Question: Is Man's Impact the Main Cause of Global Climate Shifts?

Developed nations are the main contributors to global warming. Industrialized countries have a higher propensity to harm the environment, leading to climate disruption. Countries heavily involved in manufacturing emit more hazardous greenhouse gases, which can deplete the ozone layer and contribute to climate change. In contrast, underdeveloped nations have a minimal impact on ozone depletion. Consequently, developed countries bear a significant responsibility to underdeveloped nations to improve their environmental practices.

This is a no brainer Al Gore and many others are pushing this latest scare tactic to force and agenda - this agenda is to curtail fossil fuel use and encourage renewables Now, I am in the solar business, so these fools who buy this garbage are good for business, no doubt However, the "science" behind the theory that CO2 is a main player in global climate is LAUGHABLE And I am going to make some unusual points that you havent heard the earth is getting a little bit warmer (like 1 deg in 100 years) , and we have no control over it, but: I argue that this is GOOD! Why? What is the greater threat to humans - Cold or Warm? Duh! Where do people live- North Dakota or Florida ? Saskatchewan or Southern Cal? Hey all you folks in the midwest right now under a sheet of ice with no power- are you worried about global warming now? Sorry you cant be here in Sunny Cal right now! Now, we have an ice age every 11000 years or so- this is UNDENIABLE We have had dozens of them over the history of the earth So what caused these to recede in the past? Duh! Global Warming- and guess what Al Gore ? it was before SUVs! Furthermore, the temp on Mars is increasing - is that from CO2 ars well. So what is the REAL AGENDA of the Bali Commission? Well, listen to what they are asking for- MONEY from the RICH NATIONS! and CONTROL over their economies! and to think that intelligent people are buying into this HA HA HA HA HA ! I am laughing all the way to the bank (again I am in the solar business) And guess who is the largest emitter of pollution - China! Guess who isnt required to do any reducing of emissions - China! The only reason why I would opppose this blatant scare tactic is two fold: (1) I am generally opposed to ALL the scare tactics of the left and liberals (2) I am opposed to the attempts to screw up our economy (3) Al Gore is a moron and makes me want to puke (4) I see the pro-GW crowd as alarmingly stalinist- calling those of us who can inteelgently debunk them "deniers" which is a little bit too much like "Holocaust Denier" for me But I am torn, becuase I DO WANT my SOLAR HYDROGEN economy- I have been working on bringing it about for 20+ years and we NEED TO DO IT> Just for some references, here is a link to a great book debunking the schmuck Gore http://www.amazon.com... any takers?

Last year NASA said, "According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age…"The report also said; “The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.” and“Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”http://tucsoncitizen.com... According to many scientists, Earth is in a current "cold mode" and will see temperatures fall over the next 30 years as the world enters a "mini ice age."They say;"A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”http://digitaljournal.com... Global Warming Alarmists focus on Surface Temperature readings, which are highly inaccurate because they are subject to the Heat Island Effect.The Heat Island Effect is the tendency of urban and suburban areas to be warmer than adjacent rural areas. In the United States, such built environments are 2 to 10°F warmer-a function of less vegetation, reduced airflow, and large areas of roofs, asphalt, concrete, and paved surfaces that absorb the sun’s heat.http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com...Here are some pictures of the Stations Global Warming Alarmists use to monitor Surface Temperatures. Not the best locations. To avoid the Heat Island Effect it's best to use Weather Balloons or Satellites. If you look at readings from Weather Balloons, and Satellites, you see that the temperature changes are not that unusual. You can also see that the the Earth is starting to cool down.

"On the rebuttals, apologies. I misworded the debate structure. It should be "no rebuttals by pro." Just present your arguments affirming the resolution. Thanks."As said by Con, I will present my argumentsThe typical argument is like this [1] The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. Collectively these are called greenhouse gases. The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory. The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so. The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases. Just about every scientist agrees with these 7 premises. Even some skeptics do too and I believe Con does (although I could be wrong). The following premise is the disputed one8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases from humans.We know the climate on Earth has changed before. We must understand that in order for a climate to rise naturally, A forcing must exist to force the climate to change. There's no known forcing that fits the fingerprint of the evidence we see, except one, anthropogenic greenhouse gases.We know that humans are producing 30 billion tons of Co2 a year in the atmosphere [3]. Let's see evidence that follows from this.I will paste 6 evidences from “10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change” [2]1. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [4]2. 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 [5]3. 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". [6]4. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed [7]5. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed [8]. This also contradicts the hypothesis that the earth is warming because of solar activity.6. ....A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." [9] [10]The resolution is affirmed[1] From http://rationalwiki.org... all references for the premises are within that[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3] http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu...[4] http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[5] Ibid[6] http://www.nature.com...[7] http://www.knmi.nl...[8] http://www.math.nyu.edu...[9] http://ams.confex.com...[10] http://www.agu.org...

I also must admit that my opponent has put forth very valid arguments, some of which I greatly agree with. I hope that in the future -- when I am a more developed debater -- I may challenge him again. As for my correlation of CO2 to warming, I must stand strong with it. I am aware that it was not the largest factor, but this correlation rate will continue to drop as the ppm of Carbon Dioxide rises, as it is an inverse equality. This is not me conceding the fact that there is a correlation, but that as our world becomes more laden with CO2, each molecule will have less and less of an effect. 1. Global Warming is real and is a threatI do not believe in Global Warming, as it means to show that the whole planet is warming (which I do not believe), but I understand the general use of the term now, even in ways to describe climate change. I believe that there is a vast change in our climate, and will continue to be as such. Perhaps now our data is biased on both sides, pro- or con-climate change.2. Caused by humansI am well aware of the natural cycles of warming in Earth's geological history. Never before have we experienced such a sharp upward clime of Carbonppm without a natural calamity (such as eruptions, meteor collisions, etc. ). To refute Con's claims on the 2,000-3,000ppm pf Carbon 60mya, I will use the same data as in my round 3. I used data from 66mya, 60mya, and 58mya, just to make sure I had all my bases covered, in case of his 60mya figure being an estimate. My attempted refute on your round2 source 7 was based on the grounds that our methods of measuring have become more efficient and accurate, so the data could be deemed inaccurate today (only a speculation).3. Fixing the problemWe are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy. In conclusion I have done the best in my ability to refute the claims Con has made and stabilize my views and hopes for the future. I hope to one day challenge another debater to a similar topic when I am more experienced.

