The Instigator
TomWarner
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

We need to do more to stop Global Warming.

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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,340 times Debate No: 62076
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

TomWarner

Pro

To start global warming is doing more damage then you might think, it is causing more floods and droughts, which besides the injuries and deaths leads to the government paying for repairs and taking money away from more important matter such as our governments dept.

To stop global warming we need to lower our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% and to do this we need to have new laws and restrictions along with just day to day tasks to help stop it.

While we might not be able to lower it by that much, we still need to lower it some or we will have bigger problems in our future.

Sources
http://geography.about.com...
lannan13

Con


I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (http://www.cnsnews.com...)
If you gaze at the image I had provided you. You can see that Earth is in a pattern and currently cooling off and the IPCC is incorrect with their predictions.

We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier this year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (http://www.nytimes.com...)

How about Al Gore. The man who brought Global Warming to our attention? In 2009, the man breaks down in tears stating how it's nothing, but hot air and how he fabricated everything just for the money! He said the arctic sheets are not melting and CO2 is not responsible for depletion of the Ozone. (http://www.thomaspeep.com...)
Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare.
1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice.
2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago.
3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (http://www.newsmax.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
TomWarner

Pro

Global warming isn't climate change it is the gasses trapped in the atmosphere and it could be possible that the climate could lower because of small differences in Earths orbit. Even if we have another ice age it will still be slightly warmer because of the gasses trapped in the atmosphere. The sea level is also rising, in the last century the sea levels have risen 6.7 inches, but you look in last decade, the decade where we have more cars, factories, and natural gas burning. The rate that the sea level has risen in the last decade has doubled from the last century. According to NASA the ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic have shrunk about 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice.

The main types of gases the are trapped in the atmosphere are C02 and Methane gas. From the years 400,000 to 50,00 the CO2 has never been above 300 parts per million. Our current CO2 level is almost at 400 parts per million.
http://www.epa.gov...
http://climate.nasa.gov...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
If you look at this graph here you will see that the average temperature on Earth has risen by about .8 degrees Celsius since 1880.

Finally if you look at the amount of natural disasters from the 1950's their has been an 80% increase in natural disasters due to climate-related change. Climate related disasters include floods, storms, and coastal flooding. In the 1950's their were less then 50 climate related disasters then we look ahead to 1980 their was about 150 incidents, then in 1990 their was around 300 incidents, and finally you look at 2012 you see that their was about 350 disasters.
http://www.accuweather.com...

Just because Al Gore said it wasn't true doesn't mean that it isn't. Their is data that shows the Earth has warmed up at an accelerated rate in the last 30 years, (http://data.giss.nasa.gov...) and sea levels have doubled their rate of increase in the last 20 years.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...
lannan13

Con

Sea Levels

My opponent claims that the sea level is rising, but the real fact is that it is not.

Morner sea level delusion
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...)
From the period of 2007 to 2008, the Artic Ice sheets grew by 30%. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...)
Arctic_ice_comparison_8aug

Hurricanes

My opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend.



As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...)



Gore

My opponent said just because Al Gore said Global Warming doesn't exist does not exist. Thought I agree with that statement let me give you a quote from Al Gore:

When we talk about Earth’s temperature, we are really talking not about overall temperature but about our cities’ temperatures, as that’s where the vast majority of people live. The fact is: cities are in fact hotter now than they were 40 years ago. This is true. The higher temperatures in recent decades is the direct result of ‘urban sprawl’.” Gore stated. ”Take a city like Los Angeles which has urban sprawl in all directions, sprawl that has tripled and quadrupled over the past 50 years. The vast networks of roads, concrete, glass, steel, and other raw materials now covering this once arid landscape create the temperature rise. Simply put: concrete, tar, metal, glass, steel, heat up far more during the day than fields, valleys, rivers, and forests, thus increasing temperature in the most densely populated cities. If temperatures were measured in the middle of nowhere there would be no significant increase.If we were to return Los Angeles today to the rural landscape, as it was in say 1880, the temperature in the middle of the day would be 5-10 degrees lower than it is now. So, the bigger the urban sprawl, the higher the temperature. We have used these alarming statistics, that this city, or that city has posted the highest temperature, or the hottest month in the past 100 years to scare people and manipulate statistics to support our hysterical viewpoints.” (http://www.thomaspeep.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
TomWarner

Pro

To start you stated that sea levels aren't rising, but then what happened in 1960 to cause the sea levels to decrease their rise and you state that from 1970 and on their has been no change at all to the sea level, I find this hard to believe. Your source for your graph doesn't even open.

This graph shows how much the sea has risen in the last century.


http://www.epa.gov...

As for your second argument the graph you showed are no evidense to support its claims and your source is not trustworthy and has no facts to back it up.

For your third argument that their are less hurricanes that could be true, but climate related natural disasters aren't just hurricans it also includes floods, storm surges, and coastal flooding.

This graph shows the increase.

http://www.accuweather.com...

You said I said, "just because Al Gore said Global Warming doesn't exist does not exist."

While I said, "Just because Al Gore said it wasn't true doesn't mean that it isn't"
As if i'm impling that Al Gore said that it wasn't true, but that doesn't mean that it is not true.

What i'm saying is Al Gore doesn't know everything.

Finally if your not convinced just look at the reports that the CDC, EPA, and even the white house has addressed this problem and if you read these articles you'll see that they agree with my facts.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...;
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Sea Level


The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (http://joannenova.com.au...) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all.


This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) The source is the PDF within the link.

My opponent states that my source for the artic ice growth is not creditable, but prehaps an almanac is. In the graph bellow is showing that the Artic ice is actually regained in the winter! (http://www.almanac.com...)


NOAA sea rise by 2100 versus hysterical MSM IPCC predictions
The above graph is a sea level graph from NOAA and this shows that if the current study holds firm that the Sea Levels are to be near a zero change by the end of the century. (http://www.c3headlines.com...)

Contention 2: Hurricanes and naturual dissasters.

Tornadoes_F1_1954-2013
In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) But what about Hurricanes?

hurricane_drought_May2013
Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase.

Contention 3: Gore

Though I agree with my opponent that one person disagreeing doesn't prove a fact, but the last quote I gave by Al Gore showed that the warming graphs are distorted due to the cities being warmer and such. He also admitted that the data he made for the Inconvient Truth was fudged.
Debate Round No. 3
TomWarner

Pro

TomWarner forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
TomWarner

Pro

TomWarner forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DJ15 2 years ago
DJ15
Global Warming Doesn't even exist...
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Pro is functioning off of a very basic set of assumptions: greenhouse gas emissions have risen, and during that rise, various environmental changes have occurred, ergo the cause of those changes is global warming. The reason I say they're basic is because Pro gives little in the way of argumentation linking greenhouse gas emissions to the changes he cites.

That could have been a very simple point of attack for Con. Instead, Con seeks to mitigate or disprove Pro's argument by attacking the impact - whether there are any changes to the environment at all. By limiting his argument in this way, Con needs to win on every argument in order to show that there is absolutely no reason to do more to stop global warming.

Both debaters provide data, which is all very interesting, but clashes dramatically, and neither side gives any reason why their data should be preferred, leaving that up to me. As I see it, Con's attempts to mitigate are mostly successful, however he fails to fully address Con's point about all climate-related natural disasters, only addressing it in pieces and leaving the overall picture whole. Even if I agree that Con's data covers all hurricanes and tornadoes, Pro gives me reason to believe that flooding and storm surges are also in that picture, which at least makes me question whether Con has fully addressed the issue, and at worst makes me think he's already lost on flooding alone. Since Con has failed to provide an alternate reason for this change, I have no choice but to accept Pro's assessment that it must be global warming. Ergo, I believe that some changes are necessary to prevent the problem from getting worse, and I vote Pro.

Conduct goes to Con for the forfeits.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I'll get a vote up on this today. For those who have already voted, you really shouldn't be deciding the debate based on forfeits alone. This is a 7 point vote, you could easily just factor that into conduct and evaluate the arguments as they stand.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
We disagree on whether or not global warming is real (and no, a change in terminology does not make me "behind the times," they have the same basic meaning), but that doesn't excuse you using such obviously specific information as evidence of a larger trend. If you want to say that it has something to do with the sun, that's fine, because even if we disagree this is not our debate. I just have a problem with your decision to provide this specific information as proof of your convictions.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
White. I am just pointing out the absurdity of this global warming hoax. For 17 years the earth has been cooling. Know why? Less activity on the sun. Our heat source.And it is just like liberals. Trying to manipulate their views by manipulating words. You are behind the times. It is no longer global warming, but climate change.Now back in my day we just called that " the weather".
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
We likely use different anti-virus software, yours probably blocks certain sites mine does not. Anyway discounting one source as non-verifiable, doesn't hurt your case, just doesn't help your sources.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
A virus? How is that possible. I have used that link in another debate before?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
My virus scan detected a Trojan embedded in con's third link. Please provide another link for the same data.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
...You do realize that that's an absurd statement if your endeavor is to prove that global warming isn't real, right? It would be like me pointing to an abnormally hot week in Southern California as evidence for it. Weather is not climate, a single storm is not a pattern, and what happens in one location is not representative of the world at large.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
A few years ago they had a global warming conference in Brussels and it was canceled because of the largest snowstorm to ever hit that city .
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
TomWarnerlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Don't allocate argument points based on forfeits alone.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TomWarnerlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Aithlin 2 years ago
Aithlin
TomWarnerlannan13Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.