The Instigator
AKMath
Pro (for)
The Contender
BertrandsTeapot
Con (against)

Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AKMath has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,397 times Debate No: 116645
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

AKMath

Pro

Here's to a good debate.
BertrandsTeapot

Con

I will begin with a few statistics and quotes from experts showing, unequivocally, that global warming has occurred. I will then move on to show that this effect is largely a result of human actions, technology, and the like. Next, I will provide quotes and sources specifically stating that the current level(s) of global warming could not be results of natural causes. Finally, I will address some of the arguments Pro is likely to make. I will point out that, at least in the past, he/she references sites such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", sources known to be some of the most biased that exist. On the other hand, the sources I reference are scholarly, scientific, and largely non-partisan. As the BoP is on Pro and he/she stated "man-made global warming isn't real", he/she will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and refute all counter-claims on this topic) that none of the global warming that has occurred has resulted from human action. If even some of it has resulted from human action, it would, by definition, be "real".

Global Warming Occurring

- "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

- The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010.

- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

- Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

- Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

- Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

- The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.

- Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850

- "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can." - Stephen Hawking

- Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years.

Sources:

https://climate.nasa.gov...

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

http://nsidc.org...

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov...

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis



Humans Are (at least partially) To Blame

- "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

- "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment

- "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA

- "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5

- "Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth

- "Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years—two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University

- "Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions,” - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia’s Center for Climate and Life

Note: Some of these conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.

Current Levels of Global Warming Not Natural

- "If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies

- "Volcanoes have a short-term cooling effect on the climate due to their injection of sulphate aerosols high into the stratosphere, where they can remain aloft for a few years, reflecting incoming sunlight back into space." - Zeke Hausfather

- "Finally, solar activity is measured by satellites over the past few decades and estimated based on sunspot counts in the more distant past. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun fluctuates modestly on a cycle of around 11 years. There has been a slight increase in overall solar activity since the 1850s, but the amount of additional solar energy reaching the Earth is small compared to other radiative forcings examined. Over the past 50 years, solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined slightly, while temperatures have increased dramatically." - Carbon Brief

- “We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see. If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Potential Pro Argument

Based on Pro's past debates on this subject, I know he/she is likely to make following arguments:

"https://goo.gl...;Sorry, you were saying..."

Many people debate the validity of this statistic/image, but we can put that aside. Global warming is about the long-term trend, not a single year-over-year increase in the size of a particular ice sheet. So, even if this is accurate, it is in no way sufficient in disproving the litany of sources cited above stating the long-term trend. Here is a Forbes article directly speaking to statistics of this nature: https://goo.gl...

As stated above, Pro's other arguments often rest on sources such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", a few of the least reliable, least scientific, least objective sources in the world. I would point voters to the much more reputable, scientific, and unbiased sources I have used in my arguments.

Debate Round No. 1
AKMath

Pro

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. =
1. The 0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
2. The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles
3. It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade./Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world " including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
1. It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.
2. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.
3. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
4. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
1. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth"s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
1. Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago.

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.
1. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
2. Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.
3. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.
1. I already refuted this before.

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth"s surface than any preceding decade since 1850
1. Already refuted this
2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

"It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.
1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.
2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3. Most of global warming is completely natural.
4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

"Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment
1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

"Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA
1. The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
2. Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
3. A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. ["] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5
1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.
2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
4. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
5. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control

Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth
1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.
2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
3. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control

Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years"two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University
1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.
2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we"ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions," - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia"s Center for Climate and Life
1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.
2. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control

If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don"t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that"s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it"s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it"s not solar." - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration"s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

Rest in comments section.
BertrandsTeapot

Con

I'm not sure what the correct practice is regarding Pro placing nearly half of his R2 argument in the comments. This is the same debater who once copy and pasted arguments from another debate into one against me, so I am inclined to think this is considered bad form. Given that he/she is the one who proposed the character limit and never stated there would be exceptions made, I would urge voters to largely disqualify those portions from consideration. That all said, I will still try to address as much of their argument as possible. You will see that nearly all, if not all, of Pro's counterclaims are completely fabricated, baseless, and not rooted in any reputable sources (or any sources at all, for that matter).

First and foremost, in the main part of Pro's argument, he/she does not list one single source despite making very bold claims in attempts to refute my scientific evidence. In the comments, they state that their source is "freaking TESLA. They f*cking make electric cars!!! And they say global warming isn't real!!!" Surely showing that this is in fact not the case should be sufficient in refuting Pro's statements, though I will go a bit further. All of Pro's arguments are directly copied and pasted from a Tesla forum and in no way are endorsed by the company itself. You can view that forum entry contributed by a group known as "Free Energy" here: https://goo.gl.... I will use actual, scientific facts and scholarly sources to show that Pro's counterclaims are not just unfounded but patently false.

