Question: Is Anthropogenic Activity the Main Cause of Global Climate Change?

It's misguided to combat climate change by endorsing environmentally harmful nuclear energy. While it's accurate that nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases during its operational phase, it's flawed to compromise one ecological value (the protection of local ecosystems and human health) for the sake of another (mitigating climate change).

Droughts have been occurring since even before we began recording history. They're unfortunate, but natural disasters are a fact of life. It is very dangerous however, to want to blame every natural disaster, and the deaths that result from said disasters, on the activities of mankind. You have offered no facts that support your claim global warming is killing people, and have offered no evidence to support your theory of man-made global warming. My argument is simple...man-made global warming is a hoax created in order to control people. We can no more affect the climate than we can the weather. Global warming advocates are very much like lemmings, or cult members. They believe the hype, and throw away any and all evidence to the contrary. For example, this year is one of the coldest years in recorded history, as a result it's no longer "global warming", now it's "climate change"...how convenient. Here are some more factoids for you global warming zealots (1): - 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). (1) http://www.globalwarminghoax.com...

You have just made a ridiculous statement of me not being able to deny global warming. Just because I have said that there are more green house gases, doesn't mean that global warming exists. Thank you for the debate

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. We must ask why climate has changed in the past. There are many ways the Earth's climate can be affected. 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. It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change. It's like saying humans can't start brushfires because they happen naturally. In this day we are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at an increasingly rapid rate. During the Cretaceous period submarine volcanic CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere at rates high enough to cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 1,000 ppm. This CO2 buildup also resulted from rapid sea-floor spreading related to the breakup and drifting apart of the Earth’s continents[1]There has been evidence that suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today in some parts of the globe like the North Atlantic. However, evidence also suggest that in some places were much cooler than today, such as the tropical pacific. When the warm places were averaged out with the cool places, it is clear that the overall warmth was probably similar to the early mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions[2]. Further evidence suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.[3] Here is the temperature pattern of the MWP vs today. The carbon plants collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently. Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line.C02 does help plants, yet an abundance of it is harmful. Here is only 2 examples out of many.1.Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis[4] in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage[5] to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2. Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat[6]. 2. As is confirmed by long-term experiments[7], plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit Please see the video on the right for more information http://www.youtube.com...There is evidence that shows humans are the cause of global warming Here is the first 5 of "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change"[8] 1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year[9]. Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels. 2.When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [10]. 3.This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide [11]. 4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [12]. 5.So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". [13][14][15]This shows that temperature is cyclic.A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The Resolution is affirmed. Sources[1] Caldeira, K., and Rampino, M.R., 1991, The mid-Cretaceous superplume, carbon dioxide, and global warming: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 18, no. 6, p. 987-990.[2]http://books.nap.edu...[3]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[4]http://resources.metapress.com...[5]http://www.pnas.org...[6]http://www.sciencemag.org...[7]http://www.nature.com...[8]http://www.skepticalscience.com...[9]http://cdiac.ornl.gov...[10]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[11]Ibid[12]http://www.sciencemag.org...[13]http://www.nature.com...[14]http://spiedl.aip.org...[15]http://www.eumetsat.eu...