If it's "not a very good debate topic then why did you accept"? Anyway just to clarify, I am arguing that the earth does not need us humans to look after it. You are quite ignorant I can tell that by the way you said all the earth does is spin pfffftttt... The earth would get on quite fine if it wasn't for us humans, we pollute, we take, we use, we need, we want, we ruin, we spoil, we break, we try to fix... Argument 1) There would be no pollution if it wasn't for the human race.Therefore the earth would not need to recover from pollution and so on. Argument 2) The earth is perfectly capable of caring and looking after its self, you gave the example of a giant meteor hitting earth. So what? The only thing it would affect is us, not earth, the land in that articular area would grow around and over it, problem solve, no man needed. Argument 3) Erosion, pollution, destruction, all caused by us. Rivers would not erode and be polluted if it were't for our chemicals and heavy duty machinery. I rest my case...

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.

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

Terribly sorry for the forfeit. I will respond to Pro's arguments in Round Two.My voters should take into consideration that Pro's argument was incredibly difficult to understand, due to it's lack of grammar. I have, in fact, answered the question. I have never said that we created this universe. I said we invented the things on it. Your talk about computers is confusing, and not deterred to the subject point. We are talking about how we got all laws in this universe. Thus, your entire argument is invalid.Let's talk about the law of cause and effect. It is, ""Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause." (1) Without man, there would be NO law of cause and effect. "In accordance with this Law, every effect you see in your outside or physical world has a very specific cause which has its origin in your inner or mental world. This is the essence of though power. Every one of your thoughts, words or actions sets a specific effect in motion which will come to materialize over time." Man causes the effect. Man starts the cause. WIthout us, there would be no law, no anything. Scientists have figured out this law, and it was started by man. No god just spoke up, "Oh! And I'm oing to add a law of cause and effect in, let's see how long it takes for man to figure it out.Source:1. http://www.mind-your-reality.com...;

My opponent, again, mostly points to a link... I suppose I have to debate a blog. The website makes these claims1) CO2 causes warming through the greenhouse effect2) CO2 correlates with temperature3) Therefore, CO2 causes global warmingI will refute these in order1) CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect No one denies that CO2 has *some* effect on the climate. In fact, in a no feedback scenario, a doubling of CO2 causes 1.2 degrees C in warming. This means that, at most, CO2 has caused about half--about 40%--of the recent warming. That warming caused by CO2 would likely have beneficial impacts on earth, and would be no cause for alarm. Therefore, it should not be deemed 'significant'. The way alarmists construe global warming is that the heat caused by CO2 will cause a runaway greenhouse effect via positive feedbacks. This leads to estimates that a doubling of CO2 causes in excess of 3 degrees C of warming. This would make CO2 the main cause of global warming, and therefore 'significant'. However, there is no good reason to assume these feedbacks are positive. If they are negative, the effect of CO2 on climate would drop significantly--and reduce the alarmist argument to nothing. The reason alarmists see positive feedbacks is due to climate models--in fact, the entire theory of positive feedbacks is based on these estimates. They can only reproduce the warming from 1970 - 2000 if they include strong positive feedbacks. If they fail to add these in, they cannot reproduce these temperatures. Therefore, alarmists claim, feedbacks are positive. But this begs the question: are models reliable? Do they capture all the natural processes? The answer to these questions is an astounding no. In fact, if you properly include these processes, we see that CO2 is mainly trivial to climate change: other natural factors better explain the recent warming. Research has found that clouds, about 40% of them, contain rain or drizzle and this drastically affects the radiative properties of clouds. Models do not account for this phenomena. It is likely that once all of the other factors are included, the need for positive feedbacks would disappear. These models fail to account for many negative feedbacks, and the new emerging idea that the cloud feedback is negative, not positive. They dont include all the solar variables, they either don't have or misrepresent oceanic cycles, etc. The fact is, models--and therefore, positive feedback theory--is severely lacking [1. Our Climate, iOS app]. In fact, recent papers have come out proving that climate sensitivity is much lower than needed to demonstrate that CO2 is a significant driver in climate change. When the El Nino effect is properly accounted for, sensitivity falls significantly--from 2-3 degrees C as alarmists claim to 1.3 degrees C, a no feedback climate system [2. http://www.drroyspencer.com...]. Studies looking into the cloud feedback--arguably the most important positive feedback--has found that, contrary to what alarmists claim, the feedback is negative, and this makes the CO2 contribution to warming much lower than it was previously estimated [3. http://www.drroyspencer.com...]. The fact is, feedbacks are likely negative, not positive. This refutes my opponents entire contention that CO2 can even cause significant warming in a real climate system (labratory studies cannot account for feedbacks). 2) CO2 correlates with temperature Wait, what? If this is true, how to alarmists account for the 1970s cooling (I know how they explain it--I will refute it if she brings it up), the 1997 pause in temperatures, and the fact is has been cooling s ince 2001? In fact, over the last 500 million years, CO2 has no correlation with temperature. In fact, there have been periods of time where the CO2 parts per million exceed the thousands (it is around 400 today), and there was an ice age on earth. To me, that doesn't look like a good correlation [4. http://www.paulmacrae.com...]. Over the same 500 million years, galactic cosmic rays--a forcing as well as a proxy for solar changes--correlates perfectly with temperatures. GCR's explain a huge part of the warming over that time period. This means cosmic rays and other fluctuations in the suns power are much better correlated with temperature, not CO2 [5. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...]. 3) CO2 causes significant warming I am confident that, at this point in the research, this cannot be said with confidence. I conceded? No, I didn't. I actually disagreed with the 1/3 remark--arguing that, instead, the sun causes 60% of the recent warming. However, what I argued is that if this is true--that solar forcings do cause 1/3 of the warming--AGW is false. The models were not able to accuratley even give the sun 1/3, meaning they cannot account for basic TSI variables. If they cannot account for this basic phenomena, the entire theory goes up in flames. My opponent attempts to make the claim a consensus is against a solar forcing. Science isn't done by consensus. And in fact I have not seen a meta-study on solar forces. Therefore, to claim there is a consensus against solar influence, my opponent must prove this. In 2013 alone, 71 papers showed a strong solar effect. In a comprehensive list, there are hundreds of studies showing a strong solar impact [6. http://chrono.qub.ac.uk...].

