The Instigator
Con (against)
2 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
13 Points

Global warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,870 times Debate No: 20556
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)




The government needs to take the issue about Global Warming more seriously! This can lead to serious consequences in the future and needs to be reduced.


For the sake of clarity, I would like to first reiterate the terms on which this debate was agreed upon, as evidenced by the statements made in the comments section of this debate:

1. The resolution of this debate shall be:

"The government should take the issue of global warming more seriously."

2. My opponent will attempt to prove this case, while I will offer rebuttals against her claims.

Additional terms:

3. The government in question was not specified, but since my opponent is American, I will assume that it is the government of the United States.

4. The definition of global warming being:

"The theory that global average temperature has risen and will continue to rise with significant contribution from CO2 emissions from human activity."

I don't think these will be contentious, although please let me know if they are.

Despite the fact that my opponent already did make claims, they were unsubstantiated, perhaps due to the fact that the format of this debate was not precisely determined beforehand. Thus, I will agree to this round being used for the acceptance of the debate and allow her to use the start of the next debate round to attempt to prove her claims supporting the notion that the government should take the issue of global warming more seriously.

To clearly summarize the format from now on:

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening arguments (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro)
Round 3 - Rebuttals and/or additional arguments (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro)
Round 4 - Rebuttals and/or additional arguments (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro)
Round 5 - Rebuttals (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro)

Note: The (Con) and (Pro) labels used above are as they appear on this debate, even though in effect it is my opponent who is attempting to prove the resolution.

I hope everything above is agreeable and we can begin the debate next round with your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Perfect let"s begin


I intended for my opponent to have a chance to substantiate the claims she made in her challenge this round, but my opponent has requested that I post what I have to say and that we will go from there.

I must first call on my opponent to support the claim that global warming will lead to serious consequences in the future if it is not reduced by government action. To that, I will issue a rebuttal and the debate shall continue as defined in my acceptance post.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes. Global Warming will lead to many consequences that we are not ready to face such as:

1.Melting Glaciers
with the temperatures rising the glaciers are begging to melt therefore increasing sea level. Not only this but the animals that live in these ice areas are already suffering from this ice loss. Polar bear who need the snow to move around to find food are loosing their homes. This can lead to their extinction

2. Dramatic weather changes
we can be facing server weather patterns such as heat waves, wildfires, and tropical storms .with the increase in tempatures this can become very likely.

temeratures are rising furiously and this matter shouldn't be ignored



My opponent did not provide proof for any of the trends that she asserted are occurring nor did she prove that these trends are linked to global warming. These trends may or may not be occurring; however, if they cannot be proven to be linked to global warming then it cannot be said that it is global warming that should be taken seriously by the government.
Debate Round No. 3


Research done by NASA proves my argument above:

Health is also a factor affected by this issue by changing the air quality warming of the atmosphere increases smog and air pollution this can harm those with asthma and damage lung tissue. Also this can increase diseases speared by mosquitoes and insects ,diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis

Changes in our agricultural system will also change because of the changes in weather. Studies shown by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show that crop yields and livestock have been negatively effect by the heat stress, droughts and floods. The rise in co2 emissions may have a positive affect on the growth of some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans due to the heat . The climate changes such as temperatures and weather patterns can mess up the beneficial CO2


My opponent's claim that temperatures have risen "furiously" is incorrect. Since the middle of the 19th century, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA) has increased by approximately 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Even evidence of such a small increase is not wholly reliable as some Climategate emails dealt with how to nudge the data in the 'right direction' in order to maximize apparent changes [1].

My opponent makes it sound as if this warming trend that she calls "furious" is persisting and getting stronger and stronger at a rapid pace. However, Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (the source of the Climategate emails), stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [2].

All of my opponent's sources compiled most of their data from 2007 IPCC reports. The IPCC is not an academic institution; it is a group of government-appointed individuals, only 20% of whom have "some dealing with climate," according to global warming proponent Dr. William H. Schlesinger [3]. This 2007 report included critical errors such as claiming that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, called "far out of any order of magnitude" by tropical glaciology expert Georg Kaser [4]. Additional errors included:

-"The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

-Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

-New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.

-More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups [5]."

Seeing as the globally averaged temperature anomaly has only risen at most 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 150 years, none of that increase being in the past 15 years or so, it is inaccurate to describe this trend as an emergency that the government needs to take more seriously.

[1]. Lindzen, R. R. (2009, November 30). The climate science isn't settled: Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted. Retrieved from

[2]. Harrabin, R. (2010, February 13). Q&a: professor phil jones. Retrieved from

[3]. Dr. William H. Schlesinger is asked about the background of IPCC members (February 12, 2009). Retrieved from (copy and paste in order to see the section in question)

[4]. Carrington, D. (2010, January 20). Ipcc officials admit mistake over melting himalayan glaciers. Retrieved from

[5]. Gray, R., & Leach, B. (2010, February 6). New errors in ipcc climate change report. Retrieved from
Debate Round No. 4


The temperatures might not be noticeably rising but they are still rising. The fact that in the past three decades humans activity has influenced climate change it is our duty to at least try and resolve this issue .

