Question: Is Anthropogenic Action the Main Cause of Global Climate Alteration?

Global climate change is predominantly caused by human activities.
It's important to clarify that I accept the reality of Global Climate Change (not all hypotheses, but the fundamental concept supported by the majority). However, I don't endorse reinforcing the conservative narrative on climate change with weak arguments, such as "human activities are the primary cause of the increase in global temperatures," which can be easily contested. I'll counter simplistic claims made by my opponents with equally straightforward statements and refutations. "Human activities are causing the rise in global temperatures" -This is a fallacy. While humans do produce heat, it's implausible to suggest that our combined body heat could elevate global temperatures. "Human activities are causing the rise in global temperatures, which, if unchecked, will result in global climate change." -The natural cycle of global climate change cannot be halted. Throughout history, the Earth has experienced warming periods where ice caps melt, sea levels rise, and weather patterns are significantly altered, leading to global cooling—the Earth's inherent safeguard mechanism that triggers periodic ice ages. Due to the interplay between our atmospheric composition, our position relative to the sun, and other factors like the moon's influence on tides, global climate change is an unstoppable force.

I experienced slight formatting difficulties with this and apologise for any confusion that may result.I'm sure you've heard it all before: rising global temperatures, melting glaciers around the poles, greenhouse gases, deforestation, rising sea levels and advanced mutation of various exotic diseases have all been in the media spotlight at some time over the past decade. Multiple influential politicians like Al Gore have all spoken out in favor of environmental action. However, over the course of my research, I have discovered that most climatologists don't seem to agree. I will refute these phenomena in order by citing facts from various sources. Because this is such a scientifically oriented topic, I have stayed away from emotional statements to the best of my ability and encourage my opponent to do the same.I should break now to define some key terms:Global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. The Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for "37 industrialized targets and the European Community for reducing GHG [Greenhouse Gas] emissions... By five percent against 1990 levels... [between] 2008-2012. (http://unfccc.int...)."If the Kyoto Protocol is to be quoted in this debate, I request that the copy at http://unfccc.int... be used for our mutual convenience.Back to the arguments (key statements have been written in bold):Firstly, let me refute the "major Antarctic melting sea ice problem" statement. Before I do so, I must establish whether or not we agree on the following statements: that the Antarctic Peninsula encompasses approx. 2% of the continent, and that Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice (http://www.gma.org...). Please reply to this in your response. Now to the refutation: according to a report in the Science Magazine in an article titled "Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change" by Thompson, D.W.J., and Solomon, S., 2002, Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has increased . The link to the abstract can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org... Unfortunately, you have to sign up for the full article, something I haven't done. The article found at http://www.daycreek.com... conclusively proves that the earth was warmer than it is today during the last four interglacials, dating back 420,000 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org...(2000)013%3C1674%3AVATIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 references a slight cooling trend over the past 20 years, according to a consensus between satellite and ground stations. Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk used "ice-flow velocity measurements from synthetic aperture radar to reassess the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica... find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year)." Their findings can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org.... "Climate models generally predict ampliﬁed warming in polar regions as observed in Antarctica’speninsula region over the second half of the 20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming ,our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 8C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends." http://atoc.colorado.edu... Now for the carbon dioxide: Carbon dioxide levels have grown only seventy parts per million in the past 50 years. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...) In the scheme of Kyoto, which decreases CO2 levels by 5% of 1990 levels (17.5ppm), this shows that such implementation would have an insignificant impact on the atmosphere, decreasing levels by only around 3% of 2010 levels (same source). The margin of error for this measurement, according to the same source, is 0.11 ppm. According to http://www.futurepundit.com..., increasing CO2 rates will stimulate plant growth and therefore be beneficial to the human race. Deforestation: Deforestation has not been scientifically tied with global warming. Rising Sea Levels: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is -1.74 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.91 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1964 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.57 feet in 100 years." at that station. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is 0.57 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.42 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1943 to 2009 which is equivalent to a change of 0.19 feet in 100 years." at that station. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is 1.64 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.80 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1937 to 1971 which is equivalent to a change of 0.54 feet in 100 years." Aside from the abovementioned measurements, It has been scientifically proven that sea levels have been rising at roughly the same rate (10-20cm per hundred years, or 4-8 in. every hundred years) for the past 6000 years, and even faster than that beginning at 15000 years ago. (http://www.grida.no...) This rate has not accellerated and many computer models say this trend will be reversed within the next few hundred years. Rising sea levels are clearly not a currently global phenomenon. It would be counter-productive to the purpose of the debate if my opponent references computer models as these contain errors of up to 300% as seen in their failure to predect the large El Nino of 1998. Computer models of weather rarely predict accurately two days from the time of prediction, so assuming accuracy years from the time of prediction is ridiculous.Conclusion:Kyoto and Global Warming Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively ProvenAlthough the politically convenient movement is no longer in the global spotlight, we still spend an enormous amount of money on green energy etc. For instance, Obama invested $535 million dollars in the Solyndra which still ended up bankrupt (http://www.time.com...). Considering that all this money is flowing out of the US to prevent a catastrophe that may or may not exist, it is necessary that an objective review of all the past studies on the subject be conducted and further environmental spending be severely reduced if the outcome is determined by the facts cited above. Also considering the evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, I belive that the Global Warming Crisis is much exaggerated and funding to prevent this Crisis should be regulated accordingly. Clearly, Global Warming Theories and the Kyoto protocol should be respectively disregarded and annulled.I look forward to your response,ant981228

