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

The recent warming trends are not due to man made Co2 emmisions

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 95155
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals (no new arguments, you may strengthen your previous arguments)


I accept and look forward to a good debate!

I would also just like to clarify that my understanding coming into this debate based on the title is that I'm not necessarily arguing that manmade CO2 is the sole cause but that it is a cause of global warming. After all, carbon dioxide isn't even the only greenhouse gas!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting. I assume that what my opponent is trying to say above (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they believe that Co2 is a major or significant cause in warming but not the sole cause.

Just to clarify, I agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming. What I don't agree with is how the climate system responds to this direct warming effect. I believe that the climate system responds by dampening Co2 induced warming while global warming alarmists believe that the climate amplifies Co2 induced warming.

An example of this is water evaporation. Global warming alarmists believe that Co2 causes direct warming which then causes water evaporation which then heats the Earth (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas). I, and other skeptics, believe that the direct warming of Co2 causes water evaporation, which then turns into clouds and cools the Earth. I believe that the clouds dampen the direct warming effect of Co2 by causing cooling that has more of an effect on climate then the heat produced by Co2 and water vapor.
(Evidence of how cloud cover influences climate is seen through cosmic ray numbers:
Flipped Cosmic rays and temperature:
How cosmic rays influence clouds and therefore temperature:

Now, for my arguments showing why this is incorrect:
(Sorry if I put a lot but there is a lot to discuss)

Fact 1: There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1998. In addition to this, there has been a lack of an atmospheric hotspot (in the mid to upper troposphere) that was predicted to be caused by greenhouse gas caused warming. This in itself proves that greenhouse gasses are not causing the recent warming trend.
No warming 1:
No warming 2:
Lack of hotspot 1:
Lack of hotspot 2: (Specifically on pg 6 but I suggest you read more)

Fact 2: Co2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, it can only store and release 7% of the electromagnetic spectrum that passes through it.

Fact 3: Throughout Earths history, Co2 has been much higher in the past showing that recent levels of Co2 are harmless.

Fact 4: Recently, ice core data shows that Co2 followed temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years, not the other way around.
Lags warming 1:
Lags warming 2:
Lags warming 3:

Fact 5: Co2 has never caused amplification of warming in the past. It is simple logic. If Co2 amplified temperature after orbital changes raised the temperature first, when would the amplification stop? The answer is when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic and this has only happened once in the last 25 million years:
Ocean pH 25 million years:
(I know it shows acidification at the end but this does not contradict my argument because it is a different result of more Co2.)

Fact 6: Almost every single computer model made by the IPCC is wrong. This suggests something fundamentally wrong with the models used. In addition, the models are all wrong because they predict to much heat which suggests that the effect of Co2 is being overblown.
Computer models wrong 1:
Computer models wrong 2:
Computer models wrong 3:

Fact 7: During the post economic boom, when Co2 soared, temperatures fell despite the increase in Co2. This has been blamed on increased sulfur emissions but NASA says, "the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas" which explains how sulfur would only cause cooling in or around the areas it was released. This means that sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling.
Post war economic boom:
Co2 levels:
As you can see, Co2 levels rose dramatically during the post economic boom, past what they had ever been at before, yet temperatures fell.

In conclusion, I have provided 7 facts explaining how Co2 can not, or has never been, a main climate driver. All the historical and recent evidence is stacked against it and, while it does have some slight effect on the climate system, this effect is not, or has ever been, significant.


Thank you for your response. However I'm a little confused as you accept in your post that recent warming trends are due to man made CO2 emissions, even if not as much as some people think: "I agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming". You therefore condede the topic to me.

I will save rebuttals for R3, but I think the topic for debate you want to argue and the topic you actually posted are two seperate things. If you want to FF and start a new debate then that makes sense. I think the topic you would want is "The global warming effect of CO2 emissions result in negative feedback" which is the technical term for what you seem mean by "the climate system responds by dampening Co2 induced warming".


Global warming is the name given to the process of "the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases"[1].

I will show that the facts clearly show that man made CO2 emissions are a factor driving global warming.

The Massive Overwhelming Evidence

There is only so much evidence you can put into a post with a few thousand characters and both PRO and CON have the same character limits. This does not mean however that the actual body of evidence on each side is the same.

There is a scientific consensus supported by the vast majority of the literature which shows that "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [2]

SImilarility the IPCC have stated "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." [3]

Therefore on any point where there is dispute and it seems like our points might be equally matched, the vast weight of evidence is on my side and greater precedence should be given to my arguments.