Outline:Most of Pro's case is focused on CO2. I will prove that CO2 as no threatening potential, even when combined with our other emissions. In order to win, Pro must prove that CO2 is a major threat, as that is the core of his argument.Rebuttal I: CO2 Global Warming PotentialPro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things."Assuming the increase in the other gases ppm were the same proportionately, we would be responsible for an increase of nearly 0.20°F. This leaves 1.33°F left that human's are not responsible for."Men's emissions simply don't account for the number needed to assume the whole of Global Warming is man-made. Methane and Nitrous, as a whole, doesn't match up to CO2 emissions alone. Making up a combined 1.31% of all Global Warming, humans making up 0.113% total (1). As for F gases, they are so few that they, with all their potential, only make up less than 0.072% of all Global Warming Potential. They are all combined to form the Misc section. We see the total GWP of Misc, Methane, Nitrious, and CO2 in a visual display. Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World. I've already discussed this, and will display the chart again.GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECTWater Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%Methane ----------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%Nitrous oxide ------ 0.950% ---- 0.047%Misc ----------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%Total ----------------- 100% ------- 0.278% 1) http://www.geocraft.com...Rebuttal II: Deforestation and Indirect Emissions.I understand this argument well. I've debated it before. CO2 emissions from Deforestation is calculated into the amount listed above. Making up a pretty percent of our total emissions. Deforestation, however, isn't an issue. US forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago.(2) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting. The world replants almost every tree removed, with the UN (apart from the US) replanting 1.7 billion trees (3) and the US replanting 1.5 billion trees a year (4), the world isn't far behind it's deforestation rate. At a total replanting rate of 3.2 billion trees a year + plus ever tree planted by lumber companies. Many lumber company replants trees they cut down to ensure they always have a supply. Forests are not disappearing at close to the rate most people assume they are. It would take over 150 years for the forests in the world to be cut in half, based off US/UN replanting alone. With Lumber Companies replacement programs and all other private replantings, as well has natural Forest Growth, we may never see it at the current rate of deforestation.As for CO2 emitted by Deforestation, it's outwieghed by the amount of CO2 consumed over the lifespan of all the trees we replant. Cutting down a tree and turning it into lumber releases 1,200 lb of CO2. Ever tree we replant consumes 12,000 lb throughout it's life. This adds up, as in one year we will release 2.3 Gigatonnes cutting down trees, but the trees replanted that same year will consume 19 Gigatonnes in their lifes. A mighty profit. After the 88 years it would take to cut down every tree that is alive at this moment, we will have emitted 237.6 Gigatonnes, but the trees we replanted would have consumed a grand 661.17 Gigatonnes by then, after calculating the total consumption of CO2 every year. The first year's trees would consume 6.7 Gigatonnes by then, the next years would consume 6.67 Gigatonnes, and so on. As for ocean pollution, this is true that Ocean Pollution is a bad situation, but Pro hasn't proven that it's enough of a threat to make the Resolution true. CO2 and all it's emittions simply aren't strong enough to support Pro's case and prove the Resolution.CO2, at it's GWP, has far to go before it's a major issue. Until then, Human's aren't leaving around nearly a large enough amount to hurt the environment. Total World Emissions, including humans, only accounts for slightly above 3% of the total Green House Effect. It and every other gas Pro mentioned makes up in total 5%. If you only look at the Man-Made gases, it's only 0.555% of total effect. We know CO2 isn't that bad in the scheme of things because of how CO2 levels were around 7000 PPM in the Cambrian Period, and yet the temperature was only 10ºc higher, showing the CO2 doesn't have nearly the effect Global Warming Alarmists are predicting. Pro's own rebuttal only makes this more clear, as we will see.2) http://forestry.about.com...3) http://www.un.org...4) http://forestry.about.com...Rebuttal III: Global Warming Cycle.Yes, CO2 is 400 PPM now, which is pretty high compared to recent cycles, temperatures are still lower than any other warming period. This is prove supporting my case. This Global Warming Period has the highest CO2 PPM (and I never said we weren't responsible for the increase in CO2, as we are, just that CO2 isn't a huge threat) and yet it is the coldest warming period to date. This is clear evidence that CO2 isn't a threat.I already knew the charts were 50 years out of date, I was hoping Pro would notice, as the charts only proof that while CO2 rises during the warming periods, it doesn't cause the warming, otherwise we would be in the hottest warming period in the last 400,000 years. Looking at the charts again, we see that, at 400 ppm, CO2 is high, but we know Global Temperatures is 1.53°F higher than 1900 at this very moment, which makes it the coldest period. Looking at the charts, we see that the coldest warming period is about 2.2°c warming than the 1950 record, while today isn't even a forth that. "As you can see, CO2 emissions are actually much much higher than they have ever been in natural history - 100 PPMs higher than ever." -ProThis is ignorant of my arguments about how high CO2 was in the Mesozoic and Cambrian Eras. Despite the high amount of CO2, which only looks high compared to recent history, both the Cambrian and current temperatures are well under what people claim they should be. We are colder now than any other warming period in recent history, despite high CO2, because CO2 isn't that big of an issue.As for Pro's R2 points, they are mostly an Argument From Authority, from a group of people who are paid to question how humans effect Global Warming, not how Nature might also effect it.Conclusion:CO2 and all the Gases humans release do not have the power needed to prove Man-Made Global Warming is a threat. As far as numbers and data go, The mass of Global Warming we see is natural, and would happen with or without human involvememt. As said in my R2 case, CO2 has been rising since 9000 years ago, and despite high amounts of it, we still have the coldest Warming Peroid in the last 400,000 years.

My opponent stated that"First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary" However, my entire case has been in contradiction to the inconvenient truth documentary, as seen when my opponent states "scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth", I have offered scientific in direct contradiction to the scientific evidence in the movie, thus I have negated my opponent's ENTIRE argument. " As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority. "Seeing as my opponent likes to spew out the term "fallacy", I will spew out the term band wagon fallacy which this argument is, because The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. My opponent has admitted to doing this by sating that "climate change deniers are within the minority" In my opponent's (rather short) rebuttal he said that I was cherry picking again (in my first argument) He did show that I chose a time fame that best suits me, but that time frame that best suits me shows a DIRECT INDEPENDENCE between oil consumption and CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't cherry picking because I didn't just show a single year or two of independence I showed an entire decade of data. Not only this, but in my 3rd graph (on my first argument) I showed how CO2 levels has been extremely higher than we've ever seen in humanity's history (in some cases over 8000 PPM well before the industrial revolution). Once again I showed independence between ATMOSPHERIC CO2 and Fossil Fuel Consumption. My opponent doesn't seem to understand my argument that ATMOSPHERIC CO2 has no direct relationship to fossil fuel consumption, he lists the obvious fact that CO2 is released by the burning of fossil fuels, but shows no explanation to why an entire decade (and more) of data shows no relation between fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2, in fact he drops the point in his second argument when he says he cannot explain why this statistic occurred. My opponent's second rebuttal states"My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph. "I haven't forgotten any claims that I have made, however my opponent has not shown anything contrary to my original claim, his only counter argument negates his entire argument when my opponent blames the spike in temperature on El Nino, a climate feature unrelated to Global Warming. But again even I admitted there was a slight warming trend since 1978, but if the El Nino spike is removed from the data the trend disappears, so my opponent admits that Global Warming is not the cause of the temperature since 1978. My opponent's third rebuttal states "The overall tend is hotter. Climate can be difficult to predict, just because not everything predicted came true at the correct time, doesn't destroy the overall premise is false. "However I have shown 3 different examples of a lack of an overall warming trend. My first example being my 1st chart on my first argument, which shows that GLOBALLY the overall warming trend (that there is) is "statistically insignificant" (since 1978). My second example shows that in the US temperatures are cooling over the last decade. My third example shows that in the North and East Atlantic Ocean, as well as, the British Isles have not experienced any warming. My opponent's fourth rebuttal states"The graph clearly indicates that Co2 and temperature show a strong positive relationship. Yes, there are a few anomalies but that doesn't discredit the theory. "My opponent has offered one singular graph showing a relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, I have pointed out that there are events on his graph that shows an independence between the two variables, on top of this, I have offered TWICE as much evidence in the contrary, which my opponent has neglected to mention, showing independence between the two variables even over millions of years. Again I'd like to crystalize my arguments1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidMy opponent has not other a sufficient refutation for this argument, because this point refutes the definition of Global Warming, it proves that, as we are debating it, Global Warming is not real and thus not a threat.2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record. .. My opponent calls this point "cherry picking" however as I have proven, this is not true, and because my opponent has not offered contrary evidence and because of that this point still stands3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theoryMy opponent's first reputation was to say that the ice caps would not melt if Global Warming occurred, however I have shown that this is false, then my opponent made a refutation that is not in contradiction to anything that I stated, so this point still stands.4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesMy opponent has neglected to mention either of my graphs and my opponent's evidence has been refuted making this point still relevant in this debate. Now I'd like to show why I have won this debate My opponent's arguments have been proven false or a fallacy. My opponent's first "point" is the pope's quote which I've shown to be worth no value to this debate, and I have proven it to be a bandwagon fallacy. My opponent's second point is the Inconvenient Truth Movie which posits scientific evidence for the theory of Global Warming, However, my entire case is in direct contradiction to this movie and acts as counter evidence and a rebuttal to the movie. So, because both of my opponent's arguments have been proven wrong, and my opponent's refutations have been untrue and unfounded, and I have proven them to be so, Thus, I have won this debate. .. Judges must vote in favor of the Con because of the overwhelming amount of evidence presented and the lack of evidence for my opponent.