Links Merely showing a website claiming it 'debunks' skeptics is not an argument. You should explain what the links describe and post them here. I argue with my opponent, not a website.A few things I agree with my opponent:1. It has warmed2. CO2 increased over the period of time that it warmed Things we don't agree about:3. CO2 caused the warming My opponent must prove that CO2 causes the modern warming period--this means proving causation, not correlation (and even the correlation is weak). Ice caps melting (doomed is NOT a scientific term) does not prove that manmade CO2 has produced the warming. It only proves that we have warmed--a premise which I agree with. But the fact is, warming existing does not prove that the warming was manmade. My opponent must show that CO2 causes the warming, not that warming exists. 1. Sun and volcanoes I agree volcanoes do not cause the modern warming period. I do, however, think the sun causes the majority of the modern warming. Arguing that the sun causes 1/3 of the warming is almost a concession. The study my opponent cites, although claiming greenhouse gasses cause much of the warming, did concede that, "the current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over thetwentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models" [1. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...]. Indeed, the models do not adequatley account for solar forcing. In fact, if they cannot account for basic TSI, then how can they account for other factors which the sun accounts for? Another study which looks at many types of solar impact--TSI, cosmic rays, etc has found that the sun has likely contributed to 66% of the recent warming, and maybe more [2. http://heartland.org...]. Another study has found that the sun is underrepresented in the models by a factor of 6 [3. http://arxiv.org...]. There is a strong body of research which demonstrates that the sun has caused a significant portion of the modern warming. TSI, luminosity, and many other solar effects are increasing. This means the current warming, based on a solar theory, is to be expected. Research has found strong modern correlations with temperature and solar luminosity. Overall, this line of research finds that the sun has been responsible for at least half of the modern warming, and maybe even more. Correlations have also been found with solar magnetic activity. Now, skeptics are unlike alarmists: they actually accept there is a margin of error (like a good scientist should). These skeptic reports have admitted that, when it comes to the sun, some of the mechanisms remain undescribed--unknown--but still maintain the overall position that the weight of the evidence suggests a strong solar forcing [4. Michaels, Patrick J. Shattered Consensus]. The fact is, we cannot rule out anything. The climate is a complex system and alarmists claim to know much more about it than they actually do. The sun, at this point in the research, is likely the main culprit behind global warming: likely over 50%. And even the 1/3 my opponent claims would be near concession: as 1/3 is very significant, and if we include other natural factors (PDO, AMO, ENSO) and other solar factors (like GCR's), the overall natural effect from global warming does in fact seem to approach--or exceed--the 50% mark. As Dr. Roy Spencer explains, "if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved." [5. http://www.drroyspencer.com...]. 2. Appeals to Authority My opponent cited multiple scientific organizations which support AGW theory. This is merely an appeal to authority. Science is not done by consensus. Many of these organizations--namely, the NAS--supported global cooling theory in the 1970s. As did many of the leaders of those organization's leaders. Although many people criticize the skeptic NIPCC, they have been extensivley cited in the academic literature and do have a body of scientists working with them on each of their reports [6. http://climatechangereconsidered.org...]. Their reports have also been hailed and supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences [7. http://wattsupwiththat.com...]. Further, scientific polls of scientists do not always show a strong consensus. Geologists do, in fact, study climate change. They understand the past and are what are often called paleoclimatologists. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has stated that "The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes." A survey of geologists has found that about 68% of geologists remain skeptical of AGW theory, and only 26% think it is due to man made causes. Geologists remain skeptical because the paleo-climactic proof for AGW is very weak, at best, and the evidence tends to show that CO2 is not the main driver of climate over geological epochs [8. http://www.paulmacrae.com...]. 3. Rule things out? We cannot rule anything out, thats not science. We know that, for example, creatonism is very very unlikely, and that evolution is likely true, but we cannot simply rule creationism out as evolution still is not a 'law' (it is almost impossible to make something a 'law'. And to clarify, I support the theory of evolution). But the evidence for AGW is nowhere NEAR as solid as it is for evolution or old earth, and even then we cant say the chances for creationism are 0%, only infinitesimally small. When it comes to AGW, I see a complex climate system we do not know much about: and what we do know about it, natural variations can almost alone explain the modern warm period. The fact is, we cannot rule anything in this area 100% out, and in fact many natural variations seem to explain the modern warming much better than man. Do I deny CO2 has some effect on warming? Absolutley not. However I do argue that its effects are much smaller than 50%, and natural variations are the main cause of the modern warm period.

You said: "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that" Over this period, global CO2 emissions were a fraction of current levels. Currently we are emitting over 8000 million tonnes per year. 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. Last year beat the previous record holder 1998, by a full 1F. And while 2012 certainly stood out for its high temperatures, it was hardly unusual. The last decade globally has been the hottest in recorded history. (U.S. temperature records go back to 1895.) And the heat has been above average for some time. You talked about how glaciers are melting from pollution not global warming. Well, you may be correct. But does all of the Glaciers that are melting melt from pollution, or is some of it global Warming? You say it's possible that pollution caused them to melt, but that is not saying it's the only explanation. Now your final point, is Global Warming alarmists are liars, because you have disproved their evidence. But did you really? You didn't say: We'll this is how it have happened. You said : this is how it MAY have happened. I may say: The reason is because people are destroying the ice with ice picks. Well that's possible, but yet still not a solid explanation. Thanks.

ConclusionFinal Defences(A) Climate sensitivityMy opponent attempts to prove that the climate sensitivity is exaggerated, but gives no sources to suggest that climate sensitivity is really exaggerated the way he explains. The source I cited is written by an environmental scientist, who has posted the calculations on how he calculated climate sensitivity. He dismisses them by pointing to the cambrian era, but this is not an acceptable rebuttal. Climate sensitivity is not static. The cambrian era likely had a lower level of climate sensitivity. (B) Man Made CO2I've stated that CO2 "tips the pot" and proved it. Con cedes this. Con says that I agree that CO2 does nothing. This is not true. In my previous arguments, I've stated that although CO2 does have a low GWP, doesn't mean that it is non-existent. My point is not begging the question, as I have argued a point of instigation: when man emitted large volumes of CO2. The majority of CO2 and other misc. GHGS that remain in the atmosphere are man-made, as I proved in my R4 argument. The GWP of CO2 in particular may be low, but it still has GWP. Every fraction of a degree that the temp is raised by CO2 further accelerates the global warming effect by reducing the oceans ability to absorb CO2 (as I stated in my R4 argument). My opponents points, when freshly cross examined with my previous points, can be seen as invalid. Con cedes that Man-made CO2 emissions disrupt the CO2 cycle. This disproves his point regarding the cambrian era (as man was not present, the CO2 cycle would have been in balance). Con cedes that warming oceans have lessened ability to absorb CO2, but claims that this point is begging the question. Pro proves that that point is not begging the question, as the initial warming is instigated by the CO2 (and other GHGs) that man emits that disrupt the natural cycle. The correlation isn't low, as con states. The earth is warming, directly after man disrupts the CO2 cycle. Con may dismiss scientific consensus as an appeal to authority, but it can be argued that if literally thousands of expert climatologists are in agreement that there is sufficient evidence to say that man-made global warming is significantly changing the environment, then they are probably correct. C) TreesCon cedes that Older trees more efficiently absorb CO2, than younger trees. Forward this point. D) Warming OceansCon attempts to disprove this point simply by saying " once the extremely hot Summer season hits the ocean, it would never end. " But this is simply forced misinterpretation of how the ocean is affected by the world temperature. One hot summer does not warm the ocean sufficiently to see a drastic change in its ability to absorb, as the entire planet is hot during one regions summer. Only global rising averages really shift the temperature of the ocean. "Assume it takes 4°c. .. It would take 666 years to reach that, as it took 134 years to see temperature increase by 0.85°c. "This is an interesting point made by con, but totally fails to account for temperature acceleration. This point is only true if one assumes that the rate at which temperature changes is always constant. If one looked at the 134 year period he mentions, you would see that the rate of warming accelerated, and was fastest during the latter portion. Final StatementsMy opponents final argument has boiled down to essentially 2 points.1) CO2 has a low GWP 2) The cambrian era had a ton of CO2, but wasn't as hot as it "should" have been. Both points are easily rebutted by my previous arguments. Point one is rebutted in that I have proved that although CO2 has a low GWP, doesn't mean that it is negligable. I have proved previously that any amount of warming caused by CO2 has the potential to accelerate out of control. Point two is rebutted by my climate sensitivty argument, and my carbon cycle argument. It is rebutted by my climate sensitivity argument, in that the cambrian era likely had lower sensitivity. It is rebutted by my CO2 cycle argument, in that the cambrian era CO2 cycle was not disrupted by unnatural interference. Note: These are cross-examinations, not new rebuttals. These are the points ceded by Con. -Man made GHGs disrupt the natural cycle of GHG emissions and absorbtion. -Man made GHGs remain in the atmosphere, unlike natural GHGs, and can build up in the atmosphere, therefore significantly contributing to the greenhouse effect. -Deforestation contributes significantly to the reduction of the natural absorbtion of GHGs. -When the ocean warms, its ability to absorb CO2 is reduced. -Therefore, warming from CO2 (among other GHGs) has the potential to accelerate the greenhouse effect. Con has zero assertions standing in his argument. The Pro has a multitude of points that all indicate that man is significantly contributing to global warming. The evidence for Pro is overwhelming. The scientific backing is solid. That is the reason why environmental scientists have come to the census that they did. Con has no argument.