GMST is exceptionally high

Although we expect some variation over time, the current temperature is at a level which cannot be explained as occuring naturally.

Every one of the months in the last year has been the hottest since modern records began in 1880 and all the hottest years occur within the last couple of decades.[4][5]

When we look at the trends, the rising temperature is clear.


This is true and consistent even as we look further and further back.


CO2 would be expected to cause global warming

The physical properties of CO2 are not up for debate. It is a greenhuouse gas, a gaseous molecule with more than one element. A property of these type of molecule is that they absord and emit thermal infrared radiation (heat, basically). [7] This is a verifiable, easily testable quality that I don't think even the most ardent climate change denier would try and dispute.

We would therefore expect the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to act as an insulator that keeps the earth warm and for this effect to increase as the amount of greenhouse gases increases.


CO2 emissions have shot up massively since the industrial revolution


Since humanity industrialised, we've got factories, cars, trains, airplanes and all other sorts of devices pumping out CO2. This has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


It is it logical, scientific and evidence based to expect the increased CO2 emissions to cause the higher temperatures. More CO2 in the atmosphere should make the earth warmer. There is more Co2 in the atmosphere. The earth is warmer.

We can be sure this is not coincedence

Although unlikely, it is theoretically possible that a temperature rise and a CO2 rise going hand in hand could be coincedence. However, when we look at paleoclimates we can see that this cannot explained naturally. When the climate has naturally wamred in the past "it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees" but "In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster"[10]

This current warming is happening an entire order of magnitude faster than anything we have seen in the past.

Therefore based on all available data cannot be ascribed to natural phenomenon. Therefore we must look to manmade phenomenon for the cause of the warming. As discussed above, scientists have found time and time again that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperature. As the global temperature is indisputably rising, unless PRO can put forwad a convincing alternate hypothesisis for a manmade cause of global warming,

Reams of Evidence

Science doesn't just rely on a single models, but is testing global 3warming theory again and again using multiple models. The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels.


Evidence from historical sources before the modern day like tree rings, ice cores, fossilised plant seeds, speleotherms, sediments and middens all point to a historic record of temperature which sows our current climate as abornmal. [12]

Predicitons made based on models which predict climate change have been shown to be accurate - even beyond our increasing temperatures. For instance following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo "Climatologists predicted global temperatures would drop as a result of that global sulfate infusion. They were right: Following the eruption, global temperatures abruptly dipped by about a half-degree (0.6°C) for about two years." [13] Being able to succesfully make testable predicitions shows that climate change models meet Popperian standards of scientific falsifiability and the models are trustworthy.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for posting a good argument, it has been hard to get people to debate me on this topic. Also, you are right about the technical terms, I just didn't think that people would understand the concept of negative feedback so when I titled this debate I didn't include it in the title.


Scientific consensus: My opponent states that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. There are multiple consensus's but my opponent makes a quote from the IPCC so I will explain the manipulation behind that one. The IPCC put in their report that 2500 of the worlds top scientists agree that global warming is man made. This is not true because not only did they not ask people if they wanted to be part of the consensus or not, the majority of the people they listed are not climate scientists. Many of the people in the consensus didn't want to be part of it and yet they were shown as someone who supports man made climate change.
Here is a list of articles explaining why other consensus's were wrong:

My opponent then says that the surface temperature is warming. This is true, but in itself disproves man made climate change. If greenhouse gasses were causing the warming, we would expect to see warming in the atmosphere first, not the surface. Skeptical science, the most used global warming alarmist site I have seen used, says, "Climate models predict, that as a consequence of global warming, the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) will warm about 20% faster than the Earth's surface temperature"
Troposphere warming:
Surface Warming:
Total atmospheric warming:
As you can see, troposphere warming matches surface warming, it is not warming any faster. In addition to this, the entire atmospheric temperature trend seems to have stayed constant for 20 years.

My opponent then says that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore would be expected to cause warming. As I pointed out in my argument above, I believe the climate system responds to this warming by dampening it and making it insignificant. In fact, I even have historical proof to back up my claims. If Co2 amplified itself (even global warming alarmists agree that the direct warming effect isn't enough to have an impact, 2/3 of the IPCC climate model predictions of rising temperature are due to amplification effects) then, in the past, when would this amplification stop? To answer my own questions, Co2 would only stop amplifying when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic which we have only seen once in the last 25 million years. This shows how, in the past, Co2 has not amplified itself because the oceans only rarely become abnormally basic.
pH of ocean:

Co2 amplification is described by skeptical science as, "as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released"

My opponent then says, "The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels...Predicitons made based on models which predict climate change have been shown to be accurate - even beyond our increasing temperatures. For instance following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo "Climatologists predicted global temperatures would drop as a result of that global sulfate infusion. They were right..."