Looking at the first five paragraphs... you essentially agree and repeat what I've said. You provide a link that doesn't work. (says "Service Unavailable) Nothing to respond to. #6 You claim that some scientists disagree on what affects the weather. That's not really an argument. You point out that some people are saving the world from CO2. I'm sure some do, however, if I recall correctly: - Americans on average produce 20 tonnes of CO2 per year - Europeans produce ~10 tonnes - Chinese 3 tonnes - Africans produce less than 1 tonne per year on average. We are producing far (far) more than we save. Next you declare that a 0.6 degree increase in temperature is "a subtle effect". This has been enough melt over half the Arctic's summer ice, and open up the Northwest Passage for the first time in history. If you consider that "subtle effect", I would hate to see a "moderate effect". #7 You quote me #8 You agree that Earth's climate changes in response to forces. Then you suggest that natural forces may act to reverse the trend, but you don't say what these could be. You tell us that the some people in the past have claimed we were suffering from global cooling. So what? I know a man who believes the world is flat. Lastly you claim "science IS skepticism". No, it isn't. #9 You quote me again #10 You claim that "nothing is really known at all". I really should ridicule you about this, however I think that is a detestable debating practice. Instead I will try again to make it clear to you: We know that some gasses heat when hit by infra-red radiation. We know (with great precision) how much they respond. We know these things just as surely as I know that if you drive off a cliff you will fall. Do you deny any of these things? We can accurately measure the proportion of greenhouse gasses there are. We can accurately measure the amount of radiation reaching the Earth's surface to heat these gasses. Thus we know the degree of temperature forcing. This is the force that you have admitted will change the climate. Because it's positive, we are experiencing Global Warming. The World is not homogenous. The land masses are uneven, the clouds, winds and ocean currents can make large local changes. Ocean currents can carry heat below the surface or bring it up. This changes the average global temperature (el Nino or la Nina). These deviations from average are of course temporary. On average, if more heat is held within our atmosphere, it must heat. It's as simple as that. This heating will mean less life and a worse world. If we don't want that, we must take action.


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

The concept of "Global Warming" has been described as a deception. A commendable response, sethgecko13. I appreciate your efforts. Consider this perspective: "It's the largest deception in history. I'm astonished, infuriated, and deeply offended by it. Global Warming; it's a deception. Some scientists, driven by environmental and political motives, manipulated long-term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of a similar environmental zeal joined the circle to support and expand the "research," furthering the completely skewed, bogus global warming claims. Their allies in government directed substantial research grants their way to perpetuate the movement. They soon claimed consensus. Environmental extremists, including influential politicians, then partnered with movie, media, and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this exaggerated "scientific" scenario of civilization-threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we conform to their radical agenda. Now their manipulated science has been accepted as fact and has become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers, and, in many cases, well-intentioned but easily misled environmental conscientious citizens. ...There is no runaway climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am infuriated by the excessive media attention, the politically correct nonsense, and the rude dismissal of counterarguments by the high priests of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous deception will be apparent. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding, and super storm patterns all fail to occur as predicted, everyone will come to realize we have been deceived. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and shifts in climate are as much, if not more, responsible for any climate changes underway. I firmly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend." --John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel Scientists lack evidence that CO2 emissions have any effect on the climate. If that were true, it wouldn't explain the cooling trend from the 40's-70's, despite rising CO2 emissions. The National Academy of Sciences report stated there is no definitive connection between human activity and "global warming." The notion that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities appears to be mere science fiction. A slight rise in temperature--whether natural or human-induced--is unlikely to cause a massive melting

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...

Con's case:Premise 1: Global Warming PotentialWhat few people realize about things like Green House Gas is that they are not all born equal. For example, Carbon Dioxide has a Global Warming Potential of 1. Global Warming Potential is the total effect a single amount of gas has on Global Warming. The list is has follows: (1)Carbon Dioxide -- 1Methane -- 21Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310CFC's -- VariousWater Vapor -- 0.25With this in mind, we move on.1) http://cdiac.ornl.gov...Argument I: The Effects of Man-Made Carbon Dioxide.Human's release approximately 35 gigatons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere each year (2). Only 4.3% of the 812 gigatons released total every year. Even at only 4.3% of total CO2 emmissions, our effect over it, is mild at most. Carbon Dioxide is very weak, as opposed to common census, having only a Global Warming Potential of 1.In total, Carbon Dioxide makes up a grand total of 3.618% of the total Gas House Effect (3). Water vapor makes up 95% of the total Greenhouse Effect. Carbon Dioxide's number increased from 295 ppm to 400 ppm, an increase of 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is worth 2.13 ppm (4), so an increase of 105 ppm would equal 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is worth 0.004% of total Greenhouse Effect, 49.29 gigatons is worth an additional 0.21% to the Greenhouse Effect, a total temperature increase of 0.15°F. That means we are responsible for 10% of total increased warming.Assuming human's did in fact raise the amount of CO2 by 105 ppm, the effect on the climate would be measly. Temperatures would raise only 0.28% since then. People gravely exaggerate to effect of CO2 on the climate. It is the second weakest Greenhouse Gas in the world behind Water Vapor. 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% 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.Many people would claim we've caused temperatures to raise enough to evaporate enough water to make up the difference. This would be entirely irrational. At an increase of 0.20°F, water wouldn't evaporate much more than it was prior. Thats less of a difference in tempature shift than what we'd see from one minute to the next. The argument assumes 0.20°F can heat up the ocean enough to make up such a wide difference. Such an increase from only 0.20°F would mean that the ocean would be boiling in the summer (temperatures of 90°F and up, an increase of 31.88°F from normal temperature). It's a weak and unsustainable excuse. Even at 1.53°F, it's not likely.2) http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...3) http://www.geocraft.com...4) http://cdiac.ornl.gov...Argument II: Argument From Nature:Is it entirely possible for nature to be responsible? Of course. Nature has seen worse times then now. CO2 ppm is at 400 right now, but in the Mesozoic period, long before man, it reached 2000-4000 ppm.(5) 7000 ppm in the Cambrian Period. This implies that people aren't needed for absolutely unbelievable increases in ppm. It's entirely possible for nature to do this on it's own. Another issue this brings up is that, at 7000 ppm, 6705 ppm larger than in 1900 (63.8% larger than the 105 ppm increase) the temperatures were 10ºc higher then than today. Proportionately, temperatures should have been 54.23ºc higher then than today. This empathizes high little of an impact CO2 has on the global temperature.So what in nature right now could be causing such in increase in temperature? A basic cycle.5) http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu...(GCA).pdfArgument III: The Global Warming Cycle:Global Warming activists love mentioning how temperatures are higher now than they were in Human History, forgetting how Human History is only 10,000 years old at most. In the chart above, we see that past warming periods. Take into account that the temperature of today is now above anything on that list, and then look at the past 400,000 years. According to the data, the World has been heating and cooling rapidly for 100's of thousands of years, back past a few million, even. It has been the world's cycle. CO2 ppm has been following along. Right now it's where it should be increasing. CO2 has been raising in recent history (15,000 years) and it's merely continuing to, with or without humans. Temperatures, as well, have been randomly going up and down in the past 15,000 years. Long before industrialization. Of course temperatures are up... We're in the warming cycle. We are actually in the coldest warming cycle in the past 400,000 years, the fact that it isn't warmer is amazing. To assume human's are responsible is more Post Hoc then anything else. Temperatures SHOULD be increasing right now. It's only natural.CO2 is so unimportant, that despite a rapid increase around the 9,000 year period, temperatures have decreased more than increased, and quite on it's own accord.Conclusion:Human's are responsible for very little of the Green House Effect. Our biggest contribution is CO2, which (and my opponent will probably stick to CO2 as his weapon) is very uninfluencial in the overall scheme of things. The increase in CO2 has been going on steadily since over 9,000 years ago. It's nothing new.There is nothing unique about this warming period other than how cold it is. Human's contribution to Global Warming is minuscule, and isn't a threat to human life. Global Warming might be a risk, at most, in time, while not likely... But Man-Made Global Warming is not.