Fraud, methods My computer deleted my argument, so excuse me if my arguments are mainly quotes and me rushing, I will make a final appearance last round. "Regions of the world that exhibit significant warming over recent decades is likely the result of a robust urban heat island effect - South Korea's warming climate provides evidence ... Yang et al. published an extensive study on the impact of UHI on China's warming and discovered that over 40% of the increase could be explained by the UHI effect in some urban areas. ..."[1] "Likewise, the rate of increase in the annual number of daily maximum temperature 95th percentile exceedences per year over the same time period was found to be 50% greater at urban stations than it was at rural stations."[2]Quote 1 shows global problems, quote 2 shows urban/rural problems (hinting urban island effect) in the US. Further the IPCC's data (your nasa links use that as a source) are highly flawed. I will quote is from this PHD person :P:"1. Likely sources of bias in the surface temperature record of the last 150 years, which are well known and considerable, are ignored. The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all.2. The profound inconsistency between the recent warming in the surface temperature record, and the absence of warming in the satellite record, is simply shrugged off. 3. The enormous, and growing, uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion, and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC 100 year prediction would include the possibility of no warming or even cooling.4. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored.5. Advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference have been ignored."[3]Not to mention the IPCC is dictated and subject to government review, and their computer models are subject to easy editing and have been found for frauds (basically they hid data, edited data, ignored data, and used bias computer models).[4] Also more info here. [5]The methodology AND the credibility are faulty. CO2, N2O, and all that fun stuffMy opponent ignores the natural factors I have listed for global warming (like the sun, I will bring it up again this round).Co2- There is no correlation until recently, there has been no historical correlation. In the past, temperatures may be low and Co2 might be high, and vice versa. [4] For there to be a valid correlation, it must also work in the historical perspective. Also to note, even if we created ALL fossil fuels and burned them, it would go from ~380 ppm (parts per million) to 600-800 ppm, under the former amounts this planet has seen.[4] Historically no correlation, hence cannot work, its only .4% of our atmosphere and only 6% of that is man made, and human fossil fuels can barely double the number, CO2 is not a villain. N2O- 70% is natural, 30% is man made. [6] 5% of the "green house effect" is N2). [7] The low concentrations mean it has no current effect to any large extent. Also, if it has an effect then it must cool the earth or have no effect, the earth is cooling,[4] also:http://www.paulmacrae.com... As we can see from these facts, the earth has not warmed since the late 1990s (90-97) its hard to cause soemthing thats not happening (my (1) argunment, also we must look at my (2) argunment before looking at your Co2 and N2O argunments).We must look at the more likely NATURAL factors in global warming, assuming it exists. Generally undereported as the IPCC decides to ignore those factors (see above). Now, there HAS been warming in the 20th century, and according to nasa estimates we have seen an increase in solar activity in that time. Now his is important, as if sustained for a while (1850-1997) it can lead to large increases in temperture, then begin to flat line temperture, then lead to cooling. The sun plays the largest role (even in alarmists eyes) in heating and cooling cycles. In germany, people claim to have the highest sun activity in 1000 years! [4] This basic cycle is what is heaing the earth in the early 21st and late 20th century.Further, there is a scientific fact sunspots = more activity, therefore more warming. There is enough sun spots to lead to warming, hence the increases are natural [highly likely]. (note my opponent never refted this, and just ignores my data). Also there is a 1500 year cycle. This creates interglacial cycles (like the one that is ending in which we are in). The cycle is +/- 500 years. It is unstoppable global warming, like what we are in, therefore global warming prevention is poorly thought out. Overall temperturesI understand this, I have shown local cooling in these areas which rise the sea (you argue shrinking ice sheets, I countered it with an oppisite argunment). Hence my point was a counter to yours (you used it as global warming, it is hyprocritical to say I cant use it, then your evidence here is irrelevant too). So if my opponent means what he says round 2 AND this round, much of his C1 is irrelevant, hence the main leg of his case. GreenlandYou never refuted my evidence until now, just claimed it irrelevant. Hence you dropped my argunment (until now) and proved your C1 largely irrelevant. "This past week, climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press received an astounding report from Yakutat, Alaska, concerning the Hubbard Glacier. The glacier is advancing toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet) per day!"[8] (so... isn't alaska part of the artic which is losing glaciers you claim?)"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 cms (1.9 inches) a year or 54 cms (21.26 inches) over 11 years," according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway." [9] (wait, so its thickening?)"East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades." [10]So its getting colder...Global CoolingNo, my argunments also rely on NOAA.gov data. Use 1997-2012 data. downward trend. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... graph wont show, put in 1997-2012, there is a down trend. CONCLUSION:World not heating, world heating may be natural, world might be cooling, vote CON, cant fix a non stoppable or non existant problem. [1] http://www.c3headlines.com...[2] http://www.co2science.org...[3] http://www.john-daly.com...[4] Paul MacRae "False Alarm, Global Warming – Facts Versus Fears" Spring Bay Press, British Columbia Canada. [5] http://paulmacrae.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://www.physicalgeography.net...[8] http://www.iceagenow.com... [9] http://www.iceagenow.com... [10] http://www.foxnews.com...

