Question: Is Man's Activity the Main Cause of Global Climate Alteration?

Is Human Activity a Significant Factor in Global Warming/Climate Change?

To clarify, when I refer to human activity, I am specifically addressing its role in contributing to climate change, as supported by the evidence I've presented. One key aspect of this contribution is the increase in global temperatures. Humans release vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect on the planet. The EPA forecasts that, in the next century, global temperatures could rise by 2 degrees Celsius. While this might seem minimal, it has significant implications, such as the melting of ice caps, which could result in rising sea levels and the potential submergence of cities, as reported by National Geographic.

It's true that not all human activities directly cause global warming, and I acknowledged this in my evidence. However, NASA confirms that since the industrial revolution, human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 emissions by a third, with the burning of fossil fuels being the largest known contributor. My evidence goes further to show that humans are responsible for emitting more CO2 than any other species, and these levels are clearly detrimental. The consequences include water shortages, food shortages, and ocean acidification, all of which are well-documented.

Moreover, it should be noted that the term "detrimental" is widely understood, and if one is unable to recognize this, it speaks to a lack of competence. In this debate, I have provided substantial evidence supporting my case, whereas no counter-evidence has been presented. Consequently, the argument in favor of human activity being a significant factor in climate change stands unchallenged.

To be honest, I thought it would be a fun thing to debate someone on something controversial and funny. but I just can't bring my self to debate something that is intellectually dishonest and simply false. I withdraw my argument and forfeit. Thanks for the debate so far, I would of totally kept the debate going if it was something I could persist with and have a drive of showing that I was in fact correct. but there is simply no evidence suggesting anything other than man has caused an over abundance of natural gases that has resulted in a process we call climate change. if I continued this debate and got people on my side, I could not forgive my self for 'uneducating' people :P. it would be a disgrace to my growth in science and what I stand for. I will happily continue on another topic on a different debate though. it was good debating you, also, even if I was to make another come back, you have covered everything. the only thing to possibly do is suggest it does not exist. have a good day.

"You know what 1850 was? The end of the Little Ice Age. Its only natural that it is occurring." Temperatures after ice-ages will rise, but they do not normally rise by almost a degree in 150 years! It is an incredible rate of change (on a global scale) and points to something much more servere than 'only a little temperature rise'. "The poles are well below freezing, think -20 Celcius. 2/3 of a degree, not that significant. Also, Antartica has gotten on average colder. (GISS)" I've got no idea what GISS is, but i'm not sure there entirely accurate. The British Antarctic Survey has found the antarctic peninsula to be "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet". http://www.antarctica.ac.uk... "Climate change implies a significant shift in the way our climate works. There is no shift, as I have proven." The temperature is rising...this is the only way to begin a shift in the way the climate works. I will leave you to suppose that, hyperthetically, you had to imagine a world where climate change was happening... what would you look for? A sudden rise of temperatures? Yearly 'hottest year ever' awards? Polar ice caps beginning to melt? Hmm the reality isnt that far away is it.

1. Samples taken from Global Warming Exists DDO opinion page . http://www.debate.org...Prompt: "global warming exists" with the option of PRO or CON Voted Con (that global warming does not exist): 1) RoyLatham - "Global warming exists, but I assume the prompt means "Human-caused global warming crisis exists. ""2) Tes95 - " Not to the degree people believe. I believe the Earth simply has an unpredictable climate, with erratic and weird weather at times. "3) jzonda415 - "Humans don't cause the world to warm up, it's a natural cycle. This is idiotic Liberal conspiracies made to do nothing but create the EPA to target business. It is disgusting really. "4) BigSky - "Global Warming does indeed exist, it is highly over exaggerated by liberals who use it as a scare tactic. "5) Nur-Ab-Sal - "I assume this means anthropogenic global warming. "Voted Pro (that global warming exists):1) Andromeda Z - "There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest global warming exists. However, it is not entirely anthropogenic (though we do cause some of it). "2) imabench - "There is evidence it exists and that humans could be playing a part in causing it, but I do think that some people overly emphasized how fast it could occur and how deadly it could be. "The above quotes show a clear disconnect between the comments and the way people voted. RoyLatham said, "global warming exists" and still voted con to express his opinion that man-made global warming does not exist. This is a major problem because people are unable to express their opinion on the 'big issue,' that being if man-made global warming exists. Whether or not humanity contributes to global warming is the major issue, NOT if global warming exists. There really isn't much debate on if the Earth is warming or not, and there SURELY isn't any legitimate debate on whether or not the Earth goes through periods of warming. .. ever. .. and for any amount of time. For instance, every single person must admit that the Earth goes through temperature changes, so global warming exists without a doubt, and so does global cooling. Man-made global warming is the big issue because we are in the equation, and humans can change their course of action if we decide we are causing the Earth to warm. However, if the Earth is just going through a period of warming, it doesn't have any real ramifications that are under our control, and thus is not a big issue. The prompt that capitalizes the debate over global warming into a single sentence really is, "Man-made global warming exists and is significant, and the consequences are serious. " However, that prompt is too long, and the next best would be, "Man-made global warming exists".