& nbsp ;Greenhouse gases reflect heat radiation back towards the Earths surface. The sun produces short wave radiation[1]. It's not affected by the molecules of GG so it continues uninterrupted to our surface. When it hits the surface, some of the energy is absorbed and the rest is reflected back as infrared radiation. This frequency causes the molecules of some gasses & ; nbsp ; to vibrate which in turn redirects heat in all directions including towards other vibrating molecules. Therefore more heat is retained in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses. "Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground."I think you know what I mean by "natural " ;. Does a natural burning produce as much carbon as we do? If burning fossil fuels was naturally that doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean we should burn them. Forest fire happen naturally yet it & ; rsquo ;s not good if we constantly start them.& ldquo ;Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced.& rdquo ;I didn & ; rsquo ;t just repeat you, I said that today our global climate is more than the medieval warm period & ; rsquo ;s was. Some parts are warmer, but the global temperature is warmer. Miocene levels were due to the shape of the ocean basins at that time. Allowing warm temperatures to persist despite low levels of carbon dioxide[2]1.& rdquo ;. Pro " ;s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research?& rdquo ;There are some benefits, but do you have any paper proving this one wrong?& ldquo ;is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene " ;Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants & ; rdquo ;Yes, this is evidence from the past of major damage. As the link was suppose to show.& nbsp ;Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects. Plant defenses go down as CO2 levels go up [3]& nbsp ;2.& nbsp ; It & ; rsquo ;s a simple to say just increase water, nitrogen, fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements. As I said as CO2 increases run up against limited availability of other nutrients. We synthesize nitrogen using non-renewable fossil fuels, which increase CO2 causing us to synthesize more and more nitrogen for the plants. That & ; rsquo ;s not efficient at all. You mentioned the Haber process. Yes it's possible to convert renewable biomass so we can synthesize nitrogen. However the amount of land and even more resources (often including fertilizer) required to do this gets prohibitive.Even if CO2 increases plant growth, this doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean we should want or need more of it. We need to examine the other effects of increased CO2 . Just like if a doctor tells you to take 1 pill, that doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean 4 pills will be better for you.& ldquo ;Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat " ; to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this.& rdquo ; & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt [4] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps [5] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever [6] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen [7] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem[8] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier & ; nbsp ; [9] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems [10][11] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle [12] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increased moralities of sea urchins [13] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Threat to fish populations [14] & nbsp ;& nbsp ;& nbsp ; Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply [15][16] & nbsp ;& nbsp ;& nbsp ; Contribution to rising sea levels [17][18][19] & nbsp ;& ldquo ;Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides.& rdquo ;What do you mean?& ldquo ;Pro " ;s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed.& rdquo ;I demur. As no forcing has been shown that fits the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warmingThe resolution is affirmed Sources1 http :// www . nc-climate . ncsu . edu / edu / k12 /. LWSW 2 Jonathan P. LaRiviere , A. Christina Ravelo , Allison Crimmins , Petra S. Dekens , Heather L. Ford, Mitch Lyle, Michael W. Wara . Late Miocene decoupling of oceanic warmth and atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing. Nature, 2012; 486 (7401): 97 DOI : 10.1038/ nature11200 3 http :// www . sciencedaily .com/releases/2008/03/080324173612. htm 4 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /reprint/313/5789/940. pdf 5 http :// oem . bmj .com/content/64/12/827.short6 http :// www . decvar .org/documents/ epstein . pdf 7 http :// www . ncbi . nlm . nih .gov/ pmc /articles/ PMC1480488 /8 & ; nbsp ; http :// www . pnas .org/content/104/30/12395.abstract9 & ; nbsp ; http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/abstract/114666310 http :// www . ipsl . jussieu .fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/ Orr_OnlineNature04095 . pdf 11 http :// icesjms . oxfordjournals .org/ cgi /content/full/65/3/41412 http :// webarchive . nationalarchives .gov. uk /+/ http :// www .hm-treasury.gov. uk /media/ FC3 /81/ ExeterpaperProofsTurelyetal . pdf 13 http :// www . eur-oceans . eu / WP9 / Factsheets / FS7 /papers/ Miles%20et%20al% 202007. pdf 14 http :// www . pnas .org/content/107/29/1293015 http :// meteora . ucsd . edu /cap/ pdffiles / barnett_warmsnow . pdf 16 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/short/328/5984/138217 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/abstract/sci;321/5894/134018 http :// www . pnas .org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full. pdf + html 19 http :// www . skepticalscience .com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate. htm