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, has said, "Climate change is the biggest threat that humanity faces this century," in an interview with Rolling Stone. "In the past, Musk himself has called the act of denying climate change “fraud,” and has told people, albeit jokingly, to use a thermometer if they’re unsure of the existence of global warming. Musk has never shied away from acting against the dangers that threaten the future of humanity and planet Earth." (https://goo.gl...). "Musk’s point is clear, however: climate change is real." (https://goo.gl...). Also to this point, "Tesla makes sought-after electric cars and the potential for the company to replicate this success in the heavy-duty sector is an exciting prospect for clean air and climate change." (https://goo.gl...).

Further showing that Pro's claim about Tesla's stance is completely invalid and unfounded: "Electric trucks, whether manufactured by Tesla or anyone else, are essential to solving climate change and reducing air pollution. On California’s grid today, a heavy-duty electric vehicle with middle-of-the-road efficiency has 70 percent lower life cycle global warming emissions than a comparable diesel and natural gas vehicle. Electric vehicles also don’t have any tailpipe emissions of NOx, particulate matter, or other pollutants." (https://goo.gl...)

This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Pro has completely fabricated his/her claims and attributed them to a single car company whose goal is actually to combat the very phenomenon Pro is claiming to not exist. By itself, this fact should result in a nearly-automatic disqualification and I could rest my case here. However, I will go on to refute just a few of Pro's outrageously outlandish and fabricated counterpoints. Just because I don't refute a given point does not mean that it would not be possible to do so, however, out of respect for voters and the integrity of this forum, I will adhere to the character limit set by Pro.

"The 0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends."

Official NASA data shows that average annual temperature dropped every year between 1880 and 1920. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)). I do not know where Pro's claim came from, but it is clearly false.

"It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries."

Scientists are also finding that glaciers reveal clues about global warming. How much does our atmosphere naturally warm up between Ice Ages? How does human activity affect climate? Because glaciers are so sensitive to temperature fluctuations accompanying climate change, direct glacier observation may help answer these questions. Since the early twentieth century, with few exceptions, glaciers around the world have been retreating at unprecedented rates. Some scientists attribute this massive glacial retreat to the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1760. In fact, several ice caps, glaciers and ice shelves have disappeared altogether in this century. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within a matter of decades. (National Snow and Ice Data Center). There is also the article, "Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Glaciers Melting" found here: https://goo.gl..., I do not know where Pro's claim came from (certainly not Tesla), but it is also unfounded and false.

"It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder."

A study published on April 6 in the journal Science found that bottom-up ice loss is also happening, particularly in the eastern Arctic Ocean where the Atlantic Ocean is making inroads. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I must (again) say that this claim is baseless and false. I should also note that Pro simply pasted this line again two points later.

"Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels."

There is an article titled, "The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist". It says, among other things, that carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.

"After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940."

Global temperatures rose in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 (https://climate.nasa.gov...). I have no idea where this claim comes from.

"There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity."

- "There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response." (NASA)
- "Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels." (NASA)
- "The amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels...CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them...Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming." (https://goo.gl...)
- "There is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2." (https://goo.gl...)

"A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years."

- "During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." (https://goo.gl...)
- A number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).


"Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming"

"It is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context" ("A poor sequel". Nature. 480 (7375): 6. December 2011)


"A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992."

Ignoring, for a second, the fact that the contents of this report were and are highly contested, they were released 26 years ago. Since then, great advancements have been made in all sorts of technological fields dealing with global warming. Those more modern sources are the ones I cite.

A majority of these counterclaims by Pro are repeated numerous times in response to various arguments of mine, many times in ways that don't apply. Regardless of relevance, these counterclaims are all copied and pasted from a biased source that Pro claims to be Tesla, when in fact it's simply from a forum on Tesla's website. This is not just misleading, but blatantly in disregard for the integrity of the forum. I urge voters to note that not only did Pro misattribute a source to a company whose view is actually the diametric opposite of what he/she claims, but I've provided scientific evidence refuting the claims made by the actual source.
Debate Round No. 2
AKMath

Pro

Cool.

WWII/Greenhouse Gasses: https://www.newscientist.com...

0.7 - 0.9"C increase: https://www.sciencedirect.com...

It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.: http://thehill.com...
2.https://www.express.co.uk...

A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years."
https://www.skepticalscience.com...

A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992.":
http://www.petitionproject.org... (just one of them)
BertrandsTeapot

Con

I need to urge Pro to read the sources he/she is citing a bit more carefully before just throwing them into a debate. Beyond the fact that I thoroughly disproved his/her contention that their facts are all from Tesla whose stance is one suggesting "Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real", they have actually cited sources that say the exact opposite of what they are trying to prove. The other sources, as I describe below, are simply not valid scientific sources in any sense of the term. Especially given that BoP is on Pro, he/she should have to combat my claims with counterclaims from equally, if not superior sources. Rather, they have utilized highly-contested articles from non-scientific sources, some of which are explicitly labeled "opinions" rather than fact.

