The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

man made global warming was probably having a significant impact on our environment

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: 2,672 times Debate No: 3081
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (15)

 

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.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I've never heard any of the solar flare or volcano theorists out there you're talking about...

The last time I asked someone for the evidence they trusted that convinced them of man made global warming, they sent me to a report (Vitousek 1997) in which they talked about the increase in human carbon emissions. When it came to the method section, it said, in essence, that they found this out by CALCULATING TEMPERATURES and going from there. This is what global warming theory is based on- itself. It's a circular argument. You can't assume that the temperature changes you have observed are caused by carbon emissions and then try to prove it with estimates of how much carbon we released if we assume the theory. An argument cannot rely on it's conclusion as a premise or it has no value.

I'm sure there are more arguments out there, but they all seem to ignore one of the CARDINAL RULES of science: Correlation is not causation. Causation can only be established by experiment, preferably with a statistically significant number of trials. Without actually having a separate, controlled group of earths to experiment on with global warming, you cannot make assertions about causes and consider them science. When people point to "But computer models say..." they ignore the nature of computers. Computers have vast data processing capabilities, but they can only compute based on preprogrammed premises. When a computer tells you x amount of global warming will occur, it operates based on the theory programmed into it. If that theory is not confirmed by separate experimentation, the computer's printouts are unverified bunk.

"Prove me wrong."

You are Pro. It is your job to prove yourself right. Not the other way around.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Do not forfeit. Forfeits are bad. Got it?

Otherwise, why are you even bothering to debate in the first place?
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Debating tips number 5:

5. Don't forfeit a round. Leave a simple sentence and expand on it later.

Even if you don't have time to leave a full response, DO NOT forfeit a round. Forfeiting a round destroys your credibility and makes it less likely that voters will vote for you.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Ragnar, you never addressed the debate topic. You debated based on past debates- not the current one. You presented a counter-argument to an argument Dairygurl never presented. You never addressed her Round 1 argument, and I voted based on that.
"

I wasn't paying attention to this for a while.

I did address the debate topic, by implication- the burden of proof is on her. It was my opponent who did not address it, she simply addreessed, as you put it, an argument I never presented.

She did not have a "Round 1" argument." She had a round-one counter argument to a nonexistent argument. She acknowledged that correlation is not causation, and her argument was based on correlation- not even scientific correlation for that matter.

If you want to vote based on a perceived lack of substance (her fault not mine, she refused to debate), abstain. Don't vote for someone who refuses to debate.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
uh oh, you have attracted the wrath of Solarman. We are all going to die.
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
its impossible to have a real debate with liberals

they never answer questions

they just fire out that they are smarter that you

which is LAUGHABLE

ha ha ha ha ha!

You really sound like a kindergartener

ha ha ha ha ha!

you should really grow up

ha ha ha ha ha!

ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
ha ha ha ha ha!
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Solarman you should really grow up. You really sound like a kindergartener in the playground. I am unaffected by your childish jabs at "liberals" and democrats alike because I think for myself. If you somehow feel empowered by these jabs, then more power to you, buddy, but you seriously must address your insecurities issue or you will never grow up...

By the way you still haven't addressed my elementary school science statements...
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
I don't know what's with your "philly boy" statement...

you obviously aint one then

and whats gangsta about Philly except the democrats who run the show there?
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Solarman, you are ignorant to think that CO2 has no effect on climate- even if you think CO2 is just "plant food"...

Plants also affect our climate, so unless you will next claim plants don't affect our climate, you just proved my point.

I don't know what's with your "philly boy" statement... that's pretty "internet gangsta" don't you think?
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
If you want to have a scientific debate with THIS philly boy (Lower Merion HS 1987) , philly boy

you are going to have to show some acumen in SCIENCE

this is after all a SCIENTIFIC debate, and thats why the LIARS pushing a political and tax scheme are slowly but surely being shown to be FRAUDS by real atmospheric scientists

This theory put forth, that being that CO2 has a measureable affect on the earths climate is FALSE

CO2 is PLANT FOOD and IRRELEVANT to climate variation.

period.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Solarman, your questions have nothing to do with my statements. You can ask anything you like, but only common sense and logic will merit a response. You have not addressed my statements, so why should I move on to your questions???
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
answer my questions, which are basic, or have no credibility

the wheels of the giant carbon tax scheme are falling off just as its getting off the ground

you fools will believe ANYTHING your democrat masters tell you
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Ragnar, you never addressed the debate topic. You debated based on past debates- not the current one. You presented a counter-argument to an argument Dairygurl never presented. You never addressed her Round 1 argument, and I voted based on that.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 Xera 8 years ago
Xera
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 lorca 8 years ago
lorca
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 dairygirl4u2c 8 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 eweb53 8 years ago
eweb53
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 Pride_of_Scotland 8 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 Teddy_Bear 8 years ago
Teddy_Bear
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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 Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
dairygirl4u2cRagnar_RahlTied
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