1)--There is a Global warming trend, the Global in its whole is warming and has been so for decades. --You might not agree but the fact remains that melting ice causes cold water to flood into certain ocean currents which results in lower temperatures for some areas. --Carbon concentrations have increased by around 23% since 1960 meaning Carbon's greenhouse gass effect alone has increased by 23%. Other green house gasses have also contributed. 2) 3)--Actually the actual data show that the top 10 hottest years have occurred since 1998. You're source which is from anti-global warming people uses MY sources as sources, the only thing is that your sources lie about what my sources actually say. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov... http://data.giss.nasa.gov... ----Global cooling didn't actually occur it was a stagnation of earths warming trend for a decade or two. This was because sun activity was reaching a record low (in the 90's it was normal and currently it is low), and because humans were emitting chemicals that cause the earth to cool. These chemicals had very bad health effects and governments mandated a reduction in there remittance. 4)Ice levels being higher half a million years ago has nothing to do with ice levels retreating steadily for the past several decades. 5)The fact remands that a climate model made in 1975 accurately predicted temperatures changes. Current models which have 35 years more data and scientific research are much better. 6)My sources? The fact remands that greenhouse gasses heat the earth, lowering them would therefore cause the earth to cool. You even admitted it in your post. 7)Oxygen has nothing to do with the fact that my opponent was wrong when he said deforestation had nothing to do with climate change/global warming. 8)… 9)My opponent is making the mistake in that he thinks that because natural effects can change the climate that humans can't. Current warming trends are solely due to human activity. Science has already proved it regardless of the fact that people ignore it. 10) http://www.spc.noaa.gov... Number of tornadoes has increased by 30% due to global warming. Tornadoes are formed when hot air collides with cold air. Usually when the hot air is below the cold air, when the hot air rises and the cold air falls it causes tornadoes to form. http://www.boston.com... ^Since 1986 wildfires have increased by 400%, and acres burned has increased by 650%. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... ^Global Warming has increased the odds of heat waves by 6 times. http://www.earthend-newbeginning.com... ^In America winter storms severity and frequency has increased by 24% ^Climate change results in worse winter weather because warmer temperatures allow the air to hold more moisture meaning more snow; also the melting of ice in the north pole causes the ocean current to cool the north east. http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.sciencenews.org... ^Since warmer weather and a more Carbon filled atmosphere increase grasshopper mating grasshopper habitat and populations have expanded. This results in more destruction of crops from these insects. This is because grasshoppers bread faster and longer in warmer weather. http://www.sciencenews.org... 1^CO2 emissions killing off fish/water life due to CO2 making bodies of water more acidic. This is because CO2 + H2O ====> H2CO3 ^ http://thinkprogress.org... ^Carbon emissions are responsible for a 20% fall in oyster production http://www.bbc.co.uk... ^Global warming responsible for increase in mosquito habitat and populations which has increased malaria and other diseases killing people and increasing health care costs. This is because mosquitos thrive in warmer weather 11)Health effects of greenhouse gas emissions. http://scienceblog.com... ^Air pollution from cars, and factories linked to learning/memory problems and depression. http://www.bbc.co.uk... ^Rising CO2 levels responsible for increase in hay fever. Greenhouse gases cause increase in lung diseases http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencenews.org... http://uk.reuters.com... ^Air pollution such as exhaust from cars and coal plants increases diabetes. Mice that inhaled real world concentration were more likely to have cardiovascular disease and have diabetes symptoms. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Fine-particle pollution, or soot in the air increases obesity. Exposure to fine-particle air pollution early in life increases obesity rates even if you eat a normal healthy diet. Fine-particle air pollution also increases the chance of having unhealthy blood sugar levels. It does this by increasing inflammation of cells, which when inflammation occurs in fat cells in makes them retain more fat. ****air pollution (soot/fine-particle) increases obesity and diabetes http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Air pollution such as soot and smoke from power plants and automobiles can cause cardiovascular disease. Air pollutants such as soot and smoke below standards set by the EPA causes arteries to be 50% more blocked by plaque. Exposure to the air pollution also increased bad cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. *****Air pollution (soot/smoke from cars/power plants) increases cardiovascular disease by 50% http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Air pollution such as the pollution from cars, including greenhouse gasses increases the chance of having breast cancer. Women living in the most air polluted areas are twice as likely to develop breast cancer then women living in the least polluted areas. Pollutants include NO2. ****Air pollution (greenhouse gasses car exhaust) increases risk of breast cancer by 200% http://scienceblog.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... ^--Children exposed to above median levels of hydrocarbons (pollutants that are released into the air by the burning of fossil fuels) had lower IQ'es of 4.5 points. ****Children exposed to air pollution (hydrocarbons/fossil fuels) had a lower IQ, of 4.5 points. http://www.naturalnews.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Living near a freeway is associated with an increased risk of having children with autism. Children born from mothers living near freeways are twice as likely to have an autism disorder. Also exposure to mercury and other pollutants increase the risk of autism by 50% http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Mice exposed to vehicle pollution suffer brain damage. 12)Just to repeat research shows that the cost of energy such as oil and coal which causes lots of greenhouse gas emission when including environmental and health effects is TWO times large then the cost of solar and wind.

I would say global warming is a hoax, created by left wing liberals (redundant, I know), in order to control the masses. Have you noticed how the phrase, "global warming" is no longer used, since most of the U.S. is experiencing "record" cold weather? Now it's "climate change". How convenient...so every time the temperature changes, the liberals get to blame human activity, and use propaganda similar to what the communists use, in order to tax people and acquire wealth and power. You are ignorant (not an insult, just a brief way of saying you're uninformed), and have bought into the propaganda. You have 16-years on this planet, yet you're convinced that you know exactly what the weather is supposed to look like. By their very definition, "climates" change...it's what they do. Ever heard of the ice age(s)? The earth goes through both warming and cooling stages, and any person who believes that we humans are capable of affecting the climate is naive beyond measure (and a sucker). If you are such a person, give me a call, I have a bridge I want to sell you. Now that we've finished our opening arguments, please explain how global warming is killing people. We're all dying (no pun intended) to know how my SUV is responsible for deaths of other people.

