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

Is Human Activity a Significant Factor in Global Warming/Climate Change?
You're welcome for the prompt reply. You argued that human activity is a significant contributor to increased Global Warming/Climate Change. Conversely, I hold that human activity is just one of many factors in climate change, akin to other species. One could argue that human activity has exacerbated global warming more than other species, but not to the same extent as the sun. So why should the blame solely be on us? If we truly want to preserve humanity and other life on Earth in the long term, we should not divert our efforts to argue about relatively minor issues, as our ultimate doom is sealed due to the sun's inevitable expansion. Perhaps we should consider ways to mitigate the sun's activity for a more substantial impact. The statement "human activity is a significant contributor to increased Global Warming/Climate Change" is only partly accurate and, therefore, not entirely true. It could be deemed false if it doesn't encompass the full picture. With technological advancements, we might be able to develop a massive sunshade to shield our planet from the sun's detrimental effects. You might view human progress or activities as detrimental, but they could be the key to our survival.

Ever notice nobody can win or lose a global warming debate? There is just too much conflicting information out there. Luckily this is not a debate about global warming, but whether we know for certain which side is correct so that we might take action. Let's talk about what we do know. 1) There are convincing arguments from QUALIFIED scientists on both sides who have come to opposing conclusions. 2) Neither you nor I are qualified to confidently refute scientists on either side. 3) There IS an ongoing debate with regard to global warming theory. 4) That debate is not settled just because Al Gore said it is in his movie. In summary: It is absurd (not to mention arrogant) to think the general public (or Al Gore) has the expertise or information available to accurately pick a side on this. There are just too many credible scientists who disagree with the "consensus." http://www.speroforum.com... Since we aren't anywhere close to knowing for certain which side is correct, there is no GOOD REASON to TAKE ACTION, especially if temperature changes haven't exceeded anything occurring naturally in the past. That is the focus of this debate. And to win this debate you will need to convince the readers the debate is over, the GW crowd has won, and that you are qualified to make that decsicion. Good luck with that one.

Final Defense:Defense 1: Global Warming Potential of CO2The Global Warming Potential of CO2 is, simply said, weak. So weak that it does little to affect Global Temperatures even with massive sums of it in the air. Despite how focused we are on CO2, it simply isn't as big a deal to the environment, and history backs this up. At 400 PPM at the present, this should be the hottest Global Warming cycle of all time, but it is the coldest. The two don't correlate well enough. CO2 rises with temperature, but temperature doesn't really rise well with it. Temperatures are actually low. Through out history, CO2 will correlate when temperatures rose, but temperatures didn't follow well when CO2 rose, often well under the CO2 count of that era. This is for the same reason that today is colder than any other Global Warming Cycle. The effect CO2 has on Global Warming is minimal at most, and not qualified as a *threat to humanity*. With a GWP of only 1, history emphasizes the weakness of the gas, while people exaggerate the strength of it. At only 3.6% of the total GWP effect, and humans at only 0.117% of that, human emissions are not a threat to the planet. Defense II: Other Gases and Earth's Sensitivity. All other human emissions are greatly small in comparison to CO2, even with higher Global Warming Potentials. F-gases and other poisonous substances we throw into the air have massive GWPs, but are so small in number, that all put together still only effects 0.072% of the total Greenhouse Effect, and human's are responsible for only 0.047% of that. The gases, all together, contribute only 2% of what CO2 does, and since the evidence and history shows CO2 does little, we can only assume our other gases do much less. Earth's Sensitivity is high, but it is gravely exaggerated upon. History shows that, specifically the Cambrian Era. If Earth's Sensitivity was as high as people claim, and 400 PPM CO2 or anything close to it could cause a major snowballing effect, we would have seen it there. At 7000 ppm, the Cambrian Era should have snowballed into temperatures we can't measure on conventional thermostats. And the sea level would have been well below ours, not 30-90 meters above. The Snowballing effect simply isn't there, not for CO2 at least. A) DeforestationDeforestation does release a lot of CO2, but this CO2 isn't hidden from view, it is accounted for in every measurement I made. Having done the math, Total CO2 consumption from trees we replant over the next 88 years is well above 3x the amount we produce through deforestation based on an average annual consumption per tree. .. Even if CO2 Consumption was half as effective the whole of the next 88 years, we would still see it 100 gigatons above emissions (a decrease of 213 ppm worth, or 850 ppm at the original measurements). Defense III: Global Warming CycleThe past millions of years have seen a continuous cycle of Global Warming. Each one hotter than today's, despite lower CO2 emissions. Assuming Humans are responsible for Global Warming is more Post Hoc, since our emissions are minimal in effect. This Global Warming Cycle has been going on long before human's began throwing out emissions, and CO2 has been rising since 9,000 years ago. That being said, it's more likely that natural CO2 emissions having been growing as well, otherwise CO2 ppm should have been going down until the Industrial Age. Assuming CO2 causes most Global Warming is ignorant of the history of Global Warming, where high amounts of CO2 never correlated well with equally high temperature, as is the same today. At least, not in a way that supports the notion that CO2 plays a major part in increasing temperatures. The Global Warming Cycle in the past 400,000 years has never seen CO2 PPM this high before, being 25% higher than any other example. Temperature is, however, the coldest. This is because CO2 has never been a major part of Global Warming. Correlating with it, but not causing it. The Global Warming Cycle of the past 400,000 years prove this, as well as Global Warming in the deep past. In the Cambrian Era and Mesozoic Era, CO2 was wildly above ours, but temperature was't proportionately as high. The Current Global Warming cycle is entirely natural. Looking back at the charts, we should be in a warming cycle. Saying Global Warming is mostly man-made is ignorant of the fact that this cycle looks just like every cycle. Final Conclusion: Human emissions contribute little to Global Warming, which is evident in how cold our current cycle is. CO2 has never increased temperatures to any proportionate amount, and the Earth Snowball-Sensitive effect just isn't present in any historical data. Pro has dropped the case of CO2 consumption from tree replanting. I have proven how: CO2 has a minimal effect, even when compiled. Deforestation isn't nearly the issue it's exageratted to be. The Earths Sensitivity isn't nearly intense enough to cause a massive Snow-balling effect. We are colder than any other Warming Period. How natural Global Warming is. I have proven that CO2. and man-made gases, simply contributes little to nothing, as history and even today's chart prove. Thank you for this debate, Pro.

