The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
II. Man made Co2 Causes warming
III. Humans > money
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.  People who can convince you that cigarettes are safe. Greenpeace has shown that the Koch brothers are secretly funding these deceivers. 
The corporate funding effect is potent.  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.  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.  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. 
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. 
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.
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.
I couldn't get your 2nd source to load, also many of your sources are less credible. I use a scholarly peer reviewed source , therefore I should win on more credible sources.
As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing off the balance.  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." 
Even though the amount of Co2 is small the amplification via feedback cycles is makes the effect more potent. Thanks for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Overhead 1 month ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
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
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.