 months ago
SafeWalk12
Nvm realized
Posted by SafeWalk12 6 months ago
SafeWalk12
Im sorry, who is the comment below this one addressed to?
Posted by epidexipteryx 6 months ago
epidexipteryx
You say that less clouds is caused by higher temperature yet we have already discussed that more water vapor leads to more clouds which then cool temperature. You are correct in saying that the water evaporation itself also causes cooling.

You then have a quote below your original statement to support your claim. Although you have a quote, you have no evidence to why the thing the quote describes actually happen. You show no relationship between tropospheric temperature and cloud cover nor do you state how much the tropospheric temperature impacts cloud cover. You don't have nearly enough data to support your claim

In addition to this, the troposphere has only warmed .32 degrees Celsius on average from 1981-2010
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com...
Other sources from 1958-2010 show a temperature rise of just .6 degrees Celsius
http://static.skepticalscience.com...
How much do these changes impact cloud cover? You don't explain.

Even more surprising, data I found when researching global surface air temperature compared to cloud cover suggests the opposite relationship of what you described. For example, look at this graph:
http://www.climate4you.com...
This graph shows that as average global temperature decreases, the low global cloud cover percentage increases. This other graph shows the same thing:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
This data is very contradictory to the idea that you proposed and supports the idea that cloud cover has a much greater correlation to temperature then Co2.

In addition to all of this data I have presented, you continue to ignore all of the problems you run into if Co2 did amplify itself. I am not going to go through everything again but I suggest that you look back at the previous arguments I have made explaining the data we would see in the past if Co2 did amplify
Posted by Stupidape 6 months ago
Stupidape
" as CO2 is merely 5% of it"

Safewalk, then you don't understand why Co2 is so important. Although Co2 is a small part, burning of fossil fuels and deforestation can tip the balance. Tipping the balance leads to both a positive and negative feedback cycle.

The positive being more Co2 released from the oceans as temperatures rise and less clouds. The negative being water evaporation's cooling effect. Overall, based upon the empirical evidence the positive is stronger than the negative. Meaning that a little bit of increase in Co2 can have an effect similar to compound interest.

"In reality (based on observations) warming of the lower atmosphere pulls water vapor away from those higher cloud-forming levels of the atmosphere and the amount of cloud formation there actually decreases. The diminished cloud cover leads to greater warming (a positive feedback), as explained by lead author Steven Sherwood in this video."

As you can see, less clouds are formed due to higher temperatures. This is called the amplification affect of Co2 in regards to climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com...
Posted by epidexipteryx 6 months ago
epidexipteryx
I don't know what you mean by an explanation of the greenhouse effect. If you want to know what is is en go here: http://climate.ncsu.edu...
If you want to my oppinion on it, I think that it is definitely real, we just don't completely understand the effects of it on the global climate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Overhead 5 months ago
Overhead
StupidapeharrytrumanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CON doesn't seem to argue the debate. They seem more interested in arguing that climate change doesn't exist and that trying to lower CO2 is harmful than offering any potential example of a better method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true. Due to this PRO ends up going off argument too and even kind of shoots themself in the foot in R2 by stating "I have proven that man made climate change is real." If it's that real, actually implementing CO2 reduction the best way to determine if man made climate change is real? However CON never makes that argument and PRO still has the basis mentioned in R1 about it being used to convince climate change deniers. The only part of CON's argument that seems on-topic is his R1 statement "This would not be the best way to determine if climate change is man made because we already know that it isn't", which is proven untrue by Pro arguing against it and providing scientific sources that it is true.... (Continued in comments