before I start my argument I will quickly rebut two points of your opening. first on carbon dating and its accuracy. you have stated that it is 'very accurate for dates 15,000 years through present' there are problems throughout this statement. That carbon dates are still accurate in the modern times but because of the atomic bombs our recent ancestors have decided to drop the past thousand years have skewed the number of radioactive elements and thus carbon dating because carbon dating is based on the half-life of radioactive carbon-14 which is 5730 years and then measuring how much of the carbon is present. this causes our second problem with you statement as a margin of error will occur with such a technique which is +/- hundreds even thousands of years depending upon how old the sample is and the quality of the sample. So naturally from here I thought I would try to find the margin of error on the "academically accurate source" you listed. The link took me to a site that is clearly a source of academic excellence as I am bombarded with click baited thumbnails about Hollywood rumours and cat fights clearly where I want to look when finding unbias and clear evidence. On to my arguments The Earth as we know it is under humanities control we manipulate all the natural forces of evolution with our knowledge and free will when did we start to do this around 10 000 years ago the beginning of the Neolithic era this is when the last great ice age ended and the natural forces of evolution took a step back and humanity broke free expanding across the world creating what we call earth. so i and debating on the premise that yes the matter used to make us may have been ancient but everything before 10 000 years ago was under full control of nature and god as he created the world in which we could live it is only 10 000 years ago that he has finished his creation and given us our free will to colonise it. before the neolithic era what governed the world nature and the forces of god. before the neolithic era, the world was still being formed it has had extinction after extinction as god resets his creation not approving with what he is creating for us he had used ice ages meteors volcanoes the works all to get the world into a place that he found acceptable for us to live and thrive in. since the Neolithic time we have taken over evolution in control and used our ability to collectively learn and communicate ideas to govern our own futures with free will given to us by god and this is the point where the earth was born. not how long what now makes up the earth existed but how old what we call the earth is. which by this account is 10 000 years old. I await your responce. References Carbon Dating - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... Neolithic period - https://www.britannica.com... era before the neolithic - http://www.livescience.com...