They say CO2 Dangerous but CO2 has little effect on the environment, changes in temperature are natural and extreme weather is a hoax ( not warming just that CO2 is the root cause) Happer, writes on 3/27 Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the Marshall Institute and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993, he served as Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his return to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics and Chair of the University Research Board. 3/27/12, "Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" http://online.wsj.com... ." What is happening to global temperatures nothing The latest monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees. The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the (IPCC) to demonize CO2 million),. CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated.. The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated. the timing of the warming suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true.. Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., "There is no evidence of any trend in the number of potent tornadoes over the past 50 years . But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions. Then they say that because tree are being pulled up that not as much oxygen is being produced However this is 1.Not a reason in which carbon emission are good or bad, deforestation will occur regardless of carbon emmisons being good or bad 2.Trees are not the only plan that turn CO2 into O2 3.Means this is not a reason that CO2 emissions are bad food crises are beginning --- only CO2 ensures strong plants that can provide for the increasing globe Idso et. al. writes in 1 1"Former Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ Arizona State and PhD from UMinnesota and former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture"AND Keith Idso, PhD in Botany"AND Craig, PhD in Geography (Sherwood, "Is There a Need for a More Sustainable Agriculture?" Vol. 14, Iss. 24, 15 June 2011, http://co2science.org..., DA: 6/23/2012// In a paper that came to our attention Gomiero ask the question "Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture?" they write notwithstanding the great achievements of the 'Green Revolution,' the world will need 70 to 100% more food by 2050," concluding that "a new challenge lies ahead: how to feed nine billion with less land, water and energy, while at the same time preserving natural resources and soil fertility." In their analysis of the question, Gomiero et al. state that "technical advances are important in order to meet the future needs," as does Idso.Gomiero et al. state that "addressing key socioeconomic issues, such as the inequality in the access to resources, population growth and access to education are also a priority if we want to properly deal with sustainability." Idso alludes to these same factors, but he concentrates most heavily on a subject not touched upon by Gomiero et al. -- the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. Idso identifies the 45 key crops that account for 95% of world food production, after which he calculates the rates at which their productivities rose over the past 15 years in response to all technological innovations of that time period plus the concurrent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. , calculating the percentage increases in the productivities of these crops in response to a 300-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration from experimental data tabulated in the Plant Growth Database of CO2 Science, and knowing how much the atmosphere's CO2 content rose over 15 years, he determines what part of the past 15 years' productivity increases were due to the aerial fertilization effect of CO2 Extending the linear regression representing this latter effect to the year 2050, and using the IPCC's best median estimate of what the atmosphere's CO2 concentration will be in that year, Idso calculates the productivity increases of the 45 key crops due to the aerial fertilization effect of CO2 to that time, This he does for the world as a whole, he determines which entities' projected crop productivity increases fall either below, within or above the 70-100% interval that is deemed necessary to insure food security in 2050, with productivity increases below 70% representing food insecurity, with those above 100% representing food security, and with anything in between being a "maybe" in terms of food security. The results are rather chilling. And they should cause all those who are calling for mandatory reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions to seriously reconsider their views on the subject, while those who may not have thought at all about the topic should do so now; for the looming global food crisis is everybody's business, and all should have a say in what to do about it. CO2 provides an essential boon to agriculture " 600 years of African trends prove Taylor writes in 11 James Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism with a circulation of approximately 75,000 readers. He is also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute focusing on environmental issues. " Climate Change Weekly: Global Warming Benefiting Africa"s Sahel Region" http://news.heartland.org... Accessed 6/18/12 the notion that global warming is devastating the Sahel is unlikely to stand the dual tests of time and scientific scrutiny. the argument that Western democracies should reduce carbon dioxide emissions may have been driving the study, rather than the other way around. Gonzalez is a lead author for the (IPCC), whose funding are dependent on the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis having a new study claiming global warming is causing drought and related problems in Africa"s Sahel region bolsters the shared interests of Gonzalez and IPCC., NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey funded the study. If such funded studies find little about which to be concerned, NASA and U.S. Geological Survey funds dry up, as do funds for Gonzalez and his National Park Service employers., many studies have documented improving conditions in the Sahel as the earth has warmed. "The southern Saharan desert is in retreat, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa," "Burkina Faso, one of the West African countries devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago, is growing An "analysis of satellite images reveals that dunes are retreating "Vegetation is ousting sand Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid-1980s a survey among farmers shows a 70 per cent increase in yields of local cereals, "satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara." "The broader picture is reinforced by studies carried out in the Namib Desert "This is a region with an average rainfall of just 12 millimetres. Last year the local research centre, measured 80mm Scientists at Brown confirmed a longer term improvement in African soil moisture. After studying African drought patterns since the 1400s, the scientists reported in January 2007 in the peer-reviewed science journal Geology that Africa is "experiencing an unusually prolonged period of stable, wet conditions in comparison to previous centuries of the past millennium." The same patterns are occurring globally. Analyzing satellite imagery that has been available since 1982, scientists reported in a 2003 peer-reviewed study in Science, "We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% globally