"Globally, we have had about 100 years of warming." Are you kidding me? We've have global warming and cooling for thousands upon thousands of years. 30 thousand years ago the earth was covered in sheets of ice. http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com... "for significance, if it had dropped 1 degree C, this would be an ice-age." That's fine if researchers want to call a 1-degree change in temperature an ice age. If true, it only demonstrates that an "ice age" is easier to come by than expected. According to the graph in your own reference we almost reached an "ice age" in 1860 and again in 1910. So I guess it says quite a bit about significance of a 1-degree change-- no big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Up until 100 years ago, CO2 was 280ppm of air. We burnt forest, coal and oil in vast quantities. Air now contains CO2 is now over 385ppm." A lot of things (natural and man-made) have happened over the last 100 years to increase CO2 output. Scientists disagree not only on whether this affects weather, but on how much of the additional output is caused by man. We put out forest fires that would otherwise burn for months. We farm lands that would otherwise be barren. And if we are responsible for a 38% increase in CO2 output in a 100-year period, a .6 degree increase in temperature only shows how subtle the greenhouse effect actually is-- AND THAT IS ONLY IF WE CAN PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT CAUSED THE INCREASE. That fact that so many respected scientists oppose the green-house argument is proof that it is but a theory, and not a known fact. But you won't hear about these scientists unless you do your own research( http://www.speroforum.com... ). Otherwise, enjoy your media-imposed ignorance of opposing viewpoints. "As Issac Newton demonstrated, an object either sits still, or continues moving in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. The Earth's atmosphere also obeys the laws of physics." That's why, as your chart shows ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) the earth's climate has changed directions so many times in the past. Yes, change does require force. And natural forces have always been there to act upon earth's temperature. There is no reason to believe it won't happen again, naturally reversing the current trend. Do you know hat in the 1970s and 1980s scientist (and politicians) were trying to convince the public that we were well on our way to another ice age due to global cooling? They too said they saw no signs the trend would reverse itself. Skeptics in this case were also brushed off for not being part of the "consensus." For god sake, science IS skepticism. "It's sensible to act when one has knowledge of a threat. We have this knowledge. We know the trend. We know that greenhouse gasses are largely responsible. http://en.wikipedia.org...... We know of few negating factors and many (many) positive reinforcing factors e.g. the melting of the highly reflective Arctic and the thawing of tundra that will release yet more greenhouse gas." You use the word "know" quite a bit, yet nothing is really "known" at all. I thought we were in agreement on this and debating only on whether we should act upon unconfirmed suspicion (albeit backed by alluring arguments from just one side of the issue). About 72% of leading scientists are agnostic or atheist because their is no conclusive evidence of god's existence-- even though the ID crowd has come up with some pretty clever arguments. Since even the pro-global-warming scientist will tell you they cannot definitively prove their global warming theory, science-minded Americans should take a similar (agnostic) stance on global warming argument. By the way, how do you (and nobody else) "know" the global-warming crowd has it right?

Note: [x, y] indicates source y from round x. For instance, [1, 4] is aaas.org. "the affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of GW." My burden, as I stated in round 2, is only to prove that the human effect on GW is significant: important in effect or meaning. Something does not have to be the majority effect in order to be important. ======== "1)Actually 3* temperature increase is due to all green house gas emissions in total. From CO2 only it is a 0.095 degree increase, not even one degree." I don't know where this number came from; probably from my opponent's discreditable source. According to [3, 1], human CO2 accounts for about 3% to 8% of the greenhouse effect. The temperature increase directly from human CO2 is about 1 to 2 degrees, but the article claims that this is "not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitiv[i]ty" because it ignores the feedback effect. Though much more difficult to calculate, the feedback effect is a very prominent effect of human CO2 emissions. "2)(...)Because my opponent has the burden to prove that CO2 from humans is the largest contributor to global warming, and because CO2 is still only 3-4% compared to water vapor being 95%, my opponent still does not fulfill the burden." 1. I do not have that burden of proof. See above. 2. Water vapor is not 95%, but is actually more like 36-66% (66-85% with clouds). It is still the most important, but CO2 is also prominent, with 9% to 26% effect [2]. Since right now it's just my word against my opponent's, I will point out my source. This data is from a scientific paper by Ramanathan and Coakley. Ramanathan is a publishing scientist [3] (and I can't find a bio on Coakley). My opponent's data I presume is from that site which I hope I succeeded in discrediting. Not only is CO2 more prominent than my opponent claims, but its prominence is exaggerated by the feedback effect. When CO2 causes just a little bit of warming, this increases water vapor levels, increasing temperature further. While not the original cause, water vapor acts as an amplifier for the effect of CO2. ======== "The article is considering the amount of CO2 stored in the ocean which is more than the CO2 from humans." The article [2, 2] is considering CO2 in general. Only for part of the last paragraph does it discuss ocean CO2 in particular. Since we could argue about the article all day and I can't quote the whole thing, I recommend that the judges read it. ======== "No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming." That's what I meant. CO2 is 9 to 26% of global warming, before feedback. And CO2 increased by 30%, almost entirely due to human activities [4]. "2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule." 4.703% conflicts with my opponent's estimate "CO2 is still only 3-4%", since 4.703% is outside of that range. Additionally, my opponent's level of precision is incredible -- and I mean "incredible" by the word's original denotation. ======== "Yes, I agree human emissions are the cause of part of the CO2 increase, yet even if humans were 100% of the increase, because CO2 contribution to global warming is so small, it is still insignificant." -One could multiply 30% (CO2 increase) by 9 to 26% (effect of CO2 on GW), which gives 3 to 8%. Therefore, humans are contributing 3 to 8% to greenhouse gases (before feedback, remember), which is hardly insignificant. It is enough to have a serious effect on the climate. -Two words: Feedback effect. ======== "1)You have conceded to the fact that CO2 emissions are around 4%." -I misunderstood what was being measured. It is still worth noting that most CO2 emitted by nature is re-absorbed, but humans are emitting CO2 too fast for nature's sinks to absorb it. So even if nature emits more CO2 than humans, it is humans who are responsible for the increase in CO2. -(2) and (3) have been rebutted at least once already. ======== 1) I am using studies as evidence. If many scientists think something, it is more likely to be true. 2) There is disagreement in society about GW. There is consensus among scientists. ======== "They actually found a substantial amount of data." Please link this data. "since 2001, the air temperature did not rise at all while CO2 emissions were on the rise." -Seven years is too short-term to draw any real conclusions. -Temperature rose and fell many times [5]. ======== "4)" I don't see anything on the graph saying who it was made by. Though this graph may be from a peer reviewed source, we cannot know. We do, on the other hand, know that my data is from a peer-reviewed source. ======== "1)If you just say that you win because more scientists believe in my side is not debate. That is an opinion poll." This is a fair point. I do not suggest that I should win outright; I suggest that my side should be weighted more heavily, since it has the support of the scientific community. ======== "1) My opponent does not give counter evidence to my evidence that water vapor is the main cause of GW not humans." -CO2 is 9 to 26%, not 5%. -CO2 is a climate forcer, while water vapor is a result of feedback. "2) My first contention, that water vapor is 95% of GW, flows through as there is no counter evidence against it." I provided a counter-claim (water vapor with clouds is 66 to 85%); data is from a peer-reviewed paper [2]. "3) Therefore my opponent does not fulfill the burden." Significance does not imply majority. When a cause is insignificant, it does not mean that it contributes to less than half of the effect. It means that without it, the effect would not be noticeably different. "6) He has conceded that CO2 is around 4% of GW." No I have not. CO2 is 9 to 26% of GW. When I said that CO2 is around 4% of GW, I had gotten mixed up by the different factors inherent in GW. I admit that that was a false statement. ======== [1] http://www.edf.org... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu... [4] http://www.realclimate.org... [5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