"1)Not all regions are expected to warm or warm at the same rate due to several factors. The main factor being melting use cooling ocean currents...."In the rebuttal of your first point, I will interpret your statement as follows:--Climate is still local--Ocean currents are melting, therefore cooling down islands and coastal areas--Greenhouse gases still warm the earth--I agree that climate is local and varies according to many different factors. There is another point that interests me in your statement. Namely, your statement that "Not all regions are expected to warm." This, by our preestablished definition of global warming from round one, basically says that there is no global warming trend. --I do not agree that any ocean currents are melting or that such a phenomenon can even occur and request my opponent's source for this fact. --There is no question that greenhouse gases warm the earth. However, as I have said, CO2 levels have grown only 70 ppm in the past 50 years. I would like to clarify to my opponent and to the voters that that represents a grand total of two-thousandths of a percentage point of the atmosphere, from 0.000054% to 0.000242%(http://www.esrl.noaa.gov......). My opponent claims that these radical changes will cost the world billions of dollars and bring down everyone's IQ. "2)Yes the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before in the past...""3) As I mentioned in number 1. Some areas are expected to cool due to the melting of ice cooling ocean currents. The earth as a whole... http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov...;I will take this to mean that any previous changes in the atmosphere and its temperature are not due to human activity, but today's are. The second statement, although being quite clear, is unfortunately factually wrong.I will attempt to dispose of both of these points at once. According to (www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24) and (http://newsbusters.org...), the top ten hottest years were changed in 2007. Here are four of them: 1934, 1931, 1938, and 1939. Only three of the top ten are since 1998 (1998, 2006, and 1999) . Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006) Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940 The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average. 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998). That considered, it is easy to see that humans and CO2 are not reliable causes of regional warming (as you yourself acknowledged, global warming does not exist) during the period of cooling from 1940-80, CO2 levels were still rising, as was industry. Just look at your sources. Clearly, CO2 does not affect temperature as much as you state. This is a graph located at http://ossfoundation.us...;(use the link to see the image if the image doesn't work) which shows an increase of 1/3 of a degree celsius over the course of 120 years. The US is one of the most rigourously monitered countries. The US temperatures, one of the most reliable in the world, show an increase of 1/3 of a degree over the past 120 years and a downward curve since 1934. "4)Total ice volume in the articcs has been steadily decreasing for decades now..."Pretty self explanatory. To counter this, I will simply re-post a fact I have already presented. "The article found at http://www.daycreek.com... proves that the earth was warmer than it is today during the last four interglacials, dating back 420,000 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org......(2000) references a slight cooling trend over the past 20 years, according to a consensus between satellite and ground stations. Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk used "ice-flow velocity measurements... find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year)." Their findings can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org....... "Climate models generally predict ampliﬁed warming in polar regions as observed in Antarctica’speninsula region over the second half of the 20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming ,our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000...The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 8C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends." http://atoc.colorado.edu...... I would like my opponent to note the second to last point which states that overall Antarctic ice sheets are growing at a rate of over 26.8 gigatons per year. That's over 59,080,000,000,000 pounds a year. "5)A climate model set up in the mid 70's has accurately predicted... .""The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change. " (http://www.pnas.org...) "6)My opponent is not correct. If every country lowered greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels then that effect alone would..."Your sources please."7)My opponent claims that deforestation is not contributing to global warming..."Although my opponent is correct in saying that I underestimated the effect of deforestation, according to http://www.ecology.com... full 80% of atmospheric oxygen is produced by marine algae. "9)Sea levels have been steady rising for the past 130 years. http://upload.wikimedia.org...;So they have. They were also rising at the exact same rate for 6000 years, and even faster than that beginning 15000 years ago. There is no data before that. (http://www.grida.no......) If you are going to tie sea levels to global warming, you may as well claim rapid warming has been going on for 15000 years, completely eliminating any idea of "sudden dire threat." If we haven't suffered yet for 15000 years, there must be no urgency in the matter. For more details, check the website and the previous round, in which I have already made this argument. Also, wikimedia isn't the most reliable source.Now, the increases in extreme weather that you mentioned is very similar to the El Nino event that occurs every four years. A study was done after the 1998 El Nino (http://journals.ametsoc.org...) which, if you look in the abstract, states that the estimated net direct benefits were worth something like $15,000,000,000 dollars. ($4 billion losses and $19 billion benefits)"When you include all the negative health/environmental effects..."The beaurocracy of the coal/oil/gas industries aren't stupid. If alternative energy was cheaper, they would use it and produce energy that way. "13)Other effects of climate change is an increase in tornadoes..."Sources, please. ConclusionKyoto and Gl. Warm. Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively ProvenIn light of these facts, it is clear that global warming is, as you stated, not at all a global phenomenon. Global warming would save just the american people up to $15 billion a season, which is more than the combined GDP of just under 50 of the world's poorest countries combined. I have also demonstrated that if the world sea levels are proportional to atmospheric temperature, then Kyoto is unnecessary and we are scrambling to find suddendly neccessary solutions to an at least 15000 year old problem. Also in view of the fact that antarctic ice shelves are not melting, and with this evidence gone we must conclude that global warming does not exist and Kyoto is an unnecessary waste of resources. As such, this data must be looked at again and both Kyoto and the Global Warming Theory be revised. Looking forward to your response, and981228

I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0]Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat.The scientific angle, inconvenient truth [1]. Impact, scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth. [1]Sources0. http://www.nytimes.com...1. http://www.imdb.com...

There is clear evidence that the world is warming. There is no reason to believe it won't continue warming. This will be disastrous for many people and other species in the world. Therefore it is hypocritical and unethical not to act against it.

Actually, no, it should'nt. Without global warming, we wouldn't be here. Ice would still be covering the planet. It's as simple as that. Prove me wrong.

I am going to argue the case that global warming has disastrous effects on current society and its people. IT was beneficial at once, but it is no longer good. I would like to show you all of the things we would be without if global warming was not solved: Say Goodbye to French Wines Say Goodbye to Light and Dry Wines Say Goodbye to Pinot Noir Say Goodbye to Baseball Bats Say Goodbye to the Beautiful Alaska Vacation Say Goodbye to Fly Fishing Say Goodbye to Ski Vacations Say Hello to Really Tacky Fake Ski Vacations Say Goodbye to Ski Competitions Say Goodbye to That Snorkeling Vacation Say Goodbye to Your Pretty Lawn Say Goodbye to Mixed Nuts, French fries, guacamole and cod. These are all the things we would be without if global warming wasnt solved. Plants would die, the environment would collapse, and no, global warming is not a myth. Information from: http://www.americanprogress.org... Thank you and I await your rebuttal.


Question: Is mankind's impact the main cause of the global climate change phenomenon?

The assertion that human-induced global warming is a myth holds water. The Earth's average surface temperature has indeed risen by about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change primarily attributed to increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. However, this increase in temperature aligns perfectly with long-term, natural climate trends. The slight temperature rise observed since 1900 is consistent with these trends, indicating that natural forces, not human activities, are the primary drivers of climate change.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have experienced a decrease in mass, as evidenced by data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. Between 1993 and 2016, Greenland lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same period. However, the notion that receding glaciers are evidence of global warming is a misconception, as glaciers have been growing and retreating cyclically for centuries.

Satellite observations have revealed 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. Yet, there is strong evidence from solar studies suggesting that the Earth's current temperature stability will be followed by cooling over the next few decades.

Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century, and the rate of increase in the last two decades is nearly double that of the last century. However, the claim that rising sea levels are a direct result of global warming is unfounded, as sea levels have been steadily rising since the last ice age 10,000 years 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. However, warmer periods in Earth's history occurred approximately 800 years before rises in CO2 levels, and throughout Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than they are now, and CO2 levels have often been higher, sometimes ten times as high.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fifth assessment report states that 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. However, there is no real scientific proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from

