is global warming an issue?
Debate Rounds (3)
This isn't just an ignorant, uneducated viewpoint; thousands of scientists have signed a petition claiming that humans aren't causing global warming (http://www.petitionproject.org...). A lot of environmentalists claim that because there is a scientific consensus and all sorts of graphs and charts, global warming is definitely real. That isn't how questions are answered. A lot of scientific theories were widely accepted by the public in the past were suddenly made irrelevant with new evidence.
It's widely believed that global warming is causing Arctic ice to melt. Mysteriously, the Arctic ice cap has expanded by 50% since 2012: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Also, the climate models created by skilled scientists, who can't even accurately predict when it will rain half of the time, have been wrong over and over. Read here: http://dailycaller.com... As many as 95% of them have proven inaccurate. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth"s atmosphere.
But let's just say that if global warming theorists were right, which they are not in many cases, what would happen if the Earth became filled up with the greenhouse effect? It has happened before in the Earth's history, in the Ordovician period 440 million years ago. The carbon dioxide concentration was up by a whopping 16 times that of today. The planet still supported plenty of flora and fauna, so the environment certainly wasn't in danger. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) These carbon dioxide emissions were caused by mass volcanic activity, and they were eventually brought down by the same thing, volcanic activity. Global warming is not being caused by humans, and there is no clear or present danger because of it.
Another fault in environmentalist logic is their emphasis on how humans are the only reason global warming could possibly happen. Humans do have an affect on the environment, of course. But their impact is relatively small, because natural cycles and extinction events will happen whether or not fossil fuels are being burned. Even if humanity makes no attempt to switch to a different energy source, temperature will only rise a few degrees Celsius. Effects of this would be minor, certainly not helping to spread diseases, droughts, or smog. Even less likely is a mass extinction event.
Good luck, Pro. Thank you for a good debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year 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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: con uses more sources and fleshes out his arguments, unlike pro who doesn't really seem to try as hard.
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.