"human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all." 3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3ï¿½ C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts. "1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified." No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect. And since humans are responsible for roughly a 30% increase in CO2 levels, it follows that humans are responsible for global warming. "Rather it states that the CO2 'might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms' " The article uses that as an explanation for why CO2 rises after an ice age, not as an alternative to AGW. The whole paragraph states "So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]" "CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%" It's more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase. "My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions." What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase. "1)...water vapor" Irrelevant, since I meant CO2. "Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming." Human contributions are around 30%. They are not miniscule unless we rely on [4] for our data, which we shouldn't for reasons I elaborate upon below. It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%. This is because over the past hundreds of millions of years, nature has become very good at re-absorbing any CO2 that it emits. Sure, the balance isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. This is evidenced by the continuity between 180 and 300 ppm over the last hundred thousand years. "He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true." My opponent is right in that that figure is incorrect. It's more like 80% for scientists at large, and 97% for publishing climatologists, according to a study done that included over 10,000 scientists [5]. Besides this study and the other study I referenced, I have named 31 scientific societies advocating AGW while my opponent has named only one (the JSER), and that one has under 2000 members (compared to AAAS with 120,000 members). It's even disputable whether that one is even a scientific society, since they present no original research [6]. It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies. "The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming." My opponent has not cited a source for this study. My source for this isn't particularly good, but I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever [6]. "Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through." The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source. "1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false." a. Scientists may have been wrong, but they were still more likely to be right than anyone else. At the time, the data pointed to certain laws of physics, and physicists supported those laws. b. I do not think that string theory has proven the laws of physics false. The same logic in my opponent's point can be applied, though, to the theory or relativity or to some other revolutionary theory. "2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming." While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies. "1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls." Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2]. "2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT." a. The Energy Department of Japan is much smaller than the majority of the societies on my list. b. MIT is not a scientific society, but a university. While still more credible than some, MIT is not as credible as a scientific society. c. I have not only provided a list of scientific societies, but I have provided two credible studies and their sources. While my opponent has provided a study, he has not quoted it or provided a link to it. "Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate." It's all right; I misread articles all the time. I withdraw my statement requesting to be given the conduct vote. [1] http://www.realclimate.org... [2] http://www.atmo.arizona.edu... [3] http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com... [4] http://www.geocraft.com... [5] http://tigger.uic.edu... [6] http://greenfyre.wordpress.com...

Since it looks like we're starting to throw around data, figures and historical graphs (all of the things that suck the life out of a good philosophical debate) let me just leave you with one link: http://www.speroforum.com... It is a list of the many respected scientist who disagree with much of the data you cite. You say CO2 (whatever its source) has increased a WHOPPING 37 PERCENT over the last 100 years. Since this last 100 years coincides with only a .6 degree celius temperature increase (well within the range of naturally occuring temperature changes), it could be easily argued that CO2 has a much more mild effect on temperature changes than claimed. And again, since this .6-degree change is well within historic levels, it could be argued that we do not even know if the increase in CO2 is reponsible. But let's get back on track. I am not hear to debate whether there is a good argument for global warming. There are very convincing arguments for and against it by many esteemed scientists. I am just submitting that a valid debate continues because neither side can (as of yet) conclusively prove its case. There is simply no definitive proof that humans make a significant contribution to global warming. There are only opposing viewpoints based on inconclusive evidence.

Let me sum it up for you: There is not a single place on this planet that has not been tarnished by the arrogance of our men. Do you want to know why the arrogance of man is taking over this world? It's because man is taking women for granted - destroying both, the human female and the nature of female by killing trees, plants and flora for more man-like traits (e.g business). If this world ever wants to find balance again, the males will have to understand the cosmic relationship between the Animus and the Anima. The stars explode as they ought; the black holes create as they ought. The volcano spreads inner-seed to the surface, as the male's genitalia spreads inner-seed to the surface - what is released is then taken in by the soil or the female's genitalia, to create life. As long as males continue to suppress human female and the nature of female, this world will always remain violent and destructive because Males are Analytic - Females are Eccentric. As long as the emotion of nature does not control the machine of nature, we will all be crushed by the emotionless heart of reaction and emotionless creed.

