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

The concept of man-made global warming is unfounded.
I'll start by presenting data and expert opinions that clearly demonstrate global warming has happened, then I'll argue that this is mostly due to human actions, technology, and other factors. Next, I'll present expert quotes and sources that specifically state that current levels of global warming could not have been caused by natural phenomena. Lastly, I'll address potential counterarguments. The burden of proof is on those who claim that human-induced global warming is not real, as they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that none of the observed warming is due to human activities.
Evidence of Global Warming:
- "Scientific evidence for global warming is undeniable." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
- Since the late 19th century, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius), mainly due to increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming has occurred in the last 35 years, with the five warmest years on record occurring since 2010.
- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost mass. According to NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, Greenland lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of ice mass loss in Antarctica has tripled in the last decade.
- Glaciers around the world, including those in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska, and Africa, are retreating.
- Over the past five decades, satellite observations have shown a decline in spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and earlier snowmelt.
- Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century, and the rate in the last two decades is nearly double that of the last century.
- In the United States, the number of record high temperature events has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing since 1950.
- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost mass. According to NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, Greenland lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of ice mass loss in Antarctica has tripled in

1. MauriceYou still haven't proved that he's a criminal, and all I have is that he slapped his name on a few things. Not the first instigator, not by a long shot. And even if he was a criminal, it doesn't disprove the science. Isaac Newton had people killed(he was in charge of killing counterfeiters), should we discredit all of his findings? This is nothing but an ad hominem.2. Mauna Loa This point, apart from being extremely childish, is basically appeal to the stone. Also, see: . https://skepticalscience.com...;3. Sea levels. This is appeal to authority to the max, and you didn't even back up the authority that you gave him. And you still have clearly not even clicked on my sources. (#4 doesn't exist for some reason)5. Appeal to authority. Jesus christ, I shouldn't have to link this to explain, but here you go: . https://en.wikipedia.org...;Nota bene: when your argument begins with "Drrrrr? ?? ?" and ends with "lol," you should probably rethink it. Aaaand then it's topped off with a juicy false equivalency. NOAA and IPCC are groups, do have peer review, and use the scientific process. Individuals are not subject to this. CONCLUSIONI strongly urge a vote for affirmative(pro), as my opponent has not provided any real evidence, nor countered my own points, his arguments devolving into personal attacks, proof by assertion, and childish rhetoric.

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

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

C1: The World is in a Current cooling phaseSome evidence for this is the ice caps are actually growing and not shrinking, this implies that the earth is cooling. [1] Some people put it as the earths fever is gone. [2] The earth has been cooling for a long period of time some estimates say. [3]C2: Overall trendshttp://www.debate.org...(this old computer wont post graphs)According to this trend there has been no significant global warming.http://www.debate.org...these US trends show a flat line trend, major ups then downs but overall there is little change.http://www.debate.org...These trends (comparison of 18th and 20th century tempertures) are actually not very different, hence little change.http://www.debate.org...These stats from iceland show very little change, mabe only a very slight increase. http://www.debate.org...These stats too show very modest warming.There is a strong correletion with sun activity and warming, and the sun is actually becomming less active, causing a doubt in the warming claims. [4]http://www.debate.org...This too shows very little warming...http://www.debate.org...summer: Flat lineSpring: flat lineFall: Very slight riseWinter: very small riseAnnual: Flat lineEngland recently had one of its coldest winters. [5] [6]Vote CON there has been little global warming.[1] http://www.odu.edu...[2] http://epw.senate.gov...[3] http://www.cbc.ca...[4] http://a-sceptical-mind.com...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