Rebuttals" (Con) The super volcano in Yellow Stone National Park is due to erupt and the effects would cause a new ice age greater than the Toba Eruption."There is no denying that there will be some sort of period in which the earth will get very cold, but that will not stop it from getting warmer. And, if the weather is harsh enough, to the point where it is not fit to walk, let say outside, down the street to the local supermarket, there is no doubt that us humans will have to resort to using more automated vehicles, or some sort of transportation mechanism, such as trains, and cars, that will release even more CO2 into our atmosphere." (Con) The whole idea of "Global Warming", or even "man made climate change" is nothing more than a show"The burning of fossil fuels, and the immense amount of C02 that is being realised into our atmosphere that is destroying the Ozone layer, is one of the reasons for our global climate warming. We are the reason that the Ozone layer is being destroyed. We are the reason that the polar ice caps are melting, and the reason that animals that rely on the cold are dying. " (Con) CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the earth to heat up, but rather it causes the earth to cool down; even that requires allot more CO2 than what humans are contributing." CO2 is defiantly not "cooling" down the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide that is released in the atmosphere stays there for about 100 to 200 years. This leads to an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which causes the Earths temperature to rise. If it is cooling the earth, tell me why are the polar ice caps melting. " (Con) One thing that bugs me the most about the whole global warming sham, is the idea of a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus is an oxymoron, because in science there is never an end to the question; other scientists are constantly challenging the theory, and the status quo........At one point most scientist believed the sun traveled around the Earth. At another point in history they believed the Earth's orbit around the sun was a perfect circle. Both ideas was proved wrong, by a scientist questioning the status quo""Most scientists" believed the sun traveled around the earth because it was the 1600's and they lacked the instruments to interpretably observe the sky. Technology today has allowed for a huge jump in scientific fields, allowing for more accurate predictions, and a brighter look on the world today. When a topic, such as global warming, or climate change, is brought to the table, with a surplus amount of reasoning and proof, it is evident that such a thing could exist and not be disproved.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...(Note: 4th round should be for conclusions, and any last words/rebuttals) Sources: http://environmentalchemistry.com...

While I'll make some general comments as to the trend of the debate, I will refrain from posting actual rebuttals until the subsequent round, as per the Instigator's rules. I am actually astounded at the position presented. I was expecting graphs, tables and data. Instead, we have been presented a point of view, which is axiomatic of the anti-climate change position. We have been presented an opinion. To open my case, let me make something robustly clear. Science does not function on the basis of opinion, and to present opinion is to concede evidence. Science is apolitical. As it stands, I agree with Pro on one point: don't follow the crowd. Instead, follow the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I take substantial grievance with the sources provided by Pro but unfortunately am constrained by the rules not to explain their absurdity until the following round. Rest assured that they will be thoroughly scrutinised and I intend to tear them apart. Onto the evidence. ___________________________It's not two-sidedThe popular Western narrative is to provide "unbiased coverage" of stories. In most cases, this is important. However, on science topics, opinion has nothing to do with anything. Facts are facts. Something is either true, or not true, and the only thing that we can use to determine whether something is true is evidence. To have two people on a talk-show, one a climate scientist and one an ostensible nobody claiming that climate scientists are the devil's children and work for multinationals is patently absurd because it misrepresents the scientific consensus (discussed below). It is not a 50/50 split. Evidence favours anthropogenic climate change, and stuffing our fingers in our ears will not refute this. If you want to disprove climate change, you must use evidence. ConsensusOf course, it would be an argument from popularity to stipulate that purely because the majority thinks something, it is true. It amounts to a special form of anecdotal evidence. However, it's a good place to start looking at why the independent scientific community agrees. As it happens, 97% of peer-reviewed papers published on the topic have found that humans are causing substantial changes to climate (1). The scientific community is clear. There is no "teaching the controversy" because there is no controversy (2). Stop making science political because agendas don't change facts. Yeah, but, like, the climate has changed before and stuff. .. or whateverTrue. But not like this (3). It appears that there have been around 5 ice ages in earth's past (4). There have also been other variations in climate not related to ice ages. However, let's talk about anthropogenic climate change. The hypothesis is that as CO2 increases, we should see a general increase in global temperatures. Is this the case? Well, it would appear so. But have statistical controls accounted for extraneous variables and clarified that this is anthropogenic? Well, yeah, they kinda have. Despite attempts at finding plausible natural explanations for the climate variation, no natural fluctuations account for the observed trends (5). Rounding offThe scientific illiteracy of climate conspiracy theorists is a fundamental contributor to their perpetuation of the disinformation agenda of the corporate elite. While I obviously have substantially more evidence and could potentially just post hundreds of links to peer-reviewed journals, I prefer the argumentation. Perhaps this is sufficient for my introduction, and we'll clash next round with increased vigour when I can rebut your arguments. Best of luck in your following round. __________________________(1) [. http://www.theguardian.com...](2) [. http://leisureguy.wordpress.com...](3) [. https://www.science.org.au...](4) [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] (5) [. http://www.nature.com...]

I experienced slight formatting difficulties with this and apologise for any confusion that may result.I'm sure you've heard it all before: rising global temperatures, melting glaciers around the poles, greenhouse gases, deforestation, rising sea levels and advanced mutation of various exotic diseases have all been in the media spotlight at some time over the past decade. Multiple influential politicians like Al Gore have all spoken out in favor of environmental action. However, over the course of my research, I have discovered that most climatologists don't seem to agree. I will refute these phenomena in order by citing facts from various sources. Because this is such a scientifically oriented topic, I have stayed away from emotional statements to the best of my ability and encourage my opponent to do the same.I should break now to define some key terms:Global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. The Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for "37 industrialized targets and the European Community for reducing GHG [Greenhouse Gas] emissions... By five percent against 1990 levels... [between] 2008-2012. (http://unfccc.int...)."If the Kyoto Protocol is to be quoted in this debate, I request that the copy at http://unfccc.int... be used for our mutual convenience.Back to the arguments (key statements have been written in bold):Firstly, let me refute the "major Antarctic melting sea ice problem" statement. Before I do so, I must establish whether or not we agree on the following statements: that the Antarctic Peninsula encompasses approx. 2% of the continent, and that Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice (http://www.gma.org...). Please reply to this in your response. Now to the refutation: according to a report in the Science Magazine in an article titled "Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change" by Thompson, D.W.J., and Solomon, S., 2002, Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has increased . The link to the abstract can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org... Unfortunately, you have to sign up for the full article, something I haven't done. The article found at http://www.daycreek.com... conclusively proves that the earth was warmer than it is today during the last four interglacials, dating back 420,000 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org...(2000)013%3C1674%3AVATIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 references a slight cooling trend over the past 20 years, according to a consensus between satellite and ground stations. Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk used "ice-flow velocity measurements from synthetic aperture radar to reassess the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica... find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year)." Their findings can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org.... "Climate models generally predict ampliﬁed warming in polar regions as observed in Antarctica’speninsula region over the second half of the 20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming ,our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 8C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends." http://atoc.colorado.edu... Now for the carbon dioxide: Carbon dioxide levels have grown only seventy parts per million in the past 50 years. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...) In the scheme of Kyoto, which decreases CO2 levels by 5% of 1990 levels (17.5ppm), this shows that such implementation would have an insignificant impact on the atmosphere, decreasing levels by only around 3% of 2010 levels (same source). The margin of error for this measurement, according to the same source, is 0.11 ppm. According to http://www.futurepundit.com..., increasing CO2 rates will stimulate plant growth and therefore be beneficial to the human race. Deforestation: Deforestation has not been scientifically tied with global warming. Rising Sea Levels: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is -1.74 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.91 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1964 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.57 feet in 100 years." at that station. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is 0.57 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.42 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1943 to 2009 which is equivalent to a change of 0.19 feet in 100 years." at that station. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is 1.64 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.80 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1937 to 1971 which is equivalent to a change of 0.54 feet in 100 years." Aside from the abovementioned measurements, It has been scientifically proven that sea levels have been rising at roughly the same rate (10-20cm per hundred years, or 4-8 in. every hundred years) for the past 6000 years, and even faster than that beginning at 15000 years ago. (http://www.grida.no...) This rate has not accellerated and many computer models say this trend will be reversed within the next few hundred years. Rising sea levels are clearly not a currently global phenomenon. It would be counter-productive to the purpose of the debate if my opponent references computer models as these contain errors of up to 300% as seen in their failure to predect the large El Nino of 1998. Computer models of weather rarely predict accurately two days from the time of prediction, so assuming accuracy years from the time of prediction is ridiculous.Conclusion:Kyoto and Global Warming Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively ProvenAlthough the politically convenient movement is no longer in the global spotlight, we still spend an enormous amount of money on green energy etc. For instance, Obama invested $535 million dollars in the Solyndra which still ended up bankrupt (http://www.time.com...). Considering that all this money is flowing out of the US to prevent a catastrophe that may or may not exist, it is necessary that an objective review of all the past studies on the subject be conducted and further environmental spending be severely reduced if the outcome is determined by the facts cited above. Also considering the evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, I belive that the Global Warming Crisis is much exaggerated and funding to prevent this Crisis should be regulated accordingly. Clearly, Global Warming Theories and the Kyoto protocol should be respectively disregarded and annulled.I look forward to your response,ant981228