For example, Pro's first source about "WWII/Greenhouse Gasses" is actually titled: Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming. Emphasis on myths. The article is all about the fact that this argument is in no way true. It specifically states that, "The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artifact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method. The temperature record is currently being updated to reflect this bias." This shows that, not only does Pro's claim have no standing because the statistic is actually a result of changing methodology, but they are actually attempting to cite new sources (since their original ones were copied and pasted from a Tesla forum) which either contradict previous arguments or are based on non-scientific, opinion-based, vastly-refuted claims.

The source they cite for the "0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature" is a 13-page long, fairly technical document which I actually took the time to read. The only time the numbers 0.7 and 0.9 even occur is in a section titled, "2. The importance of data quality and consistency when studying extremes." This section states, among other things, "Nicholls (1996) observed that a major problem undermining our ability to determine whether extreme weather and climate events were changing was that it is more difficult to maintain the long-term homogeneity of observations required to observe changes in extremes, compared to monitoring changes in means of variables. Inhomogeneities affecting station records can most commonly be introduced through site moves, changes in instrumentation, changes in local site conditions (through urbanization for example), or changes in observing practices." This section is about bringing into question the integrity of the very data Pro is attempting to cite. Furthermore, this section actually discusses the "Monthly minimum value of daily min temperature" and in no way speaks to the "average global temperature" as suggested by Pro.

Regarding Pro's discussion of the myth of receding glaciers, I should point out first that the article is from 6 years ago, second that it is from the Daily Mail as opposed to the actual scientific sources I provided, and third, only covers the change over one year. Even though the artic sea ice may have increased over this one year, it was still at far lower than average levels. Also, the IPCC did not hold the crisis meeting that was alleged. That is a complete fabrication. The IPCC actually directly came out to state how terrible of a source of information this specific article was:

"The UN’s climate science body has rejected claims in the Mail on Sunday newspaper that it plans to hold a crisis meeting to discuss the impending release of its latest major report. In an article labelled ‘Global cooling‘ journalist David Rose said that the growth in Arctic ice was proof of a worldwide global warming scam, and that the predictions of the current climate models were “gravely flawed”. Rose said that leaked reports showed that governments were demanding 1,500 changes to the Summary for Policy makers, as it failed to adequately explain the recent “pause” in global warming. As a result, he said, the IPCC was calling a crisis meeting to deal with the “revelations”. “Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting,” it said in a statement. “The IPCC will convene a plenary session to finalize the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, in line with its normal procedures, in Stockholm on 23-26 September 2013. “The session has been scheduled for several years and this timetable has been repeatedly publicized by the IPCC.”

Pro's article from TheHill.com stating that there is "no real scientific proof" regarding the rise in greenhouse gases is actually an OpEd piece contributed by a seismologist/volcanolgist. In no way is this an actual corroborated scientific source, nor was it even contributed by the type of expert who could refute the plethora of evidence I've provided.

Pro's citation of an article about the sun being responsible for a great share of climate change starts with the sentence "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions." It is an article debunking the exact myth that Pro is trying to perpetuate with their argument. Again, I'm not sure Pro actually read this.

Finally, regarding the petition by "scientists", I urge voters to take a closer look. First of all, this petition is over 10 years old. A more "2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans." Second of all, this petition required no actual proof that the signatories had the credentials they claimed. Third, and perhaps most importantly, many of the signatories in no way were qualified to give factual, unbiased opinions on the matter. Surely those who are best suited to make judgments here are climatologists, meteorologists, agencies like NASA, etc. (all of which are the type I provided). Here are just a few examples of the qualifications of those signatories on Pro's outdated petition, for which I have already provided a more recent, peer-reviewed counter:

- Wilbur A. Aanes specializes in veterinary and animal surgery.
- Ralph F. Abate specializes in bridge design
- Ursula K. Abbott is an avian geneticist
- Dirk Den Baars deals in the exploring and mining of copper and precious metals
- P. S. Gaal works with the transport properties of materials

These are just a select few of the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who signed this petition who were actually in no way qualified to do so. To restate:

  1. This petition is old and outdated
  2. I have provided a more recent, peer-reviewed, established petition which directly counters Pro's claim
  3. The signatories on Pro's petition are largely unqualified to opine on the matter
To summarize this round's argument:
  1. Pro initially stated that Tesla was their source for all of their facts. Actually, their claims were all copied and pasted from a forum to which anyone can post.
  2. Pro claimed that Tesla's stance was one in line with his/hers, but did nothing to counter my proof that their stance was just the opposite
  3. Pro attempted to find new sources to support the points he/she found on the Tesla forum, but ultimately used ones that either proved exactly the opposite of what they were trying to say or were from non-scientific, opinion-based, unqualified sources
  4. It is clear that Pro did not read many of these sources as the claims he/she seems to think some of them prove are actually the description of the very myth they debunk
Debate Round No. 3
BertrandsTeapot

Con

In the last round, I put together a coherent, logical, evidence-based argument. Pro responded with a single link to a website named, "Human Events: Powerful Conservative Voices." Right off the bat, we are facing a biased source (that also is over 4 years old). The source, itself, cites a man named David Archibald as its only source.