Yes, I have said "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that"and the CO2 emission is nowhere the same now as they were back in 1945. However, what I was trying to prove was that even though there was a huge increase in the CO2 emission in 1945, the climate didn't increase which suggests to me that greenhouse effect might not be the case which proves global warming. I wouldn't call global warming the cause of the melting of the glaciers. I would use the term climate change. And yes you are right, that is not the only explanation.I have given you evidences in the next paragraph about the Inconvenient Truth and ClimateGate. In this argument, you have failed to give me another reason why you believe that global warming exists. In the next argument you make, please do include why you think global warming exists rather than just pointing out the mistakes I have made.

Yes, we know we are flawed. This flaw is a s a result of sin and the human race has taken steps to rectify the situation. The unstable and dangerous ones among us are a direct result of your activities on the earth.Mind control through television programing , video games ,music with hidden meanings that our brain recognizes , gmo foods , pesticides in our food sources ,fluoride in our water sources ,chemtrails in the air the list goes on and on. We are not inferior. We are superior. We were made in the image of God,the universal sovereign. We are powerful. Humans are on the earth for a reason and we will fight to remain here. Our ancestors didn't just survive they thrived. We will fight for what is ours. We won't transition. The earth is our home. God created this earth and placed humans on it. We are here to stay forever and ever. Your plans will ultimately fail. Nothing can interfere with God's purpose for the human race. This battle belongs to God and He will fight for the human race.

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

http://www.youtube.com...I hate it when links are broken...http://www.skepticalscience.com...If this doesn't work, click on the original link and take off the extra space at the end of the link in the URL bar. I actually quoted the wrong part of this website by mistake. I was meant to quote "It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity."Also, apologies for writing Carbon Dioxide as Co2 (Cobalt2, as my adversary points out). It's just the way I grew up writing it.Moving on...____________________________________________________________________________________==Counter 1: Co2 and its effects=="Now remind yourself that Pro said in Round 2 that CO2 is responsable for LARGE amount of Global Warming." - OpponentI'm not sure where I said this. I ask my adversary to quote from me.In fact, my opponent's entire rebuttal for this argument is misleading. It is subjective to use only Co2 as a base for a rebuttal against the resolution. If we were to count all the other causes of the greenhouse effect, then it is very possible to conclude that this can heat Earth by more than just 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. My opponent even concedes that there is a warming caused by anthropogenic emissions, but then states that it is very low. That isn't what his BoP wants. To fulfill it, he must disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming."Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature." - OpponentNot only have Co2 levels increased, but there are steep increases in other greenhouse gases as well [1]: Be reminded that there is already a correlation between Earth's temperature and Co2 levels, and that the rates of circular cooling and warming, and increase/decrease of Co2 levels have stopped and started to rise severely [2]: We cannot use my opponent's graph which suggests the contrary to the temperatures above, as it only uses data from Georgia [3], a state in the United States of America [4]. There is literally a direct contradiction between my adversary's chart (from 1990, Georgia) and mine (1880, worldwide).Atmospheric concentrations of Co2 and anthropogenic emissions of Co2 have a correlation as well [5]: My opponent then goes on to review a graph on the logarithmic effects of increased carbon dioxide levels. Even if this is true, by my opponent's logic there is still a warming effect. It just gets smaller, but not negative. We can't say that the warming effect is slower to disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming, because that is fallacious and invalid, and ends up failing to fulfill the real BoP here.==Counter 2: The earth is actually cooling==People and websites have actually shown the hot-spot absence to be fake. According to Skeptical Science, the absence of the hot-spot could be due to the errors in the processing of data [6]:"Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors." - Skeptical Science [6]"Allen and Sherwood sought to side step the problems associated with the radiosonde data entirely, and examined the “dynamical relationship known as the thermal-wind equation, which relates horizontal temperature gradients to wind shear”. Thermal wind speed data, in contrast to the temperature data, lacked many of the systematic adjustment issues and other errors, and were used as a proxy for temperature. Allen and Sherwood found that the troposphere appeared to be warming in reasonable agreement to theoretical and modeling expectations." - Skeptical Science [6] The IPCC projections are actually considered to be quite accurate, in comparison to both of Easterbrook's projections [7] (animation of both comparisons, then together): "All of the IPCC projections have proven to be quite accurate, suggesting high reliability. The contrarian projections all underestimate the global warming substantially, and in fact they erroneously predict global cooling and are quite unreliable." - Skeptical Science [7]==Counter 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels==Note that the rise and fall of the data represents sea level CHANGE RATES, not the sea level itself. The majority of the data is above zero, meaning that on average the sea level, even if minimally, is rising.In fact, the sea level rise is actually accelerating quite quickly [8]: "A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century." - Skeptical Science [8]"The trend shows only a mere +/- 0.30 mm per year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate." [6] We can see that 2.8 inches per 50 years isn't that much of an appocolyptic threat." - OpponentThis is irrelevant. We are debating whether anthropogenic global warming exists, not if it is dangerous or not. The existence of something does not mandate an argument of how safe it is.My opponent actually concedes that there is a rise, but again tries to save his stance on the argument by saying that it is minimal, which again isn't the point. By my opponent's logic, if man-made global warming exists, sea levels should not rise at all, to which he has conceded the contrary. Thus my opponent concedes this entire point.Also, although Arctic sea ice extent does follow a pattern, it is still gradually decreasing [9]: Although I will concede the Antarctic ice is expanding, the arctic is losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic is gaining ice [10][11]."Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)." - NASA [10]==Counter 4: Hurricanes and Tornadoes==I had already proven that tornadoes are not linked to global warming whatsoever, so this argument has been debunked. The hurricane argument has been re-responded to.To reinforce the fact that hurricanes are getting more intense however, here is a graph showing the increase of more intense hurricanes over time [12]: "Higher surface temperatures of the world's oceans could be responsible for the big rise in the strength of hurricanes, say US scientists." - Physicsworld.com [12]==Counter 5: Ocean Acidification==Although it is correct that ocean acidification is not yet at a critical level, it is acidifying very rapidly. It is predicted that by 2100 the ocean will have a pH as low as 7.8 [13]: "Currently, there are no known natural explanations for the observed decline in GLOBAL AVERAGE ocean pH, and, there is one, clear human-caused explanation (note the global bit is important - there is natural local variation in pH but we are concerned with global shifts)." - Switchboard [13]Since the ocean is acidifying, the organisms in the ocean will slowly die out, for anaerobic organisms to replace them and emit gases such as methane, as shown in the last round.==Conclusion==I have effectively refuted all my opponent's claims and have shown how my opponent has essentially conceded. Thus the resolution is affirmed.[1] http://www.natsoc.org.au...[2] http://www.ukccsc.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...[5] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...[6] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[8] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[9] http://www.carbonbrief.org...[10] http://www.nasa.gov...[11/video] [12] http://physicsworld.com...[13] http://switchboard.nrdc.org...