Haha yes that was just about sufficient! Firstly, to clear things up, i am not suggesting that the earth is warming because of the CO2 we are producing, because the amount we contribute (compared to the sea and cow's arses) is somewhat tiny. I understand that yes, there is 'a low proportion of co2 in the atmosphere' compared to oxygen, nitrogen etc. However, the o-zone layer it reacts with is also minute, and still thinning in most areas across the globe. Guess when 11 of the warmest 12 years since 1850 were? I understand that the earths climate changes periodically, (the UK used to be desert, and it feels like a long way from that today!). However, anyone clever enough to understand that the climate does change, should be wise to notice that it is right now. You said, "If the most accurate temperature collection system shows only a third of a degree increase from an ice age, is that really a cause for alarm?" Well i'm sure most people reading will appreciate that yes it probably is quite a lot to get worried about. Another point I should add is that 'average' climate change values are doubled near the poles. 1/3 of a degree in the sahara may not make much of a difference, but 2/3 of a degree near the poles, in such a short time?? In conclusion, there is not much we as a race can do to add to/detract from the rate at which the climate is changing. One thing we can do however, is accept that it is.

"1)Not all regions are expected to warm or warm at the same rate due to several factors. The main factor being melting use cooling ocean currents...."In the rebuttal of your first point, I will interpret your statement as follows:--Climate is still local--Ocean currents are melting, therefore cooling down islands and coastal areas--Greenhouse gases still warm the earth--I agree that climate is local and varies according to many different factors. There is another point that interests me in your statement. Namely, your statement that "Not all regions are expected to warm." This, by our preestablished definition of global warming from round one, basically says that there is no global warming trend. --I do not agree that any ocean currents are melting or that such a phenomenon can even occur and request my opponent's source for this fact. --There is no question that greenhouse gases warm the earth. However, as I have said, CO2 levels have grown only 70 ppm in the past 50 years. I would like to clarify to my opponent and to the voters that that represents a grand total of two-thousandths of a percentage point of the atmosphere, from 0.000054% to 0.000242%(http://www.esrl.noaa.gov......). My opponent claims that these radical changes will cost the world billions of dollars and bring down everyone's IQ. "2)Yes the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before in the past...""3) As I mentioned in number 1. Some areas are expected to cool due to the melting of ice cooling ocean currents. The earth as a whole... http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov...;I will take this to mean that any previous changes in the atmosphere and its temperature are not due to human activity, but today's are. The second statement, although being quite clear, is unfortunately factually wrong.I will attempt to dispose of both of these points at once. According to (www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24) and (http://newsbusters.org...), the top ten hottest years were changed in 2007. Here are four of them: 1934, 1931, 1938, and 1939. Only three of the top ten are since 1998 (1998, 2006, and 1999) . Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006) Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940 The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average. 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998). That considered, it is easy to see that humans and CO2 are not reliable causes of regional warming (as you yourself acknowledged, global warming does not exist) during the period of cooling from 1940-80, CO2 levels were still rising, as was industry. Just look at your sources. Clearly, CO2 does not affect temperature as much as you state. This is a graph located at http://ossfoundation.us...;(use the link to see the image if the image doesn't work) which shows an increase of 1/3 of a degree celsius over the course of 120 years. The US is one of the most rigourously monitered countries. The US temperatures, one of the most reliable in the world, show an increase of 1/3 of a degree over the past 120 years and a downward curve since 1934. "4)Total ice volume in the articcs has been steadily decreasing for decades now..."Pretty self explanatory. To counter this, I will simply re-post a fact I have already presented. "The article found at http://www.daycreek.com... proves that the earth was warmer than it is today during the last four interglacials, dating back 420,000 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org......(2000) references a slight cooling trend over the past 20 years, according to a consensus between satellite and ground stations. Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk used "ice-flow velocity measurements... find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year)." Their findings can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org....... "Climate models generally predict ampliﬁed warming in polar regions as observed in Antarctica’speninsula region over the second half of the 20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming ,our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000...The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 8C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends." http://atoc.colorado.edu...... I would like my opponent to note the second to last point which states that overall Antarctic ice sheets are growing at a rate of over 26.8 gigatons per year. That's over 59,080,000,000,000 pounds a year. "5)A climate model set up in the mid 70's has accurately predicted... .""The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change. " (http://www.pnas.org...) "6)My opponent is not correct. If every country lowered greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels then that effect alone would..."Your sources please."7)My opponent claims that deforestation is not contributing to global warming..."Although my opponent is correct in saying that I underestimated the effect of deforestation, according to http://www.ecology.com... full 80% of atmospheric oxygen is produced by marine algae. "9)Sea levels have been steady rising for the past 130 years. http://upload.wikimedia.org...;So they have. They were also rising at the exact same rate for 6000 years, and even faster than that beginning 15000 years ago. There is no data before that. (http://www.grida.no......) If you are going to tie sea levels to global warming, you may as well claim rapid warming has been going on for 15000 years, completely eliminating any idea of "sudden dire threat." If we haven't suffered yet for 15000 years, there must be no urgency in the matter. For more details, check the website and the previous round, in which I have already made this argument. Also, wikimedia isn't the most reliable source.Now, the increases in extreme weather that you mentioned is very similar to the El Nino event that occurs every four years. A study was done after the 1998 El Nino (http://journals.ametsoc.org...) which, if you look in the abstract, states that the estimated net direct benefits were worth something like $15,000,000,000 dollars. ($4 billion losses and $19 billion benefits)"When you include all the negative health/environmental effects..."The beaurocracy of the coal/oil/gas industries aren't stupid. If alternative energy was cheaper, they would use it and produce energy that way. "13)Other effects of climate change is an increase in tornadoes..."Sources, please. ConclusionKyoto and Gl. Warm. Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively ProvenIn light of these facts, it is clear that global warming is, as you stated, not at all a global phenomenon. Global warming would save just the american people up to $15 billion a season, which is more than the combined GDP of just under 50 of the world's poorest countries combined. I have also demonstrated that if the world sea levels are proportional to atmospheric temperature, then Kyoto is unnecessary and we are scrambling to find suddendly neccessary solutions to an at least 15000 year old problem. Also in view of the fact that antarctic ice shelves are not melting, and with this evidence gone we must conclude that global warming does not exist and Kyoto is an unnecessary waste of resources. As such, this data must be looked at again and both Kyoto and the Global Warming Theory be revised. Looking forward to your response, and981228