Pros CasePoint A: Climate shift is realSub point 1: Scientific consensus"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U. S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century. " Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by HumanitySub point 1: Scientific Consensus"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. '"(3)"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible. "(5)"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "(6)Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity"The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. "(2)"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to:-Increased temperatures-Changing landscapes-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods-Endangered wildlife habitats-Rising sea levels-Greater damage from extreme storms-More heat-related illness and disease-Economic problems(4)Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. "(2)"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. "(8)With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). "(2)"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. "(2)As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. " (2)"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either. " (2)"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions. "(11)Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)Current Effects Future Effects SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources1. . http://www.sciencemag.org...2. . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...3. . http://www.nrdc.org...4. . http://www.mfpp.org...5. . http://www.edf.org...6. . http://climate.nasa.gov...7. . http://climate.nasa.gov...8. . http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...9. . http://www.usatoday.com...10. . http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...11. . http://climate.nasa.gov...

Now, back onto the debate.____________________________________________________________________________________Thank you, lannan13, for that impressive response. Unfortunately, he has broken the rules by refuting my graphs and data I had put out in round 2:"Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALS" I'm not sure if I should let it slide since this seems like my most fun debate, so that will be up to my opponent. I will first focus on rebuttals, then my contentions. Note that counter-rebuttals are now switched to this round as my opponent refuted my graphs in round 2, thus I must respond to these refutations or otherwise they will be seen as dropped.==Rebuttal 1: No Major/any Co2 increase==My opponent's graph is a graph of Co2 levels over the past 600 million years. In contrast, my graph is a graph on Co2 levels only throughout the past 650,000 years. My opponent's graph shows as time closes in on the present, the Co2 levels grow lower. However that is because we are looking at a much broader timeline and thus can't see all the needed details in the graph. Yes, we are at an all time low, but that doesn't mean Co2 levels aren't increasing [1]: I would like to point out that global warming doesn't mandate warming all throughout Earth's life. Global Warming happens anytime when Earth's temperature substantially increases, and that is what is happening. If Co2 levels are increasing, mainly due to human activity, and Earth's temperature rises at the same rate at the same time, then we already have good evidence man-made global warming exists.Also, it seems that my opponent uses a graph by Robert Berner. It is known that Berner's studies are very untrustworthy, especially this one. You can see in the following graph that his graph contains many errors [2]: "History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science,1997)... The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis..." [2]My opponent then goes on to state that man-made global warming (or even global warming on general) does not exist simply because our Earth has been much hotter before, and then asks, "may I ask how did we survive that?" However this is a fallacy because:1.) I had already stated that global warming does not mandate a warming all throughout Earth's life, and recently it has been increasing, even though if not by as much as older times. Also, under the circumstances, one degree is still quite substantial.2.) We could not survive in those times as the human race had not even come to being, let alone the dinosaur race. Plus, the animals and forms of life during those times were specially adapted to the hot climate. Also, this is irrelevant as we are only debating the existence of man-made global warming, not if we are going to survive it.3.) Because of the sun being dimmer than now, higher Co2 levels would be needed in order to keep the Earth at a bearable temperature, or else the Earth would literally freeze over. This contention is negated.==Rebuttal 2: The Earth is Actually Cooling==Again, I must remind my opponent that global warming does not mandate warming throughout Earth's life. As you can see at the end of the graph, the temperature slightly increases back, thus proving global warming's existence, and, with the previous information I had given, man-made global warming as well. Just because the Earth has been hotter before doesn't mean it isn't warming again.When my opponent puts up his graph on the cooling of early 2000, again this is misleading, and Easterbrook's predictions have gone wrong from the first 10 years of data collected on the graph. Yet my opponent claims the IPCC studies are incorrect, which is untrue. The evidence is here [3]: “Figure 5: Don Easterbrook's global temperature graphic presented during the 2010 Heartland conference.” Then, down lower on the cited website [3], it is said: “So while the IPCC TAR projection was too high by about 0.12°C for the reasons discussed above [on cited website], Easterbrook's projections were too low by 0.28°C and 0.58°C. Despite all of these non-greenhouse gas factors acting in the cooling direction over this timeframe, the IPCC projection was still much closer to reality than Easterbrook's.” [3] On my opponent’s next graph, he shows that each millennium the Earth cools down by 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) due to Earth’s motion away from the Sun. However, the study was conducted only for the last 2 millennia, when most of the millennia were basically Industrial Revolution and modern activity free. The IR started in 1790 [4]. At the end of the graph, the global temperature abruptly rises above the red line even before 2000, thus proving the existence of global warming, and man-made global warming. This is the same for my opponent’s next two graphs. My opponent’s last graph focuses on the contribution of the Greenhouse gases, and states that the contributions are very low. However that does not negate the existence of global warming or man-made global warming, it simply states that global warming is slow and weak. Thus, this contention is negated. ==Rebuttal 3: Arctic Ice and Sea levels== “First, I would like to state that Pro’s claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus.” Never in this debate did I ever claim that. This is a straw-man. In my opponent’s Arctic Ice graphs, he shows that since nothing has happened to the Arctic Ice Sheet, global warming, and thus man-made global warming, cannot exist. However, again this is a straw-man since he simply takes a single photo for each year (which only shows the ice on a specific date) and then compares them. It is literally subjective to choose the worst of something on an earlier date and compare it with the best of something on a later specific date. For example, you could say that Whitney Houston is bad because she had an off-day, which is completely untrue. Also, although I don’t believe in all Arctic Ice melting, it is melting slowly and gradually [5]: And here is a graph on gradually rising sea levels, contradicting my opponent’s [6]: Thus this contention is negated and proved once again man-made global warming exists. ==Rebuttal 4: The Weather== “My opponent is claiming that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false!” Again, never in the debate have I claimed that. What’s more, hurricanes aren’t actually linked to global warming in general [7]! “Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming “According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. […] Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way.” (Paul Bedard)” [7] The story is similar for tornadoes as well [8]: “Global warming may well end up making them more frequent or intense, as our intuition would tell us. But it might also actually suppress them—the science just isn't clear yet.” [8] Thus, either way, this contention doesn’t contradict anything about the existence of man-made global warming. ==Contention 3: Oceanic Acidification== A large portion of the Co2 emitted by the atmosphere is absorbed into the ocean. The more Co2 that is emitted into the atmosphere, the more is absorbed into the ocean, and thus the more acidified the ocean becomes [9]. This and warmer temperatures generally cause coral bleaching, which has happened more frequently recently due to its relatively narrow habitable temperature range [10]. Ocean acidification has increased by 30% since the Industrial Revolution [11]. This acidification can harm aquatic organisms, of which organisms that do not need oxygen take place and release greenhouse gases like methane, [12] thus proving that man-made global warming exists. ==Conclusion== I have refuted all my opponent’s arguments and have given out major information to support the existence of man-made global warming. Thus, the resolution stands affirmed. [1] http://co2now.org...[2] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...;[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[4] https://www.google.com.vn...;[5] http://www.forbes.com...[6] http://www.nasa.gov...[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...;[8] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[9] http://www.teachoceanscience.net...[10] http://www.marinebiology.org...;[11] http://climate.nasa.gov...;[12] https://www.brainpop.com...;

