The Instigator
mattthegreat123421
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kikomori
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Global Warming Is a Hoax

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 1 vote the winner is...
Kikomori
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 106442
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

mattthegreat123421

Pro

I believe that Global warming is a hoax, debate me!
Kikomori

Con

Evidence for Global Warming is overwhelming. The global average temperatures have risen by 0.74"C in the last century, with 2014,15 and 16 all setting new heat records.
I would like to ask you, why would they fake global warming, what benefit would it have to any organisation to fake Global Warming?
Debate Round No. 1
mattthegreat123421

Pro

First, i'd like to thank you for accepting the debate.
The main reason the data supporting global warming is flawed, is because the data is only shows us 100 years of global temperature. The earth is 4.5 billion years old with cycles of warming and cooling happening every 10,000 years. The 100 years of data is nothing! Nothing goes straight up or down, it just doesn't happen. Even in your 100 years of data, the data is not consistent. From 1940 to 1975 the temperature actually decreased 0.1"C. Back then the hoax was that there would be a ice age coming due to humans. Guess what, no ice age ever came. Now they came up with a new hoax-- global warming. Al Gore made 300 million dollars from the scam and the government wasted $32.5 billion since 1989 funding global warming projects. The reality is that climate always change, but it has nothing to do with mankind. Mother nature controls climate--she controls 97% of CO2 admissions!

Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com...
Kikomori

Con

To adress your argument, never in this 4.5 billion year history has the temperature climbed this quickly before. In 650,000 years the CO2 levels have never been this high (source: https://climate.nasa.gov...) despite 7 cycles of warming and cooling periods In that time. The introduction of CO2 from humans, however small that may be, has shifted the balance that Nature has held over the 650,000 years, and plants and other "Carbon Sinks" can no longer absorb enough CO2 to prevent the collection of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
I would like to ask you a question, if global warming is a hoax, like you claim it to be, why would the government 'waste' $32.5 billion on solving the issue.
Debate Round No. 2
mattthegreat123421

Pro

First off, humans have had less than 0.00022 carbon dioxide emissions in our history. We only produce about 3% of total carbon dioxide admissions today. According to your graph, our 3% impact means would have increased the total the total carbon dioxide in our air by 33%. How is this possible? Obviously humans weren't entirely responsible.

Carbon dioxide doesn't even have that huge of an impact. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Climate change can not be simply contributed to one cause, it's just more complicated than that! CO2 has a very minor impact on climate change! I mean, water vapor has a much larger effect on climate(but we cant control that). By pushing the lie of man made global warming, some scientists make millions, even billions of dollars from people and governments. Remember, all the arguments for global warming were used 30 years ago for the upcoming ice age which never came.
Kikomori

Con

First off, water vapour has a relatively small effect on the global climate. Yes, it is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, but it has on average only 10 days in the atmosphere before it falls to earth in a weather event. This means it can't build up and considerably warm the earth. The only way more water vapour could build up is with the increase in CO2 emissions (or other greenhouse gases), the global temperature rises and more water evaporates, and so on.
Carbon Dioxide does have a large impact on climate change. The reason temperatures fell after Word War 2 was a high concentration of sulphate aerosols released from industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. It scatters the radiation from the sun and reflects it back into space. The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols, and by the 1970s their cooling effect was outweighed by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Debate Round No. 3
mattthegreat123421

Pro

First, its irrelevant that it water vapor only stays for 10 days because it'll be replaced. Water vapor makes up 95% of green house gases and its impacted mostly by volcanoes and changes in solar activity. You say it "can't build up and considerably warm the earth" but thats just not true, look at dry deserts-- they are 100 degrees during daytime and -10 degrees at night, due to there being to water. CO2 does not have anywhere the impact of water vapor as you claim! And most CO2 comes from natural sources like the ocean. Also your point that after world war 2, that there were more volcanic reactions is just not ture--- http://agatelady.blogspot.com...

Volcanic reactions continue to go up yet temperatures haven't gone down. This shows the inconsistency of evidence for global warming. Every prediction for global warming made, have turned out to be false. They've constantly been wrong!

So I end, Polar bears are thriving, not dying!
Kikomori

Con

First of all, the 95% figure is not bounded in scientific fact. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is directly related to the temperature, therefore, an increase in temperature causes more water vapour. You are correct that water vapour is a factor, but it alone can not make a difference, and CO2 is still one of the main causes of global warming. Water vapour only makes changes from CO2 larger.
There has not been an increase in volcanic eruptions. What we see is an increased global population who may inhabit areas of the world which have never been lived on, and volcanic eruptions now have global effects. The main difference is that the earth is monitored with satellites that measure volcanic activity in all areas of the globe. Saying volcanic "reactions" have increased has no scientific backing at all.
So, with 2016 being the hottest year on record and sea surface temperatures at 0.7 degrees higher that the 20th century, it is conclusive, global warming exists.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KostasT.1526 9 months ago
KostasT.1526
@Ramshutu
"Con did have some uses of "instead of", which I can forgive as it's an issue with apple products"
What's the issue with "instead of"? If you are talking in regards to "in the stead of"/"in stead of", it is archaic. "Instead of" is now most commonly used and perfectly fine.
Posted by John_C_1812 9 months ago
John_C_1812
Global Warming can be seen as unconstitutional suggestion as it does not describe any Basic Principle and legal precedent only idea. Both terms used suggests a generic outcome with no legal precedent, precedent was replaced with detailing evidence to describe a direction of accusation, then a claim is made to support the switch to evidence and not precedent. That process does not separate and general idea shared form the vast detail of possible ways known to mankind as methods to shape temperature, so a scale can be formulated to find a cause of manipulations.

Hoax is saying it is all fabricated. Global Warming, and climate change is wording that can offset the publics general ideas of cause so it is not a hoax. It could be a lie. It could even be a confession of sorts that is being made as a public test to find how the change is being made. Much like a serial killer may do.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 9 months ago
Ramshutu
mattthegreat123421KikomoriTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple typos ("ture", "cant"), and misused words "admissions" instead of emissions; use of "--" which is not a thing. Con did have some uses of " instead of ', which I can forgive as it's an issue with apple products. Grammar to pro. Citations were poor for both. Tie on sources. Pro acted more belligerent, but not sufficiently poorly to warrant conduct - but be careful in the future: tied. Arguments: pro mostly asserted (with no justification), the majority of claims. Con did well explaining the key background of climate change, carbon syncs, and explaining the nature of and rate of shifts. Pro appeared to raise one "gotcha" argument each round (such as speed of temperature increase being unknown, co2 doesn't matter, and humans are not a big contributed), which was well refuted by con and appeared unanswered kettle logic at best, arguments to con.