The Instigator
guitargod
Pro (for)
Losing
56 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
70 Points

resoved: global warming is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/5/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 26,145 times Debate No: 6756
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (18)

 

guitargod

Pro

The US spends 4 billion dollars on global warming research each year, what scientist would disagree wiht that kind of money on the table.

The theory of man-made global warming is false. Rather than just giving evidence proving that global warming is based on misrepresented evidence I will directly address the points made by global warming scientists. If you do not plan on reading my post (I know it is long) I would ask you to watch this video: http://video.google.com...=... this video makes many of the points I will be making. Now I will list the points that global warming scientists make: 1. CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. 2. The IPCC has produced a report on the issue. 3. Computer models predict what we are saying. 4. There is a scientific consensus on the issue/all major scientists agree on man-made global warming/the only people who disagree are paid by the oil companies. 5. Major Politicians, CEO's, scientists, etc agree. 6. Even if there is a chance that global warming is real we should do everything we can, it can't hurt.

1. This is the main point made by global warming scientists. Data does in fact show that temperature and CO2 are correlated, however the nature of the correlation has been overlooked. Global warming scientists say that an increase of CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, but this is not the case; a rise in global temperatures causes a rise in CO2. Using the same graph featured in "An Inconvenient Truth", (the graph where Al Gore goes up on the cherry picker, the data from the ice core), the graph clearly shows a lag in CO2 as compared to global temperature. Temperature starts to go up 800 years before CO2 begins to rise. This happens because of the oceans. CO2 released by natural or man-made sources is mostly absorbed into the ocean, when the global temperature raises it gradually increases the ocean temperature which releases CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere. Also most of the warming occurred before 1940 when industrialization was not as great. One would believe that if global warming is tied to CO2 it would accelerate in the post WWII period, but it didn't. The globe actually cooled for 4 decades after WWII, when industrialization was the greatest. Now take a look at our atmosphere as it relates to greenhouse gasses. CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere, a very small amount of our atmosphere. Other greenhouse gasses like water vapor make up 1-4% of the atmosphere. Now take a look at where CO2 comes from, all human activity combined produces 6.5Gt of CO2 per year. Volcanoes alone match that number. All animals combined (meaning respiration, decomposition, etc) produce 150Gt of CO2. So humans produce a very small amount of CO2 which itself makes up a very small amount of our atmosphere. Water vapor is acknowledged to be the major greenhouse gas, and all of that is produced via evaporation (i.e. naturally).
I know some of you may be thinking "ha, he acknowledges the greenhouse effect." To you I ask you to read a science textbook, the greenhouse effect is real and plays a very important role in maintaining a livable temperature on the earth. Global warming scientists cite the greenhouse effect via our emission CO2 as the source of global warming. They are disproved by their own words. As I said before the greenhouse effect is real and causes heat to become trapped in the troposphere which warms the earth. So if human emission of CO2 is to be blamed we would expect the troposphere to be warming and thus increasing the surface temperature (the temperature cited on global warming graphs) of the earthThe IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch..., is the main source of data for those in support of global warming, and has been very controversial. In a prior report a graph, the so called "hockey stick" graph, was shown to be forged. A reprint of the report had to be issued but the damage was done. The fake graph was the main point made in the report, all data rested on its accuracy. When an independent review took place the data used to make the graph was shown to be made up, that's a fact even the IPCC admitted the fraud. Now allegations have been made that the IPCC has censored the report and refused to take scientists names off the contributors list. Contributing scientists have alleged that their passages, which were critical of man-made global warming, were taken out of the report. 15 passages in all are alleged to have been cut from the report. Scientists have also said that their names are on the contributors list even though they left the committee after finding their objections to global warming were ignored. These scientists left the committee but the IPCC refused to take their names off the contributors list so that they can claim all major scientists agree with them. The IPCC is a heavily partisan committee that went into session fully knowing that their report would be in favor of global warming, any scientist who disagreed was censored.

3. Computer models are predictions; they are based on hundreds of assumptions. If even one assumption is wrong the whole model is incorrect. Every computer model is based off the assumption that man is the main cause of global warming, which if you've read the above paragraphs, should be questioned. Another disparity occurs in the amount of CO2 released, most models have two times the amount of CO2 being released than is actually seen. You may wonder why these programmers are being so bold with their outrageous assumptions; the fact is these models predict the climate 50 to 100 years from now. These programmers will be retired or dead before their models can be proven accurate or inaccurate.

4. This is the most blatant lie made by the global warming crowd; there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Here are the names of over 17,000 scientists who disagree. http://www.oism.org... This lie of scientific consensus is purely propaganda meant to make you believe without evidence. Consider for a second, what does scientific consensus mean? This may sound silly but imagine that all the scientific community got together and decided that humans can fly unassisted, does this mean it's true, no. Science is not politics, issues are not voted on, and truth is not based on which outcome is most accepted, if it was we would be the center of the universe not to mention the earth would be flat. Those were the scientific consensus of the time, but experimentation has proved them to be wrong.