First of all, it is a proven fact that material possesions are quite important to the human people. They love their computers, televisions ad fine frech wines. It is human nature. you said "Global warming is a natural process and should be helped and sped up. In fact, humans are already adapting to such things. For example, me and a few of my relatives have two toes on each foot that are webbed. This may be overlooked and classified as unimportant, or it may be the evidence we need to prove that humans are adapting and preparing for the effects of global warming." I dont think that webbed feet are normal in humans, for if it were it would be in the news more frequently and it would not be consider4ed abnormal. It is predicted that the ice sheets are supposed to change and golbal warming will happen 1.5 feet over the next thousand years, in a time where neither of us will be alive. In conclusion, global warming needs to be stopped in out lifetime so that it doesnt transfer the responsibility to our younger generations. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.

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?

I think the main confusion lies in us as humans. But i consider what youve said.

It was very fun as well as informative. (Sorry if I appear to be a bit of a jerk here, it's how I was taught to debate). Since I am giving a summary of the debate so far and simply going over voting issues and I will also be weighing each of our case. I will briefly go over the round and explain why I have won. Note: All evidence brought up is for reference only and none of them are actually new. We need to take a step back and look at the issues as a whole. Here's what they have basically come down to. The Greenhouse Effect/oceanic trends Celestial bodies. History. Da sun. 1. The Greenhouse Effect/Oceanic trendsI have given graphs on current warming trends that show general pictures of what is going on with world temperatures in contrast with what my opponent has done which was look at data on relatively small scales that "prove" the cooling of the planet. A miniscule temperature change between the years 1996 and 2000 is not representative of an overall trend. I will restate my position on the Greenhouse effect and the evidence supporting me. A) I have stated that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is greater than it has been in 650,000 years, thus making historical analysis especially difficult. This argument remains untouched [1]. B) Regardless of whatever the theory is, the surface temperature increase over the last century has corrolated very well with CO2 increase. Since this point remains unrefuted, I win this argument. [2] [3]C) The biggest point in this regard which still remains unrefuted is the IPCC's graphs on this topic. My opponent has not been able to even touch the fact which I have already asserted that if you eliminate anthropogenic factors of temperature change, climate models fail completely to accurately describe the temperature increase over the past century. In fact, as stated earlier, the temperature decrease you describe is not an anomaly and was within acceptable deviations and were described by climate models of this period. This fully covers the oceanic trends argument. [3]2. Celestial Bodies I don't need to win this argument b/c it does not relate to global warming on Earth very well. But as I have already said, if the sun is the main cause of global warming, then we would logically see roughly equal global warming on all of the above mentioned celestial bodies. But at the very least, the farther out from the sun you get, the less effect you would see on that body's climate. Since you have clearly proven that this is not the case, I win this argument as well. 3. History Sure I can deny it. In fact I do. My opponent has still not refuted my sources, you have simply restated your other sources the warrants for which are not good compared to the IPCC. I will repeat what I have said already on this subject: The IPCC's graphs which are based on many different climate models of the MWP (which is more than my opponent has said for his graphs) have disproven this MWP myth. [4]4. Da sun. I'll be brief. I have already refuted this argument successfully without question. The sun has NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on Earth's climate. This point remains unrefuted and I therefore win this argument as well. "The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum. Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said. This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. " [5]Conclusion Looking at the evidence presented, it is easy to see why I have won this debate. In general, my opponent has made a habit of picking data about small, relatively insignificant specifics while I have made broad statements about general trends, which more accurately describe. .. general trends like global warming. In addition, my opponent has neglected to refute the fact that only by including anthropogenic factors of climate change can we successfully describe the temperature changes we have seen according to the graphs I have offered. Finally, the graphs he has offered up are from a variety of sources and various websites with a clear anti-global warming bias. The only bias my sites have is for facts. Thank you, and I hope you have enjoyed this debate as much as I have.1) . http://climate.nasa.gov...2) . http://www.intmath.com...3) . http://www.ipcc.ch...4) . http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...5) . http://www.livescience.com...;

Cool. WWII/Greenhouse Gasses: https://www.newscientist.com... 0.7 - 0.9"C increase: https://www.sciencedirect.com... It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.: http://thehill.com... 2.https://www.express.co.uk... A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years." https://www.skepticalscience.com... A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992.": http://www.petitionproject.org... (just one of them)