I will begin by addressing the issue with the statistics and numbers and then move on to the rest of the case. "I don't know where this number came from; probably from my opponent's discreditable source. According to [3, 1], human CO2 accounts for about 3% to 8% of the greenhouse effect. The temperature increase directly from human CO2 is about 1 to 2 degrees, but the article claims that this is "not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitiv[i]ty" because it ignores the feedback effect. Though much more difficult to calculate, the feedback effect is a very prominent effect of human CO2 emissions." 1) My source is actually more credible. What is ironic is that my opponent's evidence (about CO2 being 3-8% of GW, and temperature increase of 1-2 degrees) is from a blogger, who he himself has proclaimed that he may not be as credible, and my evidence is from a Princeton scientist working in the Geophysical Fluid laboratory. As I have stated, this data I am using is NOT from the creator of the site but rather the creator of the site obtained the data from this scientist. 2)3-8% is still relatively small compared to 95%. 3) It is your burden to impact the effect of CO2 due to the feedback effect. Merely saying it is important without giving me a number or to what extent it impacts leads to its irrefutability. " Water vapor is not 95%, but is actually more like 36-66% (66-85% with clouds). It is still the most important, but CO2 is also prominent, with 9% to 26% effect [2]. Since right now it's just my word against my opponent's, I will point out my source. This data is from a scientific paper by Ramanathan and Coakley. Ramanathan is a publishing scientist [3] (and I can't find a bio on Coakley). " 1)That evidence from Ramanathan and Coakley is from 1978, clearly outdated. 2)A quote from the actual article my opponent uses, "it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber" also, "water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas" The article my opponent itself states that water vapor is significantly the most important cause of GW. 3)We cannot look to CO2 in general but CO2 from humans. My opponent's own evidence states "human-injected carbon dioxide… would be between 3 AND 8%" "Not only is CO2 more prominent than my opponent claims, but its prominence is exaggerated by the feedback effect. When CO2 causes just a little bit of warming, this increases water vapor levels, increasing temperature further. While not the original cause, water vapor acts as an amplifier for the effect of CO2." 1)Your burden is to tell me how much of an effect so I can actually weigh the impact. 2)The evidence my opponent uses to verify this also states that water vapor also acts as an amplifier. Thus, because both these gases will be amplified, on a relative scale, the effect from CO2 is still going to be miniscule in comparison to water vapor. 3)Water vapor does not act as an amplifier for CO2 it acts (as my opponent's evidence states), as an amplifier to amplify the temperature and heat in the environment already. 4)Now even if we assume that water vapor acts as an amplifier for CO2. It is clear that water vapor is grossly significant as the immense amount of water vapor makes it amplify CO2 immensely, thus appeasing the burden. "The article [2, 2] is considering CO2 in general. Only for part of the last paragraph does it discuss ocean CO2 in particular." 1)Water vapor also undergoes amplification, thus because both effects are amplified, the relative effects of each are still the same, therefore water vapor is significantly more important than water vapor. "That's what I meant. CO2 is 9 to 26% of global warming, before feedback. And CO2 increased by 30%, almost entirely due to human activities [4]." 1)That evidence is not as credible as mine, I explained above. 2)Even if we assume it to be true, we are looking at CO2 from humans alone not CO2 in general. Your own evidence states: "human-injected carbon dioxide… would be between 3 AND 8%" Clearly still miniscule. CO2 can increase by 30% but because CO2 gas is still a relatively insignificant gas to GW, humans have an insignificant effect. "4.703% conflicts with my opponent's estimate "CO2 is still only 3-4%", since 4.703% is outside of that range." 1)No I actually did calculations after you told me CO2 increased by 30%. I did the CO2 percent from my evidence, 3.618% and multiplied by 1.3 to get 130% of it. "One could multiply 30% (CO2 increase) by 9 to 26% (effect of CO2 on GW), which gives 3 to 8%. Therefore, humans are contributing 3 to 8% to greenhouse gases (before feedback, remember), which is hardly insignificant. It is enough to have a serious effect on the climate. -Two words: Feedback effect." 1)you have to realize water vapor as well as CO2 both undergo the feedback effect, thus both the effects are amplified, thus the relative importance for water vapor and CO2 stay the same. 2)It is your burden to tell me the extent of the feedback. (even though water vapor and CO2 will both be amplified, thus the relative importance will still be the same.) "It is still worth noting that most CO2 emitted by nature is re-absorbed, but humans are emitting CO2 too fast for nature's sinks to absorb it. So even if nature emits more CO2 than humans, it is humans who are responsible for the increase in CO2." 1)The CO2 by man is still the same CO2 by nature, thus the absorption of CO2 by man is the same as nature's CO2. 2)I agree humans have increased CO2, but you must prove that human's effect on GW is significant not CO2. "Please link this data." The Register translated the relevant parts. http://www.theregister.co.uk... "I don't see anything on the graph saying who it was made by. Though this graph may be from a peer reviewed source, we cannot know. " 1)The source is at the bottom of the page. "I suggest that my side should be weighted more heavily, since it has the support of the scientific community." 1) This point inherently removes ground for the negation. 2) It does not have the significant the support of the scientific community. JSER, MIT etc. "CO2 is a climate forcer, while water vapor is a result of feedback." 1) Feedback, Climate Forcer, it does not matter because water vapor is so significant, even if the effects are translated in the form of feedback or climate forcer, its cause for GW is still much more significant. "I provided a counter-claim (water vapor with clouds is 66 to 85%); data is from a peer-reviewed paper [2]." 1)From 1978 2) Even if we assume it is true, it is still grossly significant compared to CO2, 3-8% (as your own evidence states.) "My burden, as I stated in round 2, is only to prove that the human effect on GW is significant: important in effect or meaning. Something does not have to be the majority effect in order to be important." 1)Yet importance is relative, meaning something is important only when it is relatively more vital than something else. In regards to GW, CO2 from humans is, as you state is 3-8%, and water vapor, as you state 66-85% (Even though my evidence states 95%). Yet even if we look to your evidence, it is clear that CO2 is insignificant, thus appeasing your burden. {-Closing-} You should, at this point vote for the Negation for 4 Reasons 1) My opponent's evidence still shows that CO2 from humans is insignificant. 2) Therefore my opponent has not fulfilled his own burden. 3) My opponent limits negation ground. 4) My sources are actually more credible, not a report from 1978 nor a blogger on a scientific site.

