The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

man made causes of warming are probably significant, refering to 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,614 times Debate No: 3082
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (18)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

detractors from MMGW man made global warming, who say it's not ssignificant, and only a hoax, usually rely on sun flares and volanoes.
if you don't know what i'm tlaking about, then don't debate me.

essential facts.
one is that studies have shown that the sun cycles have accounted for only a third of the warming that's occurred.
the other is that the volcano theorists have never cited sources.
the other is that they think 1.5 or so degrees is all that can really be attributed to man made gases.

i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
--------------
The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).
---------
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
----------

scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
-------------
QUOTE
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
QUOTE
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.
----------------------

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:
-----------------
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov...
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no...
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu...
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca...
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov...
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk...
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org...
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org...
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org...
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu...
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org...
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca...
-------------------------

so, if our ice caps are melting, and there's a correlation (while acknoledging that correlation doens't imply causation) between Co2 and temp, and the ice caps have gotten dirty since the industrial revolution... and everything else, MMGW substantial, makes sense.

if the sun only acccounts for a third, that means the other third is coming from us, at least as far as i can tell from sources.
now, that two thirds might now be enough in itself. but, it's still the majority of hte heating, as far as i can see. so, if it's two thirds, i don't see how you could say that's not significant. to quibble on "significant" is just that, too, quibbling, so i hope no one does it, as it's not an argument worth fighting over.

qualifiers
-----------------
now, given that the flares will inevitably go down, the question is what to think of that warming that is occuring by us. when solar goes down, our warming wo't matter as much. in the mean time.... how much are we hurting the planet? this is the msot fundamental. it's hard to pin point specific levels of harm with specific temp increases.

what true is that we picked a very convenient time to be warming the planet any given solar cycle being up at the moment.

to say say our effect is surely causing bad effects is not wise.
to say global warming is a hoax is idiotic.

the question is what to do based on the uncertainty.
one thing i'm not sure of is why even if GW is so bad, if that's such a bad thing in the bigger picture. increased crop cycles etc. warmer etc. prob unintended side effects is what we have to worry about. i mean, manhattan would get flooded some, up to the WTC even, but is that so bad overall? pretty expensive an all but i don't know.
---------

even though i make those qualifications, i still maintain my opening premise.
prove me wrong.
littlelacroix

Con

Before I get started on this debate, I have a couple of comments. First of all, I want to thank my opponent for creating this debate because I've debated it several times and to this day, this is by far the most knowledgeable opponent I've gone against.

Also, I hope that people that watch this debate vote on the facts, who is a better debater? I've debated this topic before and my friends and I only can come to the conclusion that I lost because EVERYONE disagreed with me, not because I'm a worse debater. With that I will move on to the debate at hand.

I just want to get a couple of things straight. First of all, so this doesn't become an issue, my opponent does agree that solar flares account for approximately one third of the Earth's warming, therefore I only need to account for the other two thirds.

Second, my opponent states that mankind's effect on global warming is "probably significant" and I have two things to say on this. 1. The word "probably" implies doubt and thus my opponent isn't even sure in what he's arguing. 2. As the con, I must prove that mankind isn't significant, not that we have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Finally, so we're once again on the same playing field, I do not consider global warming to be a hoax, just that mankind didn't play a great role in it, therefore, I'm not "idiotic" as my opponent so politely put it.

Moving on, on the volcanoes argument, I'm not going to make this a big figure in this debate, but I do want to get one thing straight with my opponent. Although the exact figures are unknown, volcanoes are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, not much, but some. I also think that my opponent is misunderstanding the number of volcano eruptions in the world. Everyday, hundreds of volcanoes erupt each day, mainly in the Pacific Ring, known to some as the "Ring of Fire." There just haven't been any major eruptions for quite some time; however, that doesn't mean they aren't happening. Volcanoes do have an effect on global warming, but as I will prove later, CO2 emissions do not have a great effect on global warming.

Once again, clarification is needed. The idea of global warming has actually been derived from the theory of global cooling. When the temperature rises to a high enough temperature, the Earth needs to regenerate itself by entering an Ice Age. When global warming is being discussed, three different terms are used, climate change, climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. Climate change has rarely ever been used until recently, being as it means human caused changes. Those who believe global warming is affected by humans have begun using this term to scare those they educate into taking drastic measures. The next term is climate variability which means natural changes in the Earth's temperature. Most historical records of global warming, all the way up to the 1970's, use this term because many believe the Earth changes itself. The final term is anthropogenic climate change which ultimately is the same as climate change, the only difference being that anthropogenic is human-induced changes. Rarely will you find this exact term in any scientific literature because no stone-cold evidence has been found to support the theory. The term climate change has been used very loosely in recent years and is sometimes quoted in support of climate variability. All of the information has been posted on websites from Stanford teachers, students and experts on the topic.