Firstly, yes, the models show that warming is occurring but they show way to much warming. They are not even nearly accurate to the observed warming trends. This is because scientists overestimate the effect of Co2 on the atmosphere.
Models Wrong 1:
Models Wrong 2:
Models Wrong 3:

Secondly, scientists were also right about the sulfate infusions from the Mount Pinatubo but this aerosol has completely different effect on climate than Co2. It is much easier to predict the effect of sulfate aerosols on climate because we already know how cloud cover effects climate (cooling). Sulfate aerosols just cause more clouds which then reflect more sunlight off the earth causing cooling. Sulfate aerosols are much more understood and there are not many feedbacks effecting them.

In conclusion, I have now debunked everything my opponent has claimed and proven that Co2 does not amplify itself. I have shown how, yes, the surface is warming, but that in itself disproves man made global warming. I have shown how the consensuses have been manipulated and how almost every single IPCC predictions has been wrong. Overall, I have now proven that climate change is not man made and that everything happening now is natural and out of our control, whether the rate of warming is fast or not.


Thank you to my opponent for the debate.


Epidex has conceded that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes global warming. He explain this is because he wanted to argue a different topic from the one he actually chose and laid out in the title R1. He cannot change topics in R2 and R3 and he has conceded the topic at hand.

Lack of evidence
Although Epidex provides lots of links, he has provided hardly any evidence. Please look at and critically analyse the sources he provides rather than just superficially scanning past them. When I provide graphs they are always linked or referenced in regards to the studies and data they are based off so they can be checked and seen that it's accurate. Epidex typically just links to an image of a graph with no information about it or no source for where it is pulling it's data from or anything that would in any way confirm it is based in reality. These graphs in terms of evidential quality are no different from a random person's unsupported opinion.

Indeed, even if you go out of your way to try and track down the source it inevitably turns out to be a load of climate change denialist blog posts and the like with nothing supporting them, e.g.

Anyone can make a graph about anything, true or false. Unless we have reason to believe a graph actually represent reality and is accurate, it is useless.


Introduction The first link is to a graph which provides no evidence for being real or based on real data so can be ignored.

The second link though is really interesting because in the entire round this is almost the only link that actually goes through to a source that actually provides evidence and information to back up its claims and unfortunately (for him) Epi shoots himself in the foot here.

Although the link[1] mentions the possibility of cosmic rays effecting cloud formation it points out:

- Even the members of the team conducting it do not say their experiment proves this is happening and they will need to conduct more research to find that out
- It states that the consensus is that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming that is happening. Epi tries to deny this in R3, so why do his R2 sources contradict him.
- As is pointed out by "Chris Folland, a climate researcher at the UK's Met Office" in the link, the effect this would have could be negative or positive because high altitude clouds have a warming effect while low altitude clouds have a cooling effect. As it's not known if this theory is correct where the clouds would tend to form, it's not known what effect it would have even if it's significant. This is doubly important as in R3 Epi tries to claim clouds have a cooling effect, while here his own link says they can have a cooling or a warming effect.

Basically the only source that he provides in the entire debate which offers a solid evidence based view actually contradicts him about basically everything and supports my argument!

1 As shown in my R2, Global Warming is the change in global mean surface temperature, not the temperature in the atmosphere. The atmospheric temperature is therefore irrelevant. His position supported by 3 links to graphs which are backed up by nothing.

The 4th link's claims can be summed up as "the hotspot at the top of the tropical troposphere, is missing from the only data we have (Figures 1, 2, and 7). Therefore the signature of increased greenhouse warming has not been found." However this has very much been found, for instance this study[2] which finds "tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly... a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface."

His link is a non climate specialist (an electrical engineer and mathematician) pretending that no evidence exists when the evidence exists and he simply refuses to acknowledge it.

2 Unsourced and irrelevant. There is nothing to suggest that even if true that 7% isn't enough to alter the temperature of the climate by a couple of degrees which is all that is necessary.

3 Illogical and the part about it being harmless unsourced. Just because the Earth and non-human creatures existed hundreds of millions of years ago when there was higher levels of carbon, that does not mean humans and human civilisation can exist or exist without suffering greatly.

4 Backed up entirely to links to graphs which don't have any details necessary to assess whether they in any way represent reality or are truthful. No evidence, point must be ignored.