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

The instigator has set the rules of the debate. I thank him for that. Please allow me to recapitulate. "Pro may use their first round, but not round 5. Pro has BoP. Pro has to prove the topic right. I will argue (as con) that global warming does not exist." The topic is "Global Warming Exists." Since this, so formulated, is totally open-ended I will state some definitions. It is open-ended because "Global warming" is left undefined. Left the way it is, I only need show that the Earth has had a hotter year than a previous year to show that "global warming exists." Thus the debate would end here. I do not believe that was the intention of the instigator even if he framed the debate this way. However, since the term "Anthropogenic" is not included, I will not include it here. I only need show that "Global Warming" (see below) exists now, and NOT that is a consequence of making's action under the rules of this debate. I would like to address one issue up front, this is the issue of intellectual authority. Authority au"thor"i"ty [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] noun, plural au"thor"i"ties. [1-4] redacted 5.an accepted source of information, advice, etc. We will reference the definition (5) here. "An accepted source of information" In the 21st Century, it is recognized that science and technology have reached a stage where educational specialization is necessary for technical disciplines. No longer can just anyone hang up a shingle and practice medicine. Now, a degree from an accredited university is necessary. In addition, we recognize that people with medical degrees, have an intellectual authority in the field of medicine. This means specifically, their opinion in the matters of medicine carry more weight than the opinions of those who have not obtained the same degree. Climate Science is also such field. The conclusion here is that people with advanced degrees in Climate Sciences have more authority in when discussing "Global Warming" than does the non-climate scientist. "Climate change skeptics regularly denounce me as a disgrace to journalism for declining to accept their dogma, which is mostly received wisdom from sources that I'd trust to evaluate the published science about as much as I'd trust a plumber to perform open heart surgery. Nothing against plumbers, mind you. They're just not heart surgeons. And the economists, statisticians and agenda-driven politicians routinely cited by the skeptics aren't glaciologists, botanists, biologists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists or computer modelling specialists." -James Hoggan For a working definition of "Global Warming," I suggest we use "Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system." Climate VS Weather The discussion here is about climate vs weather. I have included a video to show the difference. Since It is hard to add to the arguments in this video, I'll allow it to stand on its own. This debate is about CLIMATE not Weather. Global Warming Introduction We are in the midst of a warning trend. Various fluctuations happen, in climate, over time, However, the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years (see) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5 " B.D. Santer et.al., "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46 Gabriele C. Hegerl, "Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method," Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306 V. Ramaswamy et.al., "Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling," Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141 B.D. Santer et.al., "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes," Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483. Physical realities 1 Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades - NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2 Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade is nearly double that of the last century. - Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602 3 The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.-Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955"2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009). 4 Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.- L. Polyak, et.al., "History of Sea Ice in the Arctic," in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7 - R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, "Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008," Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009 - http://nsidc.org... 5 Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world " including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. -National Snow and Ice Data Center - World Glacier Monitoring Service 6 Temperature data from 4 separate international science institutions show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. -http://climate.nasa.gov... Subjective Realities - English speaking Nations James Powell searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 12 November 2012 that had the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology http://www.jamespowell.org... By Mr. Powell's definition 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject human-caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors (rounded to 33,700 in the figure). The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000. What we MINIMALLY see here is there were 13,950 and 580 out of every 581 peer-reviewed scientific articles were about AGW or AGW effects, mitigation, adaptation, methods of detecting, climate modeling, and paleoclimatology. Since AGW is dependent of "Global Warming" a priori, we deduce those papers endorse the idea of global warming. Here is Mr. Powell"s interpretation of his study: "When a new scientific theory is first proposed, scientists often go out of their way to state explicitly that they reject it, or that they accept it. This was the case with continental drift in the 1920s, with plate tectonics in the 1960s, and with the Alvarez theory of dinosaur extinction in the 1980s. One reading the literature in these fields can usually tell from the title of an article alone whether an author rejects the new theory. But after a theory achieves maturity and becomes the ruling paradigm, scientists no longer see any point in stating explicitly that they accept the now-no-longer-new theory. They take it as a given, often as an observational fact"like the measured movement of tectonic plates and the measured global temperature rise. To explicitly endorse the ruling theory would have the counter-effect of suggesting that the theory is in doubt. It is obvious that global warming has achieved the status of the ruling paradigm of climate science. Thus it is reasonable to assume that publishing scientists who today reject human-caused global warming would make it clear that they do so, while publishing scientists who accept the theory would not feel the need to say so explicitly. As a practical matter, virtually all of the global warming papers that Oreskes and I separately reviewed can be classified as about effects, mitigation, adaptation, methods of detecting, climate modeling, and paleoclimatology. Authors of these papers would hardly be likely to deny the existence of the very thing they are writing about. It is theoretically possible that a paper on paleoclimatology could be the exception, dealing with the lack of evidence for CO2-driven global warming in the geologic past, say, leading the author to question the seriousness of modern, human-caused global warming. I did not find such papers. What we know for a fact is that among the authors of peer-reviewed articles, only a tiny fraction, which I estimate as about 1 author in 1,000, rejects human-caused global warming. In my opinion, based on my understanding of the history of science, it is reasonable to conclude that nearly all publishing climate scientists accept that human activities are causing the Earth to warm. Polls of scientists reinforce this conclusion, but polls are no substitute for the primary, peer-reviewed literature, the ground truth of science." http://www.jamespowell.org... The International Community (All of the world is NOT the United States) Science and global warming affects all of us. Global Warming is not a US ONLY issue, yet climate change denial, to a very large extent is. It is at least almost limited to the English speaking world with over 80% of it being in the US. The issue of "global warming" is not a political controversy in most countries. How is that possible is Global Warming is not really happening?