Recent studies shown by NASA done on January 19th ,2012 shows that the temperatures in the Arctic have rapidly risen since the 1970's

"Global temperature data released by NASA indicates that global surface temperatures in 2011 were the 9th highest on record"

With this being said sea ice in the Arctic has declined. The amount of sea ice has declined on record in 2011 because of this the wildlife has been affected as well. The NOAA found that more than 60 dead and 75 diseased seals were found in the year 2011 as well and one of the factors include the stress due to sea ice change.

Although a study was done in 2009 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) it still shows how the loss of sea ice in the Arctic affects the weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere stating that an increase in sea surface temperatures and ice loss can result in northward shifts in the Pacific storm track and increased impacts on coastal Alaska (USGCRP)


My opponent has not defended the legitimacy of any of the following assertions, following my statements regarding the unreliability of their source (the IPCC):

-"Dramatic weather changes"
-"Changing air quality"
-"Changes in agricultural system"

In addition, she has conceded that temperatures are not rising noticeably. The only argument of my opponent's that remains it that of melting ice, which began with her argument that glaciers were melting (which she did not defend following my rebuttal) and has now been contorted into the melting of sea ice in the Arctic.

Firstly, the fact that my opponent cited the website "," which is blatantly biased is inappropriate. However, as that particular article was a repost from the World Wildlife Foundation, I will not dwell on the fact that this tertiary source was used.

On the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at M.I.T., notes that "the Arctic is notoriously variable in this sense [1]." He also points out that hysteria surrounding the melting of Arctic sea ice has occurred in the past. Here is a statement from the U.S. Weather Bureau made in 1922:

"The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone [2]."

Even in recent years, significant portions of Arctic sea ice have receded and then returned shortly thereafter. For instance, in 2007, Arctic sea ice hit a 30-year low. However, in 2008, half of the ice lost in that year resurfaced and in 2009, nearly all of it returned [3].

Therefore, melting Arctic sea ice alone, which is not anomalous and for which there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that it will present a perpetually greater threat over time is not grounds for the government to take the issue of global warming more seriously.

Finally, I wish to restate that the resolution of this debate is that the U.S. Government should take the issue of global warming more seriously than it already has, which my opponent has not provided grounds for. Additionally, the outline for this debate stipulated that my opponent would attempt to prove the case, whereas I would offer rebuttals (but would not be proving the negative). Please keep these specifics in mind when analyzing and voting on this debate.

Thank you.

[1]. Dr. Richard Lindzen Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (December 7, 2009). Retrieved from

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Lord Monkton on Climate Change - Melbourne Highlights Clip (1 of 2) (February 3, 2010). Retrieved from
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by castilloj12 6 years ago
No thank you! :)
Posted by Fusionized 6 years ago
Thanks for the debate :).
Posted by castilloj12 6 years ago
I see so just post your arguement now and ill respond
Posted by Fusionized 6 years ago
I believe there may have been a misunderstanding. I intended for you to first post your arguments in the 2nd round which I would then rebut, following the format that I specified. Let me know how you wish to continue.
Posted by Fusionized 6 years ago
Very well then, I'll accept the debate.

Good luck.
Posted by castilloj12 6 years ago
That shouldn't be a problem I just put (con) for against Global Warming
Posted by Fusionized 6 years ago
I would agree to engage in this debate, although I feel as if some clarifications need to be made. I assume the resolution of this debate is roughly:

"The government should take the issue of global warming more seriously."

However, you are the Con side of the argument, despite your statement being in favour of this notion. I assume the intention was that you would prove the case for why the aforementioned resolution is true. I would gladly debate (what should be) the Con side of the argument if this is to be agreed upon.
Posted by castilloj12 6 years ago
the fact that no one seems to care about this
Posted by cameronl35 6 years ago
What are you arguing?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Average debate. Con left substantiating their arguments until far too late and didn't have nearly enough rebuttal. BOP was on pro and although pro's argument was rather thin (though their rebuttal was OK), it went largely unrebutted. This was quite disappointing. Both sides should make sure they source ALL of their assertions.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not make a prima facie case. Con would have to show, at minimum, that temperatures are rising, human=produced CO2 is the main cause, and, most import, that the government getting serious would significantly mitigate. The US produces less that 20% of the world's CO2 and Con did not rgue that the US government could make any significant impact. No case was made. There is no reason why the person taking the pro position should identify as "Con." It's an unnecessary confusion.
Vote Placed by lannan13 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro overall was better... wasn't the best debate I've seen, con has better use of his sources