5. A recent poll has shown that only 8% of the population believes that global warming is not man-made. Everyone else believes global warming is man-made and this will affect the world either in this generation or sometime soon. This accounts for the support of politicians and CEO's. Politicians see their constituents believe global warming and the politician jumps on the global warming band-wagon to get votes. CEO's and presidents of corporations also see the poll data and try and get customers by pledging their support. Price differences between stores are often not that great, so leaders of these corporations want to gain customers based on "morals." Scientists love the global warming hype; more and more funding is being poured into various institutions for scientists to use. Scientists find applying for grants easier with this increase in money. Scientists can get media face time and get studies published before moving on to their real interests. You may wonder why so many ordinary people believe in global warming even though all the evidence disagrees. The fact is global warming dissenters are ignored. The media airs only stories in support of global warming; many people don't even know that there is a legitimate opposition to global warming. And the claim that the only people who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is unfounded, its mudslinging.
Tatarize

Con

Global Warming is a fact. The gasses in the atmosphere actually conduct a greenhouse effect and the more of them there are the hotter the planet gets. So adding them will add heat. Take the example of Venus which has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system regardless that it isn't the closest. The surface is largely thick CO2 and so the greenhouse effect traps that much more heat.

The degree of the rise and the other secondary issues are a bit harder to figure out and the computer models do an okay job. Thus far they have always underestimated the heating when compared with the actual heating we experience. But the core science is solid. CO2 absorbs a nice chunk of the infrared spectrum. We're adding more of it to the atmosphere, therefore it will get hotter. And look at that, the average temperature is rising accordingly.
Debate Round No. 1
guitargod

Pro

guitargod forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Skeptical Inquirer, July/August, Volume 31, Issue 4 Pg. 40:

No scientist to date has made a strong case (i.e., one supported by a large number of his colleagues who publish in the refereed journals) for any observation(s) or mechanism(s) that can explain the current rapid global-warming trend by invoking natural causes. Arguments for solar forcing, for forcing by internal modes of the climate system (natural processes that operate within the Earth system itself), and for the urban heat-island effect, have either failed to offer hard evidence or have been completely discredited. Nor do Earth's long-duration, quasi-periodic, dynamical motions explain the current rapid temperature rise.

In contrast, global warming forced by a growing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, is based on sound science that refers to a mechanism that is well understood and universally accepted by the scientific community. Models that incorporate this and many other known processes support this conclusion, and the models themselves, while still in need of improvement, are becoming increasingly reliable for making global predictions.

The probability is extremely high that human-generated greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide as the major offender are the primary cause of well-documented global warming and climate change today.

---

I doubt my opponent will do any more than post the initial claptrap of bizarre bewildered misunderstanding about science. Vote Accordingly.
Debate Round No. 2
guitargod

Pro

guitargod forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Tatarize forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 5 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Mmmm the voting seems much more reasonable since the vote spammers have been knocked on the head ;-)
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Patrick Henry is one of the more reasonable persons on this site. If he didn't support me with his comments, I would probably need to rethink my position. It isn't ad hominem, because it's clearly observations about the tactic, it is all rhetoric and quite pathetic at that.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 5 years ago
Derek.Gunn
I'm afraid that, despite the attempt at confirming identities, debates here are still subject to vote bombing.
Posted by TheRaven 5 years ago
TheRaven
what is this, he forfeits every round and can still win? this obviously falls to con.....
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
well id say thats a bit ad hominem there pat. dont you think?
Posted by Derek.Gunn 5 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Extremely well put... assuming you're supporting Tatarize!
Posted by Patrick_Henry 5 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Why do you possibly hope to gain by recycling drivel and arguments based off of rhetoric when there are facts, observations to consider?

If you seek peace of mind, you will not find it in denying science.

For the solace you seek, I recommend religion, philosophy, or alcoholism.

If you are on some crusade against fact and reality the only recommendation I have for you is to seek the most ignorant corner of the Earth and hope that the realities you seek to defeat never catch up with you.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 5 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Post it again....
I'll challenge you.
(This time put an "L" in "resolved"!)
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 5 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
You should see my blog post on global warming about halfway down the following page.

http://thecrackdown.wordpress.com...
Posted by TheRaven 5 years ago
TheRaven
the video won't load on my comp.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: counter VBing everyone, PRO clearly won, CON even voted PRO
Vote Placed by guitargod 3 years ago
guitargod
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 Tatarize 4 years ago
Tatarize
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 Frenzzee 4 years ago
Frenzzee
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 Dmorgen 4 years ago
Dmorgen
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 mustanggt5000 5 years ago
mustanggt5000
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 TFranklin62 5 years ago
TFranklin62
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 resolutionsmasher 5 years ago
resolutionsmasher
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 Alex 5 years ago
Alex
guitargodTatarizeTied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
guitargodTatarizeTied
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