First off, I admire the amount of organization you have done, it was very good and makes my job a lota easier :)Second lemme just say one thing: I'm not going to attack sources b/c you and I probably have a different definition of what a "reliable source" is, and so do people on opposite sides of this issue.Contention 1 refutation:I.iYou have not shown the potential amount of temperature that can be decreased by cosmic rays. The effects of these cosmic rays rely on the sun being less active now than it ever was in the Earth's history. However, that is not true. However, that is simply not true, the sun is MORE active than it ever has been over the past 8,000 years. [2].I.ii"[The paper [you are refering to]] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but itâ€™s a very important first step... While their results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanism by which GCRs might induce cloud nucleation, they in no way demonstrate that GCRs do significantly promote cloud formation in the real world, let alone support the myth that GCRs drive significant climatic change. [1]"Simply put, although your evidence allows the possibility of cosmic rays to cause the warming of the Earth (although you omit saying by how much and if it would match the trends we are seeing) it does not in any way prove or even attempt to prove that this is something that is happening at this very moment. Sure, even if once every 135 million years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy (which is a very odd statement considering the entire galaxy rotates at roughly the same speed and direction) you have not shown how this is something that is happening at this very moment.I.i.cI really only have one thing to say about this sub-sub point. You have not given specific numbers indicating how this increase in solar radiation hitting the earth would decrease. The warming I have indicated occured over the past 100 years, and really picked up around 1950 and continued to increase after 1990. So your study inadequately explains the global warming we have seen on the time scale and does not give specific numbers, i.e. it does not specify how much it is theorized to increase the earth's temperature by.I.ii"[S]cientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun's heat.Researchers credited Pluto's warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.[3]"In other words, you have successfully proven corrloation, but not causation. Pardon me, but just because some Russian scientist believes that this correlation is cause to blame the sun for global warming, that doesn't mean that it is automatically correct.II.i I refer you to my second contention source 4. The Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC found that if we eliminate CO2 output by humans from the equation, we cannot accurately dexcribe the temperatures we are seeing now. II.iiAlthough the medievel period was warmer in some parts of the world, it definitely was not a global event, or at least there is no evidence to support the idea that it was."There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth — Europe, for example — but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years [5]."For reference: http://www.ipcc.ch...1) http://thinkprogress.org...2) http://www.sciencedaily.com...3) http://www.livescience.com...4) http://www.giss.nasa.gov...; http://grist.org...

Kay, The first argument will prove is that humans developed technology such as Nuclear bombs and weapons of war. Have you seen the news. North Korea, Afghanistan, And Russia all have hidden nuclear weapons and not to mention USA. If there were to be an world war among many nations, And they were to use their secret weapons, We all know it's gone for society. There are a lot of ideas of aggression around the globe among the nations. Another if war don't get us. Pollution will. Let me tell you why. I don't mean just the smoke that come from factories that produce items. Yeah that's bad, But I mean garbage. Even though we're doing recycling and reusing, But there are still things that can not be recycled that are harmful to the every man such as cigarettes, Strophe, And Plastic bags that produce toxins in to the ground and make it harmful to the every man. It's now making animals such as birds and sea animals endangered and Soon we won't find places to put the garbage, That we use and it will be filled everywhere.

The world is fine. There"s no "hole" in the ozone layer. It"s all a myth. "Argument 1 " No Significant and Prolonged Temperature Changes Since 1997 " Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn"t real because since the 90s there hasn"t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature have been flat since then which clearly states that there isn"t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years." "Argument 2 " Not Enough Historical Data Available " There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn"t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don"t have long-term historical climate data or the data they have isn"t clear." "Argument 3 " Arctic Ice Increased by 50% Since 2012 " Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version." "Argument 4 " Climate Models used are Proven to be Unreliable " The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long-term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift." "Argument 5 " Early Predictions About the Effects of Warming Have Been Proven Wrong " Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example, Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012."