David Archibald is a proven conspiracy theorist on this topic. One of Pro's own sources from a previous round puts forth an entire list of outrageous claims he's made regarding global warming that have been, time and time again, debunked by scientists: https://goo.gl...

Beyond all of that, the article/excerpt's main point is that carbon dioxide levels are too low. Let's look at a few scientific sources that say otherwise:

- Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Hits Record High Monthly Average (https://goo.gl...)
- CO2 Levels Hit Record High for 30th Year in a Row (https://goo.gl...)
- Carbon Dioxide Levels In Earth’s Atmosphere Reach Record High (https://goo.gl...)
- Carbon Dioxide Levels In The Atmosphere Hit Record High In 2018 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography)
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 3 years ago
BertrandsTeapot
***I'd like to note that Pro posted a comment stating, "Bertrands actually convinced my the global warming is happening. His overload of scientific evidence and reasoning made clear how foolish my arguments are. Most of the "facts" I put forth were already debunked, and didn't have science to back them up."

It would be a travesty to have this debate end in anything other than a victory on my end.***
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 3 years ago
BertrandsTeapot
WOW. AKMath stooping low YET AGAIN. After already trying to pull this maneuver on me in another debate, being extremely rude all the time including calling me a dumba$$ in a different debate just since I asked him/her what they were contrasting democracy with, they attempt to challenge someone else to make their arguments for them since they're CLEARLY dead in the water here.

Disgraceful
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
****pro just challenged me to a debate where he tried to take the opposite side he's taking here just so that he could take my arguments and use them against bertrand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
LOL did Pro really just respond to ALL of Con's arguments with one link to an absurdly biased Conservative source that cites David Archibald whose claims have been deemed absolutely ABSURD by the whole scientific community? Just LOL man
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
LOL did Pro really just respond to ALL of Con's arguments with one link to an absurdly biased Conservative source that cites David Archibald whose claims have been deemed absolutely ABSURD by the whole scientific community? Just LOL man
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
Sorry, last thing. It's SO ridiculous that AK tried to continue this debate in like 10 comments. He is Pro. He chose the character limit. It's there for a reason. SAD!
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
Oh, also, I've looked at AK's other debates. Jeez they are rude and cocky. How about that "conduct" vote? They've lost way more debates than they've won. Maybe they shouldn't be so cocky. Especially if they are a 57 year old - post doctoral lawyer LOL :)
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
I have disagreed with BertrandsTeapot on many things, including climate change, but AKMath is making an absolute fool of themselves here. They are copy-pasting things from totally invalid sources. They were very cocky in claiming that their sources was Tesla and that Tesla agrees with them, when NEITHER of these are true! Not even a little bit.

Then AKMath tries to backpedal and find different sources since the Tesla one was CLEARLY ridiculous. But literally none of these sources are good. Half of them (like Bertrand says) are actually myth-busting articles where the myth is the thing AKMath says his proving with the article. LOL! One of them is literally in an "Opinion" column in an online newspaper. Bertrand has used actual science and NASA and climate-scientists and such to prove his point. AKMath offered up an old petition signed by ridiculously nonqualified "scientists".

Burden Of Proof is AKMath's. He hasn't done anything to do this. He hasn't refuted any of Bertrand's arguments or sources. He just keeps copy-pasting links and things from other places that are totally irrelavent and just silly, silly, silly.

@Bertrand - let's debate this you and me!
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
Did Gavin Schimidt ever make ice-cream on a hot day with ice, rock salt, a hand cranked ice-cream turning machine, plus a flavored ice-cream mix?
Does Professor Philip Stott say that human climate manipulation is target specific in addressing any human factors which can create a narrower idea of climate changing?
Human Climate Manipulation can change temperatures without Co2.
Posted by AKMath 3 years ago
AKMath
Holy sh*t!!! Phew!!! Hows that for an argument?

P.S. This is the longest argument I have ever typed on Debate.org!

P.S.S. Guess where all these facts came from. No really, guess. No not Breitbart, no not anti-global-warming.com (made-up), not RightWingNes.com, uh-huh, yeah that's right. You guessed it.
It's freaking TESLA. They f*cking make electric cars!!! And they say global warming isn't real!!!
Btw electric cars actually hurt the atmosphere, so don't buy on. Unless it's the Roadster which looks totally sick, cool, and downright awsome.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.