No one can ignore the changing state of our home planet. >>"My opponent has been talking about global warming being a natural part of the Earth." I have most definately have not been talking about 'global warming' naturally occuring. It would be imposible for me to say that everything is alright, and everything is according to the usual. The planet is naturally foregoing changes that no one has seen drastically as now. You should not win the debate Chng-kt! >>"No. The question is the topic, and nowhere in the topic do you say anything about factors of global warming. You can't add to the topic in the middle of your argument. The point about the factors is irrelevant." I did not say that was the topic of the debate. I said that people around the world need to realize that 'global warming' is not happening, and they need to recycle, and replenish earth's resources before it is too late. The global 'heating' is a totally different theme and as littlelacroix says: 1. On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history. 2. Carbon dioxide emissions do not correlate with the higher temperature. Around 115,000 years ago, the Earth was in it's warmest phase on record, yet the carbon dioxide levels were among the lowest ever recorded. If that isn't enough to convince you, over the last 200 or so years, the carbon dioxide levels have sky-rocketed, mainly due to mankind, yet the temperature has only risen a half a degree Celsius. So, if we're in a period of warming and mankind has given off so much carbon dioxide, then why has the Earth's temperature only risen a half a degree Celsius? It just goes to prove that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and the temperature. 3. Finally, during the mid 1990's, two Danish researchers, Henrik Svennsmark and Eigil Friis, had hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover, thus, more cosmic radiation, more cloud cover. Clouds actually cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about twenty percent of incoming solar radiation back into space. The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the sun's magnetic field which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures. The influx in cosmic radiation may have cause the recent spike in temperature in recent years and may have been a factor during the time when Earth had temperatures this high as well. Thank you, I have won this debate.

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...]


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

The existence of man-made global warming and its serious threat to humanity is undeniable. Rebuttals to the claim that CO2 is the only significant greenhouse gas are valid, but there are two critical points to consider. Firstly, humans release numerous other potent greenhouse gases, and secondly, humans contribute to global warming in more ways than merely emitting greenhouse gases.

(A) The spectrum of greenhouse gases produced by humans extends beyond CO2. We are directly responsible for emitting methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (F gases). Here is a summary of the impact of these gases:

- Carbon dioxide (CO2): Accounts for around 75% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. The primary source is the burning of fossil fuels, with deforestation also playing a significant role.
- Methane (CH4): Accounts for approximately 14% of the impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Major sources include agriculture (especially livestock and rice fields), fossil fuel extraction, and the decay of organic waste in landfill sites. Methane's warming effect is much more potent per gram than CO2.
- Nitrous oxide (N2O): Accounts for roughly 8% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources are agriculture (particularly nitrogen-fertilised soils and livestock waste) and industrial processes. Nitrous oxide is even more potent per gram than methane.
- Fluorinated gases (F gases): Account for around 1% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Industrial processes are the main sources. F-gases are even more potent per gram than nitrous oxide.

Human CO2 emissions alone might not fully account for the upward trend in global temperatures, but it's certainly not due to natural cycles alone. National Geographic reports that scientists have determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans are the only way to explain the observed pattern of warming, after accounting for natural cycles and events.

Humans also produce substantial quantities of methane. Every molecule of methane has 20 times the greenhouse potential of CO2. Humans generate 50-100 million tonnes of methane per year, largely due to increased beef and rice agriculture. Since 1990, human GHG emissions have increased by the equivalent of 6 gigatons of CO2, a 20% rise.

(B) Humans contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly and indirectly. Directly, we emit greenhouse gases,