I'm pretty sure neither myself nor the commenters/judges of this debate really need a recap of your initial argument. For sake of clarity I'll place your arguments into quotes and answer each one individually. "Starting off with the first statement u mentioned about that we dictate the human systems and such. Yes i agree entirely thats exactly why our opinions are the only ones that matter and why animals opinions dont. Which is why they are not equivalent to us." Equivalency is irrelevant given that we are only capable of surviving due to them. Cows are made of beef, pigs are made of pork, we eat both these animals, but these animals also naturally create fertiliser with their faeces, it could therefore be argued that without cows or pigs, we would have no agriculture. That means vastly reduced quantities of fruits and vegetables, and if pigs and cows didn't exist, that also means no beef, no pork, no bacon, no leather for clothing, no truffles if you happen to be into that kind of thing, and no milk. Stating that our opinions matter more because we're the only ones that have them is like saying that a man with four fingers is less important than a man with five. "Next we will never destroy nature." Who said anything about destruction? I'm referring to us reaching the point when we can no longer exploit nature for our own ends. "We would be negating Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs which is impossible" Um, ol' Mazzie's system focuses explicitly on human motivation without taking into account the effects of that motivation on the natural world. I fail to see how it's relevant to the so-called destruction of nature. Hell, it's been compared to Zen Buddhism which, if memory serves, teaches that all sentient beings are born with Buddha's virtue, and virtue, according to Wikipedia, is a sense of moral excellence. The peak of morality is to place others before the self. Therefore, I would argue that Mazzie's hippy happy hierarchy is directly contradictory to Anthropocentrism. Assuming you can't negate that hierarchy, as you yourself stated, that means that Anthropocentrism is an impossibility. "We need nature to survive. In doing so we value it without even knowing." The value of something is not dictated by an arbitrary value decided by mankind. Something's value in relevance to human opinion is pretty much arbitrary. The value of something when looking at it from the perspective of everything that isn't human, that is when we see it's true value in reference to this argument. The basis for this entire argument is the contest between perspectives, if you're only going to acknowledge one then your argument is doomed from the start, but I digress. Getting back on point, what value do you suppose gold has to, say, a lemur? How about penicillin or a pilum? None. A Lemur could walk past these things and not realise their significance to us. That lemur could then come across whatever it is lemurs eat and consider it more valuable than the other three combined. A poor person (or any person, really) will see the financial value to gold, a person with an infection will see medical value in penicillin, and a historian will see the historical value of an intact pilum. That does not make these things important to the natural world. It makes them important to humans. What is important is not dictated by how we can use them, what is important is dictated by how we might benefit from them. The current ultimate benefit at the moment would be a renewable series of resources from which we can keep our current standards of living without serious financial loss. "Biocentrism is stating that all forms of life have intrinsic value But we still need to value humans more than anything else" Not to the extent that you're implying. "We have an obligation to ourselves first so crossapply my contention 1 tagline. And the example of the trees. We cut trees for paper. We still need trees though but their are other organisms that give us oxygen. Are u saying there arent? " Don't put words in my mouth. I said our oxygen supply would be vastly diminished. Not gone. "We will never destroy nature to the point where we cannot use it." Once again with the destruction I never spoke about in the first place "Thirdly, yes i do argue that we value humans more than anything else. And animals value themselves more than anything else as well." I take it you've never seen a lioness defend her cubs, then? Gruesome but enlightening. I'll be blunt with this, we are only alive today because of nature. We exist because of it. We can exploit it only so much before that exploitation begins to hurt us. Anthropocentrism will hurt us and hurt us badly in the long run. Biocentrism, by comparison, will at least ensure that we have the resources and the natural aid we need to produce drugs, food and materials. Tell me this, if an elderly relative gave you fifty dollars, would you then demand fifty more? That's us. Nature has given us those fifty dollars, you are saying we should demand fifty more. We don't need it, we're not going to do anything with it, but you want it so you think you should have it. Please don't act as if we're the only ones that matter. And for the love of God almighty, make use of the spellchecker. I've been copy/pasting your spelling of Anthrop Centrism up until now, apparantely both that and Bio Centrism are two words, and that's ignoring all your other little mistakes. They make your arguments look bad and they make you look bad and it takes like five minutes. Seriously. Sources: Maslow's Hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org... Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org... Virtue: http://en.wikipedia.org...


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

The reality and severity of anthropogenic global climate change are undeniable.
Rebuttals: Firstly, my initial arguments remain valid. It's important to note that the Pope's stance on climate change does not undermine the scientific consensus. Opponent's arguments:

1. Fossil fuels do not increase CO2 emissions, invalidating the IPCC's basic global warming theory.
This assertion is false, as scientific evidence consistently shows that CO2 emissions contribute to greenhouse gases. This is an example of stage 3c climate change denial. [3]
"The primary source of CO2 emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation." [2]
It is evident from this statement that burning oil leads to greenhouse gas emissions. Although CO2 levels may fluctuate, the overall trend is one of dramatic increase.

2. The last few years have not been the warmest on record, contrary to popular belief.
This argument is based on cherry-picking data. The El Niño effect was responsible for the temperature spike. This is an example of stage 1b climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4]
s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />

3. Antarctic ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, suggesting the ice caps are not melting.
The Antarctic ice argument is an example of stage 1b climate change denial. [3]
First, using a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is flawed. Anthropogenic global warming does not predict uniform warming. We must assess the overall evidence.
Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming. Warmer climates lead to increased precipitation. As Antarctica warms, it will receive more snow. However, even a significant warming of 20 degrees (from -50°C to -30°C) would still be below freezing, preventing snow from melting. Thus, increased ice mass supports the global climate change theory. [5]

4. There is no direct link between CO2 emissions and temperature increases.
This argument is an example of stage 3c climate change denial. [3]
While historical CO2 levels and temperature show a correlation, a closer examination of Antarctic ice core records reveals that temperature initially moved. However, during warming periods that lasted 5,000 to 10,000 years, temperature and CO2 rose together for the majority of the time (90% or