To save on space I will summerize my opponents arguments1. The sun is warming since other planets are warming.2. The sun via cosmic rays are causing global warming.3. Oceans are causing global warming.4. We’re going though a 1500-Year Cycle4a. The Medieval Warm Period5. Temperature of 1895-1946 vs 1957-20081. The sun is warming since other planets are warming.The sun isn’t warming at all, in fact it’s cooling. A study by Usoskin in 2005 debunks the claim that the Earth is warming due to a warming sun. He writes "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." [1]In fact, the sun has been contributing to some cooling in the past few decades. [2]Other studies have also debunked the claimA study by Erlykin says“We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." [3]"Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century." -Ammann [4]"The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."- Foukal [5]So what about the other planets? First off Con commits the fallacy of composition, his reasoning is “if 1 planet is warming naturally all planets are warming naturally”. You must agree other planets are very different from Earth.Mars: Observations show Mars is experiancing short term regional warming, but not long term global warming. [6]Pluto: MIT scientists explain “Pluto’s orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes.” [7]Jupiter: Global warming isn’t happening on Jupiter, it’s predicted. It's said to warm not because of the sun, but because “the loss of these atmospheric whirlpools, the average temperature on Jupiter will change by as much as 10 degrees Celsius, getting warmer near the equator and cooler at the poles," [8]Neptune: Neptune is warming. Its orbit is 164 years, our observations are less than a third of Neptune's year. The climate modeling of Neptune says Neptune is undergoing a seasonal change into summer. [9]This also would cause Triton's atmosphere to become thinner, causing warming. [10]2. The sun via cosmic rays are causing global warming.Looking at the data disproves this hypothesis. While cosmic rays are high the temperature is also high. Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis)From NOAA [11], The Neutron Monitor Database [12], and Skeptical Science [13]"between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase"- Krivova [14]"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."- Kulmalahttp://www.atmos-chem-phys.net...Correlations between low clouds and cosmic rays broke in 1991, then cloud cover began to lag cosmic rays by 6 months [15] ,even though cloud formation should happen within a few days [16]Svensmark said the loss of correlation was because of long term calibration drift in ISCCP satellites, but the ISCCP themselves disagreehttp://www.realclimate.org...Sloan and Wolfendale pointed out Chernobyl disaster should've produced increased cloud cover according to this hypothesis, but there was nonehttp://arxiv.org..."In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds,”This was based off a false understanding of the CERN paperSee the first video.http://www.youtube.com...3. Oceans are causing global warming.The oceans would cool when its heat goes to the atmosphere. Observations show oceans are warming [17]. The oceans are actually good evidence for the resolution."the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system." [18]4. 1500-Year CycleCon makes another category error here. There’s defiantly a 1500 year climate cycle. We know that from ice core data from Greenland -as Con cited-, but these events known as the “Dansgaard-Oeschger events” don’t increase the global temperature. It’s only a temperature shift or a see-saw temperature change in the 2 hemispheres. [19]Also see the second video.http://www.youtube.com...4a. The Medieval Warm PeriodCon cites the Medieval Warm Period to try and prove his claim about the 1500 year cycle. However there’s no evidence that shows the MWP was as warm globally as it is today.NOAA says“In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.” [20]and“The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.” [21]Here’s the differences 5. Temperature of 1895-1946 vs 1957-2008At the very end Con posts a chart of the temperature of 1895-1946 and 1957-2008. Both are very similar and seem to prove climate change is by nature. Based on data from Hadlet, GISS, NOAA, NCEP R1, NCEP TCR, ERA-40, and AMTI, Skeptical Science formed these 2 charts around those time periods. It’s close enough to see the claim is wrong [22]Back to ConSources in link below[1] http://tny.cz...