Question: Is mankind's impact the main driver of alterations in the global climate?

Is Human Activity a Major Contributor to Global Climate Change?

Throughout history, human activities have consistently led to the destruction of natural habitats and ecosystems, contributing significantly to the current global climate change crisis. The extinction of numerous species, the rise in sea levels, and the depletion of water bodies like rivers and lakes can all be attributed to human actions. Therefore, I firmly believe that human activity is a primary factor in the acceleration of global warming and climate change.

1. Human Actions Intensify Climate Change via Increased CO2 Emissions

According to NASA, the increase in CO2 emissions, primarily due to human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels, has significantly contributed to global climate change. Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have raised atmospheric CO2 levels by one-third. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes account for 65% of global greenhouse gases. The electricity and heat production sector is responsible for 25% of CO2 emissions. This data highlights the substantial role of CO2 in pollution.

Moreover, the EPA forecasts that climate change will exacerbate water demand while reducing water supply. Water is crucial for human health, manufacturing, energy production, and food cultivation. Climate change is anticipated to increase rainfall, leading to more sediment and pollutants in drinking water. Additionally, rising sea levels will cause saltwater intrusion into freshwater systems, necessitating more desalination and water treatment processes.

In summary, human activities, particularly those leading to increased CO2 emissions, are a major cause of global climate change. The consequences of these actions are far-reaching, affecting water supply, increasing pollution, and impacting human health and the environment.

& 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

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

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

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. I'm not saying that humans are the cause of this but what I'm saying is that it is happening.