Thanks, 101! I will now rebut Con's case.OVERVIEW: I can't see any of the pictures Con presents. It seems Con presents many pictures, but they have all failed, instead bringing Google Docs (User Content) links. Thus, I will rebut Con's case ignoring all pictures presented within Con's arguments, and they henceforth account for nothing. Con cannot correct the pictures next round, as I will have no opportunity to refute them. CON's CASEC1. The Effects of the SunP1. The Sun Drives Climate ChangeI agree that the sun is the main driver of climate change. This does not hinder anthropogenic global warming in any way, because, while CO2 may not directly correlate with temperature, the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide and the Sun allows for a correlation. Carbon dioxide is the most major forcing in the Cenozoic, since it traps the Sun's heat within the Earth, allowing for the most recent spurt of global warming. [1] The below graph displays the correlation. [2] The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature. [3] The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years. A comparison of the warming between the troposphere and the stratosphere can demonstrate this. Majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is found in the upper troposphere, entailing that carbon dioxide would cause higher temperatures in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. [4, 5] The following graph depicts the temperature effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. [6] Furthermore, Con's assertion that the temperature anomaly correlates more closely with sunspot cycle length is false. The only study that found such data was by a 1991 Norwegian study, which has flawed data due to arithmetic errors. A new paper has come out and has corrected the errors, which demonstrate that sun-spot cycle length does not correlate well with temperature rise, while carbon dioxide does. [7] The errors are depicted below. [8] The following graph shows the updated correlation. [7] Thus, there is a greater correlation between CO2 and temperature than between the sun-spot cycle and temperature. P2. Ongoing Pausea. Con doesn't prove that "global warming is now experiencing a pause." That is a bare assertion. Most evidence suggests that no such "pause" is being experienced by global warming. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. [9, 10] Further, the long-term trend of increasing temperatures is due to CO2. Short-term variability happens all the time; it does not mean that the long-term increase is going to stabilize forever. Oscillation phenomena, or "La Nena" phenomena, will result in the trend changing, but will revert to a positive trend eventually. [11] The heat content of Earth is actually increasing. "This new research combines measurements of oceanheat, land andatmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heatthrough to 2008...Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 10^21 Joules per year." [12] The below graph represents this. [13] b. Con doesn't establish how this actually links to the resolution. There being a pause in global warming doesn't connect in any way to global warming being man-made, except as a "kritik" of the topic, challenging the assumption that global warming even exists, which is in direct violation of Rule 6.P3. Extraterrestrial Climate Changea. This contention isn't topical. Humans causing global warming on Earth doesn't imply other effects cannot cause global warming in other planets. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. b. Con's examples are flawed. The majority of planets experiencing global warming are due to unique factors. "The planets and moons that are claimed to be warming total roughly eight out of dozens of large bodies in the solar system. Some, like Uranus, may be cooling. All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846." [14] Con's most major line of defense is Mars, but "the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all." [14] C2. The Solar CycleThe 1500-year-old solar cycle argument is generalized to include the whole Earth. No evidence is given in favor of this. Holistic studies indicate that the 1500-year cycle does not apply to the whole Earth. Due to the generalization not being justified, and other studies have demonstrated that the cycle does not appply to much of the Earth, the argument can be discarded. [15] C3. Cosmic RaysFor cosmic rays to explain climate, 1) the solar magnetic field must have a long-term negative trend, 2) the cosmic ray flux must have a long-term negative trend, 3) cosmic rays must create low level clouds, 4) low level clouds must have a long term negative trend. [16] Firstly, the magnetic field does not have a long term negative trend. It has been fairly inactive over 30 years, and the correlation between temperature and cosmic rays is fairly weak. [17] Secondly, "Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period." [16] Thirdly, for cosmic rays to create low level clouds, the aerosol formation induced by the CR should be able to form cloud-condensation nuclei; this has been disputed. [16] Finally, Norris et al. 2007 argue, "Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record." [18] This means low-level clouds do not have a long term negative trend. Thus, cosmic rays cannot influence climate change significantly.SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://nsstc.uah.edu...10 - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...13 - http://tinyurl.com...14 - http://tinyurl.com...15 - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...16 - http://tinyurl.com...17 - http://tinyurl.com...18 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Over to Con...

First off, water vapour has a relatively small effect on the global climate. Yes, it is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, but it has on average only 10 days in the atmosphere before it falls to earth in a weather event. This means it can't build up and considerably warm the earth. The only way more water vapour could build up is with the increase in CO2 emissions (or other greenhouse gases), the global temperature rises and more water evaporates, and so on. Carbon Dioxide does have a large impact on climate change. The reason temperatures fell after Word War 2 was a high concentration of sulphate aerosols released from industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. It scatters the radiation from the sun and reflects it back into space. The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols, and by the 1970s their cooling effect was outweighed by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

There, I said it. And it's true. Even scientists who "believe" humans are largely repsonsible for recent temperature changes will admit they do not have definitive proof. The PR campaign of the left claiming scientists "have reached" a consensus implies the research is finally complete. However, a "consensus" is only 51 percent, and no one is stopping to consider that legitimate science is a product of fact and not popularity or speculation in the absence of conclusive evidence. The liberals and environmentalists have swallowed the global warming theory hook, line and sinker, and accept it as though it were an undeniable truth. They even call opponents (who would rather rely on traditional standards of proof before making momentus policy decisions) "flat earthers." That is not a very good analogy considering flat earthers were the ones who relied on popular opinion ("consensus") versus real science.