Overall, humans are definitely worse than they are good. The damage that has been done by humans since throughout the last several thousand years is far greater than any good we have done. The pain we cause each other as well as other species is of a much greater magnitude than the amount of good we have done. For every random act of kindness, humanitarian effort, or charitable work done, there are countless wars, murders, acts of sheer brutality, and continued human ignorance/arrogance that outweigh them. Furthermore, the aforementioned acts of kindness are often in response to negative events, which have often been caused by humans as well. For example, the climate change awareness movement is great, but it has been in response to the massive damage humanity has already caused to the environment. Despite the obvious threat this phenomenon poses, many people continue to ignore it. I am confident that others who support the moot will further my points and strengthen the argument that I have presented. Thanks

I accept. Pro asks me to begin arguments in the first round. I will assume a uniformitarian scale. I will argue against the resolution, not against GW per say. Historical Context: Global climate change (GCC) has been occurring for a long time [1]. Temperature measurements show that the Earth was much hotter in the past. This is evidently shown in the graph [1]. The Earth was also much colder in the past [2]. It occurred around 200,000-100,000 years ago. At these periods in time, humans were unable to emit greenhouse gases. Thus, GCC was not caused by humans. If GCC was not caused by humans then, it is logical to conclude that something else can cause it now. There is also the case of the medieval warm and cold period [3]. The planet was warmer in many places, and cooler in others. Vikings were able to settle Greenland and plantation of grapes in YorkShire occurred. There was also the case of the European coldsnap earlier this year [4], which made me think, "global cooling!" Current Global warming trend: Global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.2 degrees celsius each decade for the past 30 years. [5] Effects: Rising sea levels: There have been a gradual rise in sea levels over the years [6], at about 3.5 mm/year. Glacier melting: There is evidence that glaciers have been melting ever since the last "little Ice age" of 1850. Greenhouse effect: What is a greenhouse gas? Methane, water vapor, Carbon dioxide, and ozone. The water vapor is easy to understand. As the Earth heats up, the oceans evaporate and vapors scatter into the air. Methane is harmful to the environment, but is not in such great quantities as Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is my favorite, I produce it every second. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually helps vegetation growth [7] by an almost 30% increase in productivity. Human activity supposedly linked to GW: Burning of fossil fuels: The usage of fossil fuels has a direct correlation with the rise of temperature. Conclusion: I do not dispute that the Earth is growing warmer. It was so much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs than now. This could not have been due to man. There were Ice ages. These were certainly not the result of man"s activities. The globe has been warming ever since 1850, the last mini ice age. It was warm several centuries before that. This shows that temperature is cyclic. I will now argue that there is a correlation between human activity and the current rise in global temperatures. If we plotted a graph showing how much greenhouse gas humans emit through their activity, alongside a graph of the rise in sea levels, and a graph of temperature rise for whatever data we have from 1850, the correlation is obvious. Now I will contend that human activity is not the cause of rise in temperature. No experiments has been made to prove this. If there was, I would like to know which other planets were used as experimenting ground. 1. http://www.grida.no... 2. http://geography.about.com... 3. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://www.pnas.org... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Alright. I think, from seeing your argument, this debate will come down to if this is really a threat to worry about. I'm going to start with your statement about the Medieval Climate Optimum. I admit, I was a bit unspecific when I stated that. What I meant to say was, the last time there was a major increase in temperature. The other instances of warming you mentioned are just building up to where we are now. As you probably know, the Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Climate Optimum. And, although it may not be entirely documented, it is very likely this would have happened with or without humans. The earth just works like that. Take the Ice Age for example. After the Little Ice Age, there was a period of warmth, as to 'recover' from the cold times. The Earth isn't known to have experienced a major Ice Age other than THE Ice Age, so we can't find a pattern in that. But if we look at the Little Ice Age, we may still be recovering from the Ice Age millions of years ago. In response to your comment about the Winter being less harsh, the population increasing, etc, you have yet to prove they are untrue. You have yet to prove them untrue. You acknowledge the Medieval Climate Optimum happened, therefore there simply isn't a reason they would be untrue. Despite many of the myths, there isn't as much evidence that disasters will increase as you would think. Warming will not cause a significant increase in temperatures around the Equator. Only closer to the Poles. There will not be a significant increase in natural disasters, because most disasters will happen near the Equator, anyway. Would it not be true that, heat would cause evaporation? And evaporation would cause precipitation? And precipitation would combat droughts? On the topic of floods, man has time to prepare. There is a good chance it will be another, at the least, 50 years until we will know for a fact our cities are in danger of flooding. As naive as it sounds, I'm sure a large wall, much like the levees that are used to protect many hurricane-prone areas, could effectively protect our vulnerable cities from floods. Reports have shown that the ocean levels have increased at a steady rate for the past century or so. Every decade, another inch. Simple as that. There are no reports of any drastic rise in the sea levels since the Global Warming theory was released. Simple as that. It is true that the glaciers would begin to melt, but, although there has not been much evidence of this so far, I've done a bit of research on the subject. Heat would cause more precipitation. More precipitation would, scientifically speaking, add on to the glaciers. "The industrial revolution began in the 18th and 19th centuries...as I stated before climates started to rise around 1860." Climates have been rising and rising long before the 18th century. Chances are, it was hardly significant enough to document back then. CO2 is a minor factor in the entire global warming picture. All of these energy efficient cars and other environmentally-friendly solutions like that, I will admit they are great for the environment. But, there is little man can do to prevent Global Warming from happening. Simple as that. I eagerly await your response.