I will begin with a few statistics and quotes from experts showing, unequivocally, that global warming has occurred. I will then move on to show that this effect is largely a result of human actions, technology, and the like. Next, I will provide quotes and sources specifically stating that the current level(s) of global warming could not be results of natural causes. Finally, I will address some of the arguments Pro is likely to make. I will point out that, at least in the past, he/she references sites such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", sources known to be some of the most biased that exist. On the other hand, the sources I reference are scholarly, scientific, and largely non-partisan. As the BoP is on Pro and he/she stated "man-made global warming isn't real", he/she will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and refute all counter-claims on this topic) that none of the global warming that has occurred has resulted from human action. If even some of it has resulted from human action, it would, by definition, be "real".Global Warming Occurring- "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010.- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.- Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.- Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.- Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.- The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.- Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850- "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can." - Stephen Hawking- Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years.Sources:https://climate.nasa.gov... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk... http://data.giss.nasa.gov... Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).http://nsidc.org...https://www.jpl.nasa.gov...http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu...IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science BasisHumans Are (at least partially) To Blame- "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.- "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment- "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA- "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5- "Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth- "Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years—two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University- "Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions,” - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia’s Center for Climate and Life Note: Some of these conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.Current Levels of Global Warming Not Natural- "If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies- "Volcanoes have a short-term cooling effect on the climate due to their injection of sulphate aerosols high into the stratosphere, where they can remain aloft for a few years, reflecting incoming sunlight back into space." - Zeke Hausfather- "Finally, solar activity is measured by satellites over the past few decades and estimated based on sunspot counts in the more distant past. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun fluctuates modestly on a cycle of around 11 years. There has been a slight increase in overall solar activity since the 1850s, but the amount of additional solar energy reaching the Earth is small compared to other radiative forcings examined. Over the past 50 years, solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined slightly, while temperatures have increased dramatically." - Carbon Brief- “We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see. If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Potential Pro ArgumentBased on Pro's past debates on this subject, I know he/she is likely to make following arguments:"https://goo.gl...;Sorry, you were saying..." Many people debate the validity of this statistic/image, but we can put that aside. Global warming is about the long-term trend, not a single year-over-year increase in the size of a particular ice sheet. So, even if this is accurate, it is in no way sufficient in disproving the litany of sources cited above stating the long-term trend. Here is a Forbes article directly speaking to statistics of this nature: https://goo.gl...As stated above, Pro's other arguments often rest on sources such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", a few of the least reliable, least scientific, least objective sources in the world. I would point voters to the much more reputable, scientific, and unbiased sources I have used in my arguments.

*****REBUTTALS***** "Signs that the Earth is warming are recorded all over the globe. The easiest way to see increasing temperatures is through the thermometer records kept over the past century and a half. Around the world, the Earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic.This doesn't mean that temperatures haven't fluctuated among regions of the globe or between seasons and times of day. But if you average out the temperature all over the world over the course of a year, you see that temperatures have been creeping upward." First off, ma'am, your source is just an article. It does not present any real statistics, or give any scientific measure on how global warming is real. While I have provided sources that explain in vast detail, and have the numbers to dis-prove global warming. I have even posted stats showing that Global cooling is actually happening."Scientists say global warming is real.Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations."You still have yet to prove how this is a phenomena. You must prove to me how this is an actual super-ficial occurrence, that has not happened in the past. You must also find a source and evidence to prove this, which you have not done, thus your claim is baseless and false."I went onto this website(the one you gave to me) and I found this:http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov......The trend(temperature) is going up."Look at the lines closely this time. The straight line sets the average temperature as un changed. Also notice how drastic the lows become. This is proof that global warming is not occurring. "There is an error in this image... If this year, 2012, is not even over yet how can it be on the graph? Another error with this argument is that we are not debating snow but we are debating temperature. This has no point to even argue about.This shows that the temperature is rising. Also it came off of the website that just said it was decreasing. This website has false information because of this. "First of scientist can predict whether patters for the following months easily, based on results. Your claim that we can't do this just seems absurd.Also snow plays a huge part in temperature. If there is more snow fall, how is global warming occurring? ****MY CASE**** Now this is the easy part. Contention 1: Global Cooling.This point is dropped. My opponent has not been able to show proof that global cooling is not occurring, and has not posted any evidence to global warming actually occurring. Please extend. Contention 2: "Global Warming" Has happened before.My opponent has also not been able to prove or dis-prove that "Global warming" is not a common occurrence. By his terms, and by mine own, we see that global warming is supposed to be a significant event. My opponent has yet to prove how this is currently not another earth cycle. He has not even attempted to respond to this argument anyways, so Please Extend.****CONCLUSION****My opponent has hopelessly dropped my entire case, and fails to provide actual sourced evidence (other than articles) for any of his claims. This proves that global warming doesn't actually exist, and is instead a theory and a concept, thought up by scientists, which has yet to be fully proved.Please vote CON.Thankyou.