Alright. I'm going to start by wishing whoever my opponent may be, good luck. There are many reasons Global Warming should not be so quickly acted against. The main base of my argument will beneficial. Yes, that does sound a bit crazy, but allow me to explain. The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times. This is also known as the Little Climate Optimum. Here, the world was much warmer, and civilizations thrived. Winters were shorter, and less harsh. Populations grew, because there was less starvation and disease. The spread of many deadly diseases were slowed, because many were not huddled in shelters for warmth. And many studies show that, as far fetched as it may seem, CO2 levels were higher during the Little Climate Optimum than they are now. With or without that fact, there plants use CO2 as a fertilizer. To prove this, the purpose of greenhouses is to increase the levels of CO2 for the plant's benefit. Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere. I would be willing to cite my sources if the need arises. Prove me wrong.

Thank you for your response. However I'm a little confused as you accept in your post that recent warming trends are due to man made CO2 emissions, even if not as much as some people think: "I agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming". You therefore condede the topic to me.I will save rebuttals for R3, but I think the topic for debate you want to argue and the topic you actually posted are two seperate things. If you want to FF and start a new debate then that makes sense. I think the topic you would want is "The global warming effect of CO2 emissions result in negative feedback" which is the technical term for what you seem mean by "the climate system responds by dampening Co2 induced warming".IntroductionGlobal warming is the name given to the process of "the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases"[1].I will show that the facts clearly show that man made CO2 emissions are a factor driving global warming.The Massive Overwhelming EvidenceThere is only so much evidence you can put into a post with a few thousand characters and both PRO and CON have the same character limits. This does not mean however that the actual body of evidence on each side is the same.There is a scientific consensus supported by the vast majority of the literature which shows that "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [2]SImilarility the IPCC have stated "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." [3]Therefore on any point where there is dispute and it seems like our points might be equally matched, the vast weight of evidence is on my side and greater precedence should be given to my arguments.GMST is exceptionally highAlthough we expect some variation over time, the current temperature is at a level which cannot be explained as occuring naturally.Every one of the months in the last year has been the hottest since modern records began in 1880 and all the hottest years occur within the last couple of decades.[4][5]When we look at the trends, the rising temperature is clear. [6]This is true and consistent even as we look further and further back. [4]CO2 would be expected to cause global warmingThe physical properties of CO2 are not up for debate. It is a greenhuouse gas, a gaseous molecule with more than one element. A property of these type of molecule is that they absord and emit thermal infrared radiation (heat, basically). [7] This is a verifiable, easily testable quality that I don't think even the most ardent climate change denier would try and dispute.We would therefore expect the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to act as an insulator that keeps the earth warm and for this effect to increase as the amount of greenhouse gases increases. [8]CO2 emissions have shot up massively since the industrial revolution [9]Since humanity industrialised, we've got factories, cars, trains, airplanes and all other sorts of devices pumping out CO2. This has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.THEREFOREIt is it logical, scientific and evidence based to expect the increased CO2 emissions to cause the higher temperatures. More CO2 in the atmosphere should make the earth warmer. There is more Co2 in the atmosphere. The earth is warmer.We can be sure this is not coincedenceAlthough unlikely, it is theoretically possible that a temperature rise and a CO2 rise going hand in hand could be coincedence. However, when we look at paleoclimates we can see that this cannot explained naturally. When the climate has naturally wamred in the past "it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees" but "In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster"[10]This current warming is happening an entire order of magnitude faster than anything we have seen in the past. Therefore based on all available data cannot be ascribed to natural phenomenon. Therefore we must look to manmade phenomenon for the cause of the warming. As discussed above, scientists have found time and time again that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperature. As the global temperature is indisputably rising, unless PRO can put forwad a convincing alternate hypothesisis for a manmade cause of global warming, Reams of EvidenceScience doesn't just rely on a single models, but is testing global 3warming theory again and again using multiple models. The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels. [11]Evidence from historical sources before the modern day like tree rings, ice cores, fossilised plant seeds, speleotherms, sediments and middens all point to a historic record of temperature which sows our current climate as abornmal. [12]Predicitons made based on models which predict climate change have been shown to be accurate - even beyond our increasing temperatures. For instance following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo "Climatologists predicted global temperatures would drop as a result of that global sulfate infusion. They were right: Following the eruption, global temperatures abruptly dipped by about a half-degree (0.6°C) for about two years." [13] Being able to succesfully make testable predicitions shows that climate change models meet Popperian standards of scientific falsifiability and the models are trustworthy.[1] http://goo.gl...l[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5*] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://goo.gl...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] http://goo.gl...[13] http://goo.gl...[14] http://goo.gl...

"Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms." When there are more greenhouse gases, sunlight will be prevented from heating the Earth due to the Greenhouse effect. Thus in the long term, the Earth will experience an ice age due to the ultimate reduction in heat energy. When the fuel has been used up, the heat levels will gradually decrease. This is the cause for cyclic nature of global climate change. "It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change." Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground. A more likely explanation for the warmth of the Cretaceous period is the methane generated by the huge amounts of vegetation rotting in the huge dinosaurs digestive systems. Methane is a greenhouse gas. The dinosaurs were then wiped out by meteor impacts, sparing the other animals the cost of living with those methane factories. Or was it because dinosaurs were considered a threat for producing so much greenhouse gas and so were wiped out? I absolutely do not get the link between CO2 buildup and continental drift. Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced. I have nothing to dispute in Pro"s explanation of CO2 usage. 1. Pro"s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research? The rise in CO2 is hardly sudden and the link to [5] is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene"Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants. I agree that the nutritional quality of SOME plants may decrease. 2. Simple explanation to remove the "threat." Fertilization. Nitrogen is relatively easy to synthesize [1]. Nitrogen is widely used as a fertilizer in the form of ammonium nitrate. There is also the Haber process, which I assume you are familiar with. These negate the "threat" from human activity. More vegetation means that more vegetation would be destroyed means that nitrogen would be recycled at a faster rate. I will not respond to the video. 1-5: I have debunked all of the claims that elevated CO2 levels is harmful to plants. I have shown a way around the nitrogen plateau problem. Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat" to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this. Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides. Pro"s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed. 1. http://www.organic-chemistry.org...

c1. 1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?" 2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science. 3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well. 4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong. Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)." There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless. 5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there. Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming. If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on? Rebuttal to physical realities 1. Scientists have only been observing temperature objectively since the 1970's, which proves pro wrong on this point. 2. My opponent provides links to few of his claims, so they should be considered false. 3. "http://nsidc.org...; does not work. (page not found) so that is thrown out. 4. The record is less than 30 years (there were fluctuations until 1980), so I doubt this is any proof. Scientists can tell you how long a star upwards of 50 light-years away will die with more accuracy than telling you next week's weather. (Earth has very unpredictable climate and weather due to large amounts of liquid water.) Short-term warming is not the Earth's climate changing. 5. http://www.globalresearch.ca... (yay canada) 6. There have been 27-year long heat/cold fluctuations since 1428. (link above) 7. Actually, the 1900's are even better proof of this. (link above) 8. Pro has not fulfilled BoP, so it is safe to say that pro cannot prove this topic.