Globally, we have had about 100 years of warming. The global temperature has increased over 0.6 degrees C in this time. (for significance, if it had dropped 1 degree C, this would be an ice-age.) There is a clear and obvious trend. http://en.wikipedia.org... Why is the world warming? The cause is almost certainly the greenhouse gasses, e.g. CO2, NO2 and CH4. CO2 was shown to be a greenhouse gas by John Tyndall in 1859. It's a very easy experiment. Shine heat into a volume of gas, see if it heats. 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. http://en.wikipedia.org... We should not be surprised. We are essentially living in a bottle. Things happen for a reason. 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. It changed in the past as grasses appeared and coal and oil were laid down, and it is responding to forces today. Our forces. (e.g. humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes http://en.wikipedia.org...) Warming is a bad thing. Life adapts to change, but the hot deserts of the world are never as productive as their wetter counterparts. Warmer oceans are far less productive. The World is less productive. Clearly, we don't want starvation that must result. Few of us are happy with being even slightly poorer. 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. This planet is our life-support-system. There is nothing more important to life as a whole. That's why we should take action against Global Warming.

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

1. Samples taken from Global Warming Exists DDO opinion page . http://www.debate.org...Prompt: "global warming exists" with the option of PRO or CON Voted Con (that global warming does not exist): 1) RoyLatham - "Global warming exists, but I assume the prompt means "Human-caused global warming crisis exists. ""2) Tes95 - " Not to the degree people believe. I believe the Earth simply has an unpredictable climate, with erratic and weird weather at times. "3) jzonda415 - "Humans don't cause the world to warm up, it's a natural cycle. This is idiotic Liberal conspiracies made to do nothing but create the EPA to target business. It is disgusting really. "4) BigSky - "Global Warming does indeed exist, it is highly over exaggerated by liberals who use it as a scare tactic. "5) Nur-Ab-Sal - "I assume this means anthropogenic global warming. "Voted Pro (that global warming exists):1) Andromeda Z - "There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest global warming exists. However, it is not entirely anthropogenic (though we do cause some of it). "2) imabench - "There is evidence it exists and that humans could be playing a part in causing it, but I do think that some people overly emphasized how fast it could occur and how deadly it could be. "The above quotes show a clear disconnect between the comments and the way people voted. RoyLatham said, "global warming exists" and still voted con to express his opinion that man-made global warming does not exist. This is a major problem because people are unable to express their opinion on the 'big issue,' that being if man-made global warming exists. Whether or not humanity contributes to global warming is the major issue, NOT if global warming exists. There really isn't much debate on if the Earth is warming or not, and there SURELY isn't any legitimate debate on whether or not the Earth goes through periods of warming. .. ever. .. and for any amount of time. For instance, every single person must admit that the Earth goes through temperature changes, so global warming exists without a doubt, and so does global cooling. Man-made global warming is the big issue because we are in the equation, and humans can change their course of action if we decide we are causing the Earth to warm. However, if the Earth is just going through a period of warming, it doesn't have any real ramifications that are under our control, and thus is not a big issue. The prompt that capitalizes the debate over global warming into a single sentence really is, "Man-made global warming exists and is significant, and the consequences are serious. " However, that prompt is too long, and the next best would be, "Man-made global warming exists".