5 Same as above.

6 Again, nothing but baseless graphs with no data or sources to back them up.

7 Obviously hasn't thought this one through. Average global temperatures are based on the mean average of readings from across the globe.[3] If regions of the world temporarily cool due to seperate manmade factor (Sulphates), then this of course reduces the mean temperature in the same way the mean of 8, 10 and 12 is 10 but would be reduced to 9 if the 8 suddenly dropped to a 5 but the other numbers remained the same. Temperature changes do not need to be global to effect the global average. This is basic mathematics.

I'm short on characters, but pretty much everything here can be dismissed based on being a graph with no evidence and being contradicted by his R2 introductory statement.

I will highlight his first link though, which is to a blog post which claims to have '97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”'. Only 3 of the 97 are actual scientific studies. If you click the first link and check the full study rather than the abstract, you will see that this study accepts that the scientific literature does ‘overwhelmingly supports’ AGW. Epi has been taken in by poor quality propaganda that is obviously false if you spend 5 minutes looking in to it.

Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
>Reported vote: distraff// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: There is a lot going on in this debate. First, Pro made some convincing arguments from water vapor actually cooling the earth, the 20 years of no warming, no hotspot, and the oceans becoming basic of amplification are true. However I noticed that the ocean basic argument was not based on any scientific research and that Pro's sources looked very weak. Con's R2 arguments put up a standard argument for CO2 warming but didn't address Pro's arguments at all and was making arguments Pro had refuted. At the very last post Con actually showed that Pro's sources were very weak and may have even misinterpreted them. But Pro's arguments were so good and pro never had a chance to defend his sources so I feel like there is no clear winner. While it is true Pro does say that CO2 causes warming he claims that it would release water vapor that would actually cool making it not much of a warmer so I think Pro did defend the actual resolution. It is very obvious that Pro's sources are flaws thou

[*Reason for removal*] For a voter to award source points, they must look at the reliability of the sources given. In this case, the voter appears to do so for some unknown portion of the sources provided by Pro. It should be clear from the RFD where the problems with those sources are, and why Con's sources were superior, especially given that there are so many sources in this debate, but the voter does neither. Lacking that, the vote is insufficient.
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
Just followed the instructions for it. Uploaded them to my image folder on my profile on this site then c+ped the images across.
Posted by Stupidape 1 month ago

Impressive work on the graphs. I can never seem to get more than two graphs to load on this site. How did you get the graphs to show correctly? Thanks in advance.
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
"The sources aren't trash until you learn how the claims they are using were achieved"

Unsupported claims do not exist in a state of quantum crapness. You have an to support your claims known as the burden of proof. If your only sources supporting your claims actually contain 0 evidence to back you up and are just some pretty pictures (or in most case fairly ugly ones) then you have failed to support your argument.

"Sulfate Aerosols do not have large cooling effect. They only effect the industrial areas in which they were released. NASA gives an example of this when they say, " Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them.""

Your claim is not supported by the quote (which is from 1996). Ships at sea modifying the clouds above them is not mutually exclusive with the overall effect of sulphates being enough to modify the GMST.

"The sulfate aerosols only effect the cloud cover in their general area. You would expect this same effect at a highly industrial area. While, yes, in an industrial area the cooling would be more severe, it would not be enough to impact global temperature measurements enough to show a .5 degree Celsius decrease in temperature."

Unsupported claim.

"This is where I got the idea that sulfur caused a .5 degree Celsius cooling:
"The relationship between surface temperature change (dT) and radiative forcing (dF) is:

dT = _5;*dF = (0.54 to 1.2)*(-0.24 to -1.62) = -0.13 to -1.9"C with a most likely value of -0.58"C"

So your claim that Sulphates don't change the temperature is supported by evidence which shows they DO change the atmosphere. Shooting yourself in the foot again.

"Also, discussing sources, your source about BoP is from Wikipedia which is untrustworthy."

Please support your claim about WIkipedia being untrustworthy, specifically in relation to their article on the BoP. Besides, are you saying you are unaware of this conc
Posted by whiteflame 1 month ago
>Reported vote: rammer5678// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments), 2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: The point for conduct goes to Pro because Con, instead of properly rebutting Pros claims as your supposed to in a debate, ignored all of them because the sources are not that trustworthy. Until you know how the data was achieved, you cant say the data is wrong. Also, many skeptical blogs have scientists backing them but since they can't get their research published they need to put it online so, in a way, the blogs online are just as trustworthy as articles. Spelling and grammar was also about equal. Con made many more convincing arguments as all of Pros arguments were rebutted and Pro only dismissed Cons arguments as being false because of sources. Sources: Pro has more reliable sources

