The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous
Winning
4 Points
Global Warming Is a Hoax
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Anonymous
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 1/5/2018 | Category: | Science | ||
| Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 966 times | Debate No: | 106442 | ||
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)
 Pro Con I would like to ask you, why would they fake global warming, what benefit would it have to any organisation to fake Global Warming? |
 |
|
Pro 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: Con 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. |
 |
|
Pro 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. Con 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. |
 |
|
Pro 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! Con 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. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 3 years ago
| mattthegreat123421 | Anonymous | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 |
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.
"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.
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.