Now moving on to the CO2 argument. About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative eight degrees Celsius to about one degree Celsius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last great era of warming about 115,000 ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have ever been recorded. This evidence can lead to only one appropriate conclusion; no or little positive correlation can be found between carbon dioxide and global warming. This information has come from www.clearlight.com, a site approved by world known climatologists and those who have studied core samples regarding temperature over the past 400,000 years. I believe, if you need more proof, that most of this information also closely relates to the information given by your beloved Al Gore, or I'm at least to assume you are willing to back him up as the main proponent of mankind's effect on global warming; however, Gore doesn't know how to tie facts together. Therefore, since CO2 only has a slight effect on the Earth's climate, another source must be found to make up for the majority of the two thirds I must prove mankind isn't responsible for.

As I mentioned before, the Earth has natural changes/phases that it experiences. This is the only logical explanation for such changes. The Earth's greatest climate change was mentioned before, warming 9 degrees Celsius in just a couple thousand years. We haven't even experienced a change that drastic in this day and age and we believe that everything is all our fault. That is why I took up this debate, to educate those who have been mislead. The only question that remains, why would Gore and others do this?

Among people like me, the only explanation is the immense gravy train that has submerged. Al Gore, although he advocates carpooling, is riding around in limos, wearing the most expensive suits, and even receiving great prizes, just like the Nobel.

It's not as far fetched as my opponent claims. All of the pieces fit in the puzzle, even the motive of those trying to work against us. Now, the debate at hand doesn't specifically deal with Gore, but since he's the main proponent of my opponent's cause, I feel that he is essential in this debate, even if all he says is wrong. Therefore, since I've proved that mankind is quite insignificant and provided for most of the two thirds that my opponent is asking for, the con has done all that's necessary to win this debate.

I await your rebuttal and hope this proves for an interesting debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i wouldn't say he's beloved al gore. he only got the ball rolling. his data was weak yet he acted like it wasn't. just thought i'd note. plus i think he's generally a tool, incidentally.

you can't just rest on "natural changes" as the cause without explaining what they are. i do acknowledge saying "probably" is debatable, but your evidence so far is not conclusive of anything but speculation.

i do acknowledge that perhaps i could try to find the data of solar flares etc, but given that you've pointed to nothing that could be the alternative to that two thirds other than vague "natural cycles", i don't think i have that burden. really, you should have the burden anyway, even if you asserted ithout evidence another source, since you're the one making the claim about the correlational information.

you point out that rising temps corresponded with falling carbon in ice eras etc. if solar cycles are generally the cause of warming etc, then that could be the case because they are so high that carbon is negligible. the outweighing effects of solar flares actually can be used to refute most of your arguments.

i do not know where you are getting the degree information you are citing... you can't just link a homepage that has no reasonably clear way of reaching the source of your claim. it looks like an internet company, not a solar etc company.
on a google search... there's a lot of variation about how much we've increased. i do acknowledge that half a degree or so is pretty common, but i'd point out the other stuff:

"How much have temperatures risen?
During the 20th century, the average surface temperature rose 0.6�C. According to a report entitled "Climate Change 2007" from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the average temperature is expected to increase by 1.8 to 4�C between 1990 and 2100, with a corresponding rise in average sea levels of 18 to 59 cm. IPCC was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988."
http://www.total.com...

really though, all this stuff about how much it's risen doesn't have much to do with what is causing the rise. (it does lend credence to us being negligible, but it's not accounting for that other two thirds etc)
littlelacroix

Con

Okay, so I'm sorry to assume Al Gore is beloved, lol, I just thought he might back your opinion up some and that is why you liked him.

Next, I believe that I've made natural changes as clear as can be. Global Warming comes from Global Cooling because when the Earth gets hot enough, it must regenerate itself, end of story. Also, when you mention that solar flares can refute most of my arguments, you couldn't be any further from the truth. Solar flares are a natural element. Many speculate that they are the main reason, although there are others as well, for the last period of heating. Furthermore, if the Earth has become hot enough in the past to have to regenerate itself, then why can't it be happening now? We are well overdue for an Ice Age but if mankind is speeding up the Earth's temperature rise, then why haven't we entered one yet? Although you state that I have the burden of proof, which I really shouldn't since you made the first speech in this debate, I dare you to refute these two questions if you really believe that natural causes are so far-fetched.

The correlation argument was only to prove that CO2 levels were at a high during a cold period and a low during warm periods. This proves that CO2 doesn't have a drastic effect on temperature levels. I never said that lower temps correlate with high CO2, just mentioned that CO2 isn't the main reason for warming. I don't really understand your argument against this, so I'll have to wait to argue this until you elaborate a little.

As far as my degree information, I only gave you the hosting site, but if you want, I can give you the full site and you can see for yourself that it has been check and confirmed by climatologists and isn't outrageous information.

On your next argument, this is only speculation of how it is going to be, furthermore, you are not proving that it is mankind's fault for this temperature rise, just that it is a rise.