http://www.youtube.com...;Thank you, lannan13. Please note that the first few arguments are identical to that of my last global warming debate as my opponent could not finish the last one and has decided to redo this.==Contention 1: The correlation between increase in Carbon Dioxide and global temperature==Throughout the last 650,000 years, there have been seven cycles of glacial advances and retreats, where the carbon dioxide levels abruptly increased, then gradually decreased afterward. However, in 1950, Co2 levels were at a critical level and kept on rising. As of 2014, the global Co2 levels were at an all time high of nearly 400 parts per million [1]: As we can see above, in the last 650,000 years, the Co2 levels have never grown above 300 ppm, as opposed to now, where the Co2 levels are at 400 ppm. Obviously, this abrupt growth in Co2 levels are caused by human activity, such as mass production, the use of electricity, polluting, etc.I have provide a youtube video above to show the correlation between the high Co2 levels and global temperature [2]. When both are compared, this becomes irrefutable evidence that man-made global warming exists.In fact, as of 2013, the average global temperature was 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than when the year was 1880, and 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline [3][4][5]: Already, on the first contention, we have seen major evidence affirming the resolution.==Contention 2: The cause and effect of the Greenhouse Effect and what makes it more powerful==The greenhouse effect on Planet Earth has been occurring for almost its whole life and is a natural phenomenon, since greenhouse gases such as Co2 have existed on Earth from its birth, thus heating the Earth to help sustain forms of life [6]:"To its credit, the greenhouse effect has been around long before humans began to burn fossil fuels, and it is a natural phenomenon in that makes life habitable for all living things." [6]The greenhouse effect operates when the sun's heat passes through Earth's atmosphere, heats the Earth's surface and is reflected back upward. Most of this heat is absorbed by the greenhouse gases like water vapor, Co2 and methane. Afterward, the heat is re-emited in all directions, thus starting the cycle again, continuously heating the Earth. Greenhouse gases literally act like a thermal blanket for Earth [7]: "A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius)." [7]From this information, we can conclude that the more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere, the more heat from the sun is absorbed, thus creating a powerful greenhouse effect. Human actvity is causing this to happen.P1) The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more powerful the greenhouse effectP2) Human activity is emitting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphereC) Human activity is the cause of a more powerful greenhouse effect, and thus man-made global warming exists.To further prove this point, let us inspect Earth's neighboring planets, Mars and Venus.Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, and it's nearly completely made up of Co2. However, it is because of the low atmospheric pressure and lack of other greenhouse gases that the greenhouse effect is not at all strong and thus Mars has a frozen surface without any signs of organisms [7]."Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life." [7]Now, let us inspect Venus.Despite Venus' atmosphere also being almost entirely carbon dioxide, the amount of Co2 Venus contains is about 300 times as much as Mars' or Earth's. This creates a HUGELY powerful greenhouse effect, causing a temperature so high that lead could not stay solid. [7]"Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 300 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth and Mars do, producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead." [7]Again this information is major evidence of the existence of man-made global warming.==Conclusion==I have put forward major evidence and arguments proving the existence of man-made global warming. I have also put out evidence that the greenhouse effect does indeed exist.Thus, the resolution is affirmed.[1] http://climate.nasa.gov......;[2] https://www.youtube.com......;[3] http://climate.nasa.gov......;[4] http://climate.nasa.gov......;[5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov......;[6] http://earthguide.ucsd.edu......;[7] http://climate.nasa.gov......;

Well, if you were to look at the atomic mass of a cat, oh which over the last many year, has never changed. If we were to let say look at carbon dating, if global warming was real, it would have had to of changed at lest .000879, of which it has not. We can also look at other signs lets say Mormon Jesus, in my opinion the worst god, but that doesn't matter, if we were to look to the bible for light we would find that it states, "Thee earth shall not change, no matter how much humans dare try to change the world". Now this hard core evidence doesn't just do me in but many like me such as cat lovers all over the world, and crazy old folk who think global warming is real. Now you see I am Pro global warming and can't think of anything to go against it, you win great one. Sources sited: 4chan.org http://www.reddit.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://cats.wikia.com... Global warming is an issue on which humankind has come to unanimous agreement with unprecedented speed. The Earth is warming, or else it's cooling, or else it's not doing either very fast. If left unchecked, this will lead to the destruction of civilization, probably, in a Biblical flood that will happen around 1995. Humans' prosperity and rich diets, breaking faith with Nature, and anything else you may feel guilty about, are the cause. Unless it's sunspots. And all of the above is brought to you by one or more of the following: Barack Obama, who was not content taking over GM and now wants your backyard Hibachi. Communists, One-Worlders, and left-wing pot-heads. US right-wingers, talking up a threatening leftie crusade to help them raise money for a comeback in 2012. Greedy businessmen who need a gimmick to sell you light bulbs that spatter mercury all over the nursery when they break. In short, humankind is at loggerheads over both the facts, the culprits, and the proper course of action, with no resolution in sight, as on every other issue of the day. So things are pretty normal on the planet. Ps: Gata love wiki <3

con cites an obscrure study about retrotranssposons as if that study says we are evolving. id challenge con to say what that study means, and explain it better. it just looks like there might be minor genetic deviances still occurring, which i never contested. con says humans have developed lactose digestion abitilty. that may be, but i wouldn't call it sigificant. we might have to just agree to disagree a bout what is significant. but we dont see anatomical changes or any other "really" major change. plus, the lactose change probably happened well in the past. nowadays the inability to ingest lactose won't cause you to die and your relatives to evolve, as it happened back then. so my resolution is still true, that it "has" stopped as of teh present time. con presents his moon hypothetical. notice though, i didn't say evvolution has stopped, or will never occur again. i said it has effectively stopped. we do not see anything like outer space colonies occurring anytime soon so my resolution stands. plus even if they did have one on the moon or even mars, there would be new people joining the colony and adding regugular old human genes to the mix. it wouldn't really be that isolated, preventing significant evolution.