Before I start my debate, I would like to ask everyone who is going to vote in this debate to vote based upon the debate itself, not your own opinion. Thank you If I may, I would like to take a definition of Global Warming from the American Heritage Dictionary: global warming n. An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change. My opponent has been talking about global warming being a natural part of the Earth. He has been saying that everyone has been predicting that this is happening and there is nothing we can do. If you look back at my definition, you can see that all he has done is help me prove my point. He, as the Pro side of this debate is supposed to prove that Global Warming is not happening right now. My job is to prove that it is happening right now. Seeing as all my opponent has done is prove my point, I should win this debate. >>The question is whether global warming is happening or not, and what (if any) factors that contribute to it we can change and correct. No. The question is the topic, and nowhere in the topic do you say anything about factors of global warming. You can't add to the topic in the middle of your argument. The point about the factors is irrelevant. >> I believe there is nothing we can do about our planet's NATURAL state of change. 'Global warming' is a imagined situation. Change is necessary. But you still think that there is change going on. You still think that our Earth is heating up, and you have provided evidence. You are just proving my point. Thank you

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...

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.

ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming.I will contend that ManBearPig exists. My opponent will contend that ManBearPig does not exist. StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's three argument.Burden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally.Previous debate. [0]DefinitionsManBearPig = global warming and visa versa, these can be used interchangeably. Global warming "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."[1]Sources.0.http://www.debate.org...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

there's no question that temperature and CO2 is correlated. you can see that in the links i provided, historically. here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together http://www.skepticalscience.com... you can click on "advanced" for advanced explanations of the science. or you can read the simpler versiosn. it is pointless for me to repeat what it says. it gives an example of measuring the sun that gets refracted back to the earth from the CO2. and then it explains that there are ways to 'check your math' with alternative methods that pretty much then corroborate the findings. i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself. con seems to eb conceding that a third of the warming is from the sun. my resolution can still stand though as all i said is that man made reaosns was significant. even if we accepted a study that said it was like two third of warming from the sun... it is still signficant from man, and that's all i resolved. even if you found a study to say otherise, the overwhelming consensus of studeis says that the sun is only a fraction of the warming cause, less than half.

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."

Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.

Believer, Your thesis seems to be "there are many reasons why global climate change should not be so quickly acted against." Let me begin by picking apart the basis of your argument, this would be the statement you made concerning the Little Climate Optimum. You have stated, "The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times." This statement is actually incorrect. From 1860-1900 global land tempuratures have had an increase of .75 degrees C according to the instrumental tempurature record. Beginning in 1979, land tempuratures have increased twice as fast as ocean tempuratures. It has actually been thought that 1 to 2 thousand years before the period of 1860 that climate tempuratures have remained relatively stable. In consideration to the little climate optimum (it is actually called the Medieval Climate Optimum) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made the following statement, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."(http://www.grida.no...) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also said, "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect...records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...) It seems that the other considerations you made about this period, such as "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." are simply spurious. you also said, "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." As beneficial as climate change may be to plants, it would be simply horrible to human beings. It is not the warming of the planet that is dangerous, however, it is the effect it has on arctic glaciers. When temperatures increase glaciers begin to melt, thus causing a number of effects. 1.)Glacial retreat- a lack of equilibrium in which throws off glaicier climates. 2.) Arctic shrinkage- the more the glaciers melt, the more quickly they begin to melt. 3.)sea-level rise- states, countries, continents begin to disappear, simple as that. Among other things as glaciers begin to melt the proportion of salt and fresh water that maintains stable weather patterns will be out of equilibrium. This could result in increased flooding and precipitation, droughts, and the frequency and intensity of other various weather patterns (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. etc.). "Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere." The industrial revolution began in the 18th and 19th centuries...as I stated before climates started to rise around 1860. We live in a country where we operate on a basis of risk management. Let's think of some examples, War with vietname ($600 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT communism would take over the world. War with Iraq ($204 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT they had nuclear weapons so we attacked first (or something) Developement of the Atom Bomb(billions of trillions if you consider the arms race that it began)- THOUGHT hitler was going to make one first. Why is it that in most instances the Unites States takes pre-emptive action on the grounds of PREVENTION? Because if we can stop it before it starts than we won't find ourselves in a place where its just too late to do anything. Thus your claim is that we should not act quickly. I believe we should...wether its happening or not. Climate Change has the potential of ending the world. With that being said, let's weigh our options... Do nothing, nothing happens- Everyone is happy. Do nothing, something happens- Everyone is dead, essentially. There are droughts, economic turmoil, hurricanes, floods, etc. etc. Imagine your worst nightmare. Do something, nothing happens- Economy takes a hit, but its repairable. In comparison to doing nothing and something happening, I think its a pretty comfortable sacrafice to make. Do something, something happens- Everyone is happy. Considering these options, and that we've spent billions on other potential threats in the past...then why not this one?