I replied: I think most climate scientists has a very complex knowledge and have a high awareness of how new factors influencing the environment and nature. I replied: All research regardless of the area is dependent on the money to be able to be carried their research. I replied, All development has a pain threshold for what it can tolerate. When the limit is reached or exceeded begin instead a negative decomposition take shape. Mankind has his immune system to be able to restore and repair the imbalances in the human body. I Replied, The same applies to nature's own "immune system" to recover and repair itself. I also wrote that: The first billion humans on the planet took roughly one million years to achieve and the last billion took only 14 years. It is a population explosion that is unparalleled in the evolution. When the 7 billion people consume energy and industry to support all these people with goods and services, to respond or react to nature on this. Summary of your argument: climate scientists do not know what they are talking about, the results are manipulated to get money, climate threats and disasters is about how to raise money, climate scientists has no legitimacy, they just talk about saving humanity from disaster for the research money. I replied: You get that sound as if it is a kind of entertainment for the fun of it. I think it is for real. Your argumentative and the starting point is that climate change, the climate threat, global warming, climate scientists do not have legitimacy for their argument, but your argument is sustainable. You have already made up your mind, but to listen and weigh in with new arguments. When you don't get a hearing for your arguments, you don't want to continue the debate. Climate science is just about creating legitimacy to be given top priority. That is why I wrote to the climate threat is an issue that belongs in the heavyweight class. The biggest enemy is man himself. There are YES voters and NO deniers of climate change. The most basic problem is not carbon dioxide that many seem to think. It is a just a conse-quence of the previous reason. To access the root cause of climate change to squirt water on the smoke and not fire. The population explosion reveals this accelerating process, where the first billion people took a million years to achieve and the last billion only 14 years. What does this have to do with the context wonder anyone? Climate scientists express or mean that the Earth's population of 7 billion people today con-sume energy and resources equal to 2-3 planets. If today we consume more than we can afford, so does it mean that emissions from industry and emissions from cars to the Earth's atmosphere with emissions and exhaust emissions equivalent to 2-3 planetary emissions. You need not actually be a rocket scientist to understand why things are going so slowly. The climate threat, and global warming has nothing to do with communism you imply, but, on the other hand, CAPITALISM and CONSUMPTION has. Society has created a social culture which is entirely based on ECONOMY and consumption. It could be summed up with the word CAPITALISM. What has capitalism with the climate threat, and global warming to do? A LOT" Human beings live in a society that consumes everything. Consumption knows no borders any more than greed. "Greed and envy demand continuous and unlimited growth of material nature, without due regard to the management of natural resources, and this kind of growth cannot possibly fit into a constrained world". It is trying to continually expand. Higher GDP, consumption and economic growth will be dependent on "modernity hubris". To develop a culture that consumes everything. This is the short description of why humans today consume energy and resources equal to 2-3 planets. The downward spiral and ferment called constant ECONOMIC GROWTH. And to be able to achieve a higher economic growth, the factories produce maximum and man must then consume a maximum of. Economic capital has become impatient and demanding increasingly short-term profits. Maximum economic growth, maximum production, maximum consumption may not be sen-sible target for a humanity that live in a thin membrane of life on a limited sphere. Now we have to find new forms of production which allows us to live with the Earth's resources. In-stead of poison and them. It is a trite fact that Earth's cycles is a closed and its assets are limited. Previous patterns of life and natural resources that have existed for thousands of years and built up by previous generations, have been destroyed during a single generation time. It is recognized that waste of resources and mismanagement of natural resources. Human activities have for a very moment in Earth's history reached such intensity and extent of the risk to life sphere's fragile balances are being seriously disrupted. "The development of this economic system is determined not by the question: what is good for man-but by the question: what is good for the system's growth?" The obvious argument for ' NO ' campaigners will be to argue that the maximum production, maximum consumption, the system's growth can never be about global warming or the climate threat. The immediate consequence would be to start to consume more responsibly, resource management and make self-sacrifice to win something else in the longer term. Today's current economic and social thinking is based on the assumption that the rate of growth that has characterised the current temporary period can be permanent. There is no doubt or denial of that economy's enormous triumphs have been valuable for human well-being; Today begins a growing number argue that these successes now or in the long run mean value losses for humanity, while others welcome them as new opportunities for tomorrow. There is nowhere a safe recipe for the success of this nature to continue to be won or defeated, because an unlimited economic growth does not fit in a constrained world of natural resources. The need for new solutions that require an unconventional way of working within the field. The previously successful economic and political prescriptions applies only to the already achieved. The individuals, institution, organization or the society that has been purchasing power available can only produce at incessantly without regard to nature. It is nature that may be slapped. How will the modern welfare affected when natural resources has decreased drastically in 50 or 100 years? In every time in a nation's history, it is always some social problem that weighs more heavily than the other. For the next two-three generations, energy and climate change no doubt end up in the heavyweight class. Insight and awareness means; "To learn, is about to suddenly understand something you al-ways understood, but in a new way". The human is his own worst enemy. The real goals be-comes easy enveloped in smoke and the real motives act as eyewash. Today, the materialist development described as that; "economic activities have become divorced from ethics and human values. The financial mechanism has come to be regarded as an autonomous entity, independent of human needs and people's will ". In summary, natural resources a dwindling asset, and the faster people consume it and the faster it is allowed to shrink, the shorter will be the time that we have to develop a new basis for the economic existence. Today's economic mismanagement of the planet's resources are going to the next generation leave behind a plundered land and Earth. How much of the Earth's resources and natural resources remain about 50-100 years? THE RECESSION WON`T BE OVER TILL WE RAISE A GENERATION that knows to live on what they"ve got. Thanks for the debate if you continue. Learningbythinking.com (new website from next week) Peter Horttanainen

"Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts [4]" Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination.(1) Fire frequency increases are likely due to human carelessness through discarding cigarette butts, or vehicular sparks, etc. (2). Desert expansion has occurred regardless of human interaction or not, but it is not affected by global warming and is defined as the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture (3). I would like to note that my opponent has ignored the merriam-webster definition of pollution and its clarification definition of pollute in R1 in order to bolster his claim that CO2 is a pollutant by introducing the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition instead. While his use of the 2007 supreme court case is commendable, critics of the designation of CO2 as a pollutant such as S. Fred Singer state, "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."(4). The paragraph that my opponent dismisses as a red herring, "A threat to humanity... Syrian Regime. (5)" is actually not a red herring. The argument is stated as an example of what a threat is similarly to your usage of "10 Indicators of a Human fingerprint on Climate Change". I'd also like to point out that my opponent's argument "Increasing CO2 levels have direct affects to our environment. Such as, the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, leading to acidification which messes with marine ecosystems." is somewhat inaccurate. Granted Water's pH has went down from approximately 8.2 to 8.1 which is in terms of technical semantics an increase in acidity. [However pH is measured from 1-14 with 1-6 being acidic, 7 as neutral, and 8-14 as basic or alkaline. (5)] Also this decrease in pH has been expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report World Group 1, which also states that the oceans are alkaline not acidic. (6) My opponent also contends that marine life would be screwed up because of this decrease in alkalinity. However my opponent does not take into account the possibility of bacterial contamination of seawater that could harm marine life. For example, the bacteria, Vibrio tubiashii, is currently known to kill oysters, but it is unknown if Vibrio tubiashii is fatal to other shellfish.(7). (1) http://www.aaas.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) https://www.google.com.sg... (4) http://www.populartechnology.net... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://www.ipcc.ch... (7) http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu...