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


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

Global Warming is a Reality and Primarily Caused by Human Activity!
In the following rounds, I will further elaborate on the connection between carbon dioxide emissions from human activities and the increase in global surface temperatures. I will also discuss the consequences of climate change caused by global warming. Carbon Dioxide (and Other Greenhouse Gases) are Driving Global Warming and Climate Change
The industrial revolution marked the beginning of human-induced global warming, driven by actions such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, leading to an unprecedented rise in CO2 concentrations and other greenhouse gases [1][2]. Climate scientists largely attribute global warming to carbon dioxide, as it is the most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by human activities [3]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon dioxide and methane are responsible for over 84% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases [3]. The remaining warming can be attributed to greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases [3]. Carbon dioxide alone is responsible for 54.7% of global warming caused by greenhouse gases, due to its abundance in the atmosphere, its radiative impact, and its long lifetime [3][4]. Water vapor has a stronger greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide, but it is not emitted at a large enough scale by any known source to be blamed for global warming [4]. Water vapor contributes to global warming through a feedback loop caused by other greenhouse gases [5].
As the Earth's atmosphere and surface warm due to greenhouse gas emissions, more water vapor is absorbed into the air, further heating the planet [5]. However, other greenhouse gases emitted by human activities drive this loop and are primarily responsible for global warming. Carbon dioxide is responsible for 54.7% of the warming caused by human activities, as demonstrated by the graph of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in the previous round and reported earlier [1]. Ice core analysis shows that the peak concentration of CO2 in the last half-million years was almost 300 parts per million, which was 300,000 years ago [1]. Today, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 398 parts per million, nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [1]!
This unprecedented increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be attributed almost entirely to human activities, such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels [2]. The IPCC reports that human activities have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 2

“Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination”As I said global warming would contaminate the water. There’s nothing to dispute here as it’s not a rebuttalHuman water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination. Fire frequency increases are likely due to human carelessness through discarding cigarette butts, or vehicular sparks, etc. This doesn’t mean a majority of fires are by this nor that warming temperature isn’t a threatIf a town is harboring escaped murders and death rates are increasing do we keep harboring murders because people can still die from car crashes?“Desert expansion has occurred regardless of human interaction or not, but it is not affected by global warming and is defined as the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture”Inappropriate agriculture and drought are results of warming temperature as shown in the previous round.“I would like to note that my opponent has ignored the merriam-webster definition of pollution and its clarification definition of pollute in R1 in order to bolster his claim that CO2 is a pollutant by introducing the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition instead. “Webster’s definition isn’t very broad. Even then it’s defined as “environmental contamination” which I have shown CO2 causes. S. Fred Singer state, "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. CO2 does make plants grow, however it also makes plant defenses go down[1]. Plants can’t just grow solely on CO2, as the nitrogen won’t keep up with this CO2 causing harmful affects[2] Even if CO2 is good for plant growth this doesn’t mean it’s good or we should have more of it. I am unable to find exactly how the GNP will rise with warmer climate.Even if CO2 isn’t labeled as a