Finally, I just want to mention that this debate is already over. We are debating whether it is mankind's fault for global warming. My opponent has mentioned a few times in his last speech that mankind is negligible, that CO2 is negligible, that global warming isn't our fault. You must see that my opponent has already abandoned his own side of the debate. He's just using the "I'm right and you're wrong technique." Although effective in some debates, still doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

I never said CO2 is negliglbe. I said it can be negligible. I acknowledge that CO2 isn't the only cause of increase of temp. If, the sun is causing the temp to rise because of higher than normal operations, then CO2 in that situation could be negligle, even if it's low. that addresses the hypothetical situations you mentioned about the ice age etc.

You mention global cooling. the debate is over, because you act as if there's a magical switch taht the earth flips when it gets too hot or too cold. or you at least don't state how or why the earth goes through these cycles. if it's not because of the sun, then what is it? you have no argument.. speculation that there's an unknown phenomonon causing it isn't an argument. how am i suppose to? i can't because you provide nothing.

if you provide it now, it's a cheap blow because i can't respond. since you haven't provided anything but speculation and platitudes, you've lost the debate.
littlelacroix

Con

Alright, so my opponent had said that he never said CO2 is negligible, but it can be at times. Although it is contradictory, I will leave that statement alone. What my he had said in his second speech, was that if my evidence is the case at hand, then CO2 is negligible, and thus mankind has little effect on global warming. What you must see here is that he hasn't proven any of my arguments wrong, thus my evidence is correct and mankind has little effect.

As far as my opponent's argument on the "magical switch" that regenerates itself, I hope that anyone voting sees that my opponent is just getting confused with my argument or somehow doesn't understand it. Let me paint a picture for you. You take an ice pack out of the freezer and set it in a room temperature place. It melts, right? Therefore, you must put it back in the freezer to once again freeze it. The Earth works in a very similar way. When natural causes, as this phenomena has happened before, bring the Earth to a high enough temperature, Mother Nature puts us back into the freezer. It's fairly unknown the reason why this happens, but it's just something that we have to accept. It's happened before and it will happen again. How can this even be argued?

Furthermore, the two questions that I posed to my opponent have still gone unanswered because he cannot answer them. Many scientists say that we are well overdue for an Ice Age, but if mankind is so harmful/speeds up global warming, than how come it hasn't happened yet? These questions are impossible to answer if one is to advocate global warming cause by mankind. Only natural causes can explain this. That is why my opponent failed to answer these and called abuse.

On to the abuse, my opponent says that it would be a cheap blow if I were to provide more evidence in the round and is trying to make me out to be the bad guy so that no one will vote for me. I haven't given anymore information, just elaborated on prior arguments, which is allowed. He has also said that I have only given speculation and thus I've lost the debate. What the viewers of this debate must see is that I've given by far more evidence than my opponent, which obviously isn't speculation. On the contrary, my opponent hasn't really even given evidence to prove his side. I would gladly admit losing the battle if anyone, besides my opponent of course, can prove that he has proven mankind is "significant" in causing global warming. All he's given you is that the temperature is rising and that solar flares account for one third of it. Nothing dealing with mankind's effect.

As the first speaker in this debate, my opponent has the burden of proof since he has set the grounds for debate. I have a few things to say on this. 1. No where can you find any information on mankind's effect on global warming. 2. Even though I have little ground to debate on from my opponent, I have given a playing field for any and all arguments. 3. My opponent has only really given the "I'm right, you're wrong" technique, as I mentioned in my last speech. Since my opponent has given no information to prove his case, he has essentially lost the debate. Especially since, with the "probably" argument, he is doubting his own opinion, not even based on facts, it's because even he truly doesn't believe in his own arguments. Also, the only information that my opponent has given you in regards to mankind's effect on warming is wrong. I try to steer away from this, but since my opponent is calling my information out and saying that it's false, I have to do this. In my opponent's first speech, he mentions that 1.5 degrees are mankind's fault; however, in his last two speeches, he has mentioned that it is acceptable to say that only .5 degrees have occurred in the last 100 years or so, or mankind's effect. You must see that his contradiction is only because he making up arguments to better suit his side of the debate.

Once again, I hope that anyone voting on this debate votes on who they believe to be the superior debater, and not because of biased opinions. I know this is a long debate, but I thank you for following along.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Anonymous 8 years ago
Anonymous
The only reason pro is losing this debate is that most people (myself inculded at this moment) are too lazy to read this whole debate. However, I have done enough research to already know without reading the whole thing that we are the number one cause of accelerated global warming. (To say we caused global warming it'self is a rediculous notion, it has been a pattern of nature since long before we had factories and automobiles).
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 7 years ago
Excessum
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 8 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by huntertracker6 8 years ago
huntertracker6
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by dfhahadfh 8 years ago
dfhahadfh
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Insene 8 years ago
Insene
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by ahole 8 years ago
ahole
dairygirl4u2clittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30