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter appears to confuse Pro and Con, as the explanation clashes with the point allocations. (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Conduct may only be awarded in instances where one side is openly rude to someone, where there is plagiarism, or where one side forfeits. Merely being dismissive of the other side"s argument is not sufficient reason to award this point. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both sides to determine the outcome. In this case, the voter only appears to base their decision on the trustworthiness of certain articles and the lack of rebuttal to Con"s points. That"s not specific analysis of the effectiveness of Con"s arguments, nor does it explain why Pro"s points were dismissed. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely restating the decision is not an explanation of that decision. There"s the beginnings of an explanation when the voter talks about skeptical blogs, but this requires more than generalities.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 month ago
The sources aren't trash until you learn how the claims they are using were achieved

Sulfate Aerosols do not have large cooling effect. They only effect the industrial areas in which they were released. NASA gives an example of this when they say, " Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them."

The sulfate aerosols only effect the cloud cover in their general area. You would expect this same effect at a highly industrial area. While, yes, in an industrial area the cooling would be more severe, it would not be enough to impact global temperature measurements enough to show a .5 degree Celsius decrease in temperature.

This is where I got the idea that sulfur caused a .5 degree Celsius cooling:
"The relationship between surface temperature change (dT) and radiative forcing (dF) is:

dT = _5;*dF = (0.54 to 1.2)*(-0.24 to -1.62) = -0.13 to -1.9"C with a most likely value of -0.58"C"

Also, discussing sources, your source about BoP is from Wikipedia which is untrustworthy. Therefore all the information you stated from it is false and should be disregarded.
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
Thanks for the vote distraff.

I would just point out that based on the round structure Epi posted in his opening, I had to wait until R3 to offer rebuttals and show that Epi basically had no real evidence supporting his argument (and actually some evidence supporting mine). That he didn't have a chance to reply is due to his round design.

Also Rammer, "Until you know how the data was achieved, you cant say the data is wrong" is not how debates are meant to work.

In a debate each side has a burden of proof ( to support their claims. If I make a claim, I have to back it up. If Epi makes a claim, he has to back it up. If one side can't back their claim up (for instance the sources they post are rubbish and prove literally nothing) then the claim should be disregarded. Due to this, basically all of Epi's argument can be disregarded.
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
It doesn't bring the global temperature down because there is no such thing as a global temperature.

It does however brings the global surface mean temperature down in exactly the way that I explained in the manner that should be instantly intuitive to people that are familiar with basic mathematical concepts like how a mean works.

Your claim that you would not "expect the regional cooling from sulfur to be drowned out in the multitude of other temperature measurements" makes no sense. Clearly if it has a large effect across large areas, that brings the global mean down. that involves looking at the actual evidence rather than making these absurd claims based on misunderstandings of fundamental climate practice.

Also I'm not sure where you got the half a degree figure from. The only time that seems to crop up is in relation to the sulphates released by volcanoes (specifically Pinatubo), which is a different phenomenon to man-made sulphates.
Posted by rammer5678 1 month ago
Obviously there are local variations but how does regional cooling in industrial areas bring the global temperature down .5 degrees Celsius. You said yourself that there are thousands of different stations they measure temperature from. You would expect the regional cooling from sulfur to be drowned out in the multitude of other temperature measurements.

You want scientific literature, here you go:
Posted by Overhead 1 month ago
You don't seem to understand the basics of how things about global warming work.

There is no single global temperature. The temperature where I am will be different from where you are which is different from the temperature at the north pole which is different from the temperature in the middle of a rain forest.

Scientists calculate overall temperature by collecting tens of thousands of observations from across the globe and calculating the Global Mean Surface Temperature. If you don't understand how a mean average is calculated I suggest you look it up. As already explained a decrease in some but not all of the numbers used to calculate a mean will result in a reduction of the mean. This is basic mathematics.

Also your only source which is actually verified by reputable evidence contradicting you is relevant. You trust them as a reliable source and they actually say the opposite of what you claim and contradict you on a number of points.

Lastly aside from the fact that your own evidence supports cosmic rays not forming clouds, you again don't produce any actual evidence to back up your claims, just offering a blurry graph which isn't related to any actual data or proof to back it up. Anyone can produce a graph. That doesn't mean the graph represent reality.

On the other hand when you look at actual evidence ( like peer reviewed scientific studies published in journals which you can check and assess rather than blurry graphs supported by no data, you find "no measurable evidence of a causal effect linking CR (Cosmic Rays) to the overall 20th-century warming trend".
No votes have been placed for this debate.