First, I ask my opponent to refrain from wild ad hominem. CO2 has gone up. Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)- . https://climate.nasa.gov...;The spike coincides with the popularization of cars, especially in the US, as the wartime production economy steamrolled on into an age of peace and excess. These factors meant we as humans began putting out CO2 like nobody'sThe Earth has gotten hotterNASA once again has a relevant graph: . https://climate.nasa.gov...These two are correlatedHere, our good friend NOAA helps out, with their interactive climate dashboard(you'll have to scroll down past a few articles): . https://www.climate.gov...;And no, the NOAA isn't fake: . https://www.snopes.com...;Your ad hominems also reminded me of this: . https://imgur.com...;In

Global Warming. It is our biggest issue. I didn"t choose world peace because we were always be fighting. For as long as we have lived, we have fought. And yet, we are still alive and "healthy". Global warming, on the other hand, is a new problem. A new problem that isn"t going away. Our ice caps are melting, raising our temperatures and killing hundreds of arctic animals. By raising temperatures, it"s evaporating more water, making the ground dryer, making it harder for plants to grow. Less plants, less food, less people. Not to mention the fact that it"s incredibly uncomfortable to be in super hot weather. Plus, if global warming is stopped by no longer burning oil, there is no longer the danger of what would happen if there is no more oil to burn. In short, wars will always be a problem, but it will never threaten our extinction. Unless stopped, global warming will.

Thank you for posting a good argument, it has been hard to get people to debate me on this topic. Also, you are right about the technical terms, I just didn't think that people would understand the concept of negative feedback so when I titled this debate I didn't include it in the title. Rebuttals: Scientific consensus: My opponent states that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. There are multiple consensus's but my opponent makes a quote from the IPCC so I will explain the manipulation behind that one. The IPCC put in their report that 2500 of the worlds top scientists agree that global warming is man made. This is not true because not only did they not ask people if they wanted to be part of the consensus or not, the majority of the people they listed are not climate scientists. Many of the people in the consensus didn't want to be part of it and yet they were shown as someone who supports man made climate change. Here is a list of articles explaining why other consensus's were wrong: http://climatechangedispatch.com... My opponent then says that the surface temperature is warming. This is true, but in itself disproves man made climate change. If greenhouse gasses were causing the warming, we would expect to see warming in the atmosphere first, not the surface. Skeptical science, the most used global warming alarmist site I have seen used, says, "Climate models predict, that as a consequence of global warming, the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) will warm about 20% faster than the Earth's surface temperature" Troposphere warming: https://upload.wikimedia.org... Surface Warming: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com... Total atmospheric warming: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... As you can see, troposphere warming matches surface warming, it is not warming any faster. In addition to this, the entire atmospheric temperature trend seems to have stayed constant for 20 years. My opponent then says that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore would be expected to cause warming. As I pointed out in my argument above, I believe the climate system responds to this warming by dampening it and making it insignificant. In fact, I even have historical proof to back up my claims. If Co2 amplified itself (even global warming alarmists agree that the direct warming effect isn't enough to have an impact, 2/3 of the IPCC climate model predictions of rising temperature are due to amplification effects) then, in the past, when would this amplification stop? To answer my own questions, Co2 would only stop amplifying when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic which we have only seen once in the last 25 million years. This shows how, in the past, Co2 has not amplified itself because the oceans only rarely become abnormally basic. pH of ocean: https://www.manicore.com... Co2 amplification is described by skeptical science as, "as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released" My opponent then says, "The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels...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..." Firstly, yes, the models show that warming is occurring but they show way to much warming. They are not even nearly accurate to the observed warming trends. This is because scientists overestimate the effect of Co2 on the atmosphere. Models Wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Models Wrong 2: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Models Wrong 3: http://c3headlines.typepad.com... Secondly, scientists were also right about the sulfate infusions from the Mount Pinatubo but this aerosol has completely different effect on climate than Co2. It is much easier to predict the effect of sulfate aerosols on climate because we already know how cloud cover effects climate (cooling). Sulfate aerosols just cause more clouds which then reflect more sunlight off the earth causing cooling. Sulfate aerosols are much more understood and there are not many feedbacks effecting them. In conclusion, I have now debunked everything my opponent has claimed and proven that Co2 does not amplify itself. I have shown how, yes, the surface is warming, but that in itself disproves man made global warming. I have shown how the consensuses have been manipulated and how almost every single IPCC predictions has been wrong. Overall, I have now proven that climate change is not man made and that everything happening now is natural and out of our control, whether the rate of warming is fast or not.

First of all, the 95% figure is not bounded in scientific fact. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is directly related to the temperature, therefore, an increase in temperature causes more water vapour. You are correct that water vapour is a factor, but it alone can not make a difference, and CO2 is still one of the main causes of global warming. Water vapour only makes changes from CO2 larger. There has not been an increase in volcanic eruptions. What we see is an increased global population who may inhabit areas of the world which have never been lived on, and volcanic eruptions now have global effects. The main difference is that the earth is monitored with satellites that measure volcanic activity in all areas of the globe. Saying volcanic "reactions" have increased has no scientific backing at all. So, with 2016 being the hottest year on record and sea surface temperatures at 0.7 degrees higher that the 20th century, it is conclusive, global warming exists.

Okay, so where exactly is your argument? A great portion of the global scientific community has devoted itself to finding a solution for global warming. What idea do you have that they don't? I would argue that global warming is a natural occurrence. Climate changes are a normal part of nature's flow. Do you honestly believe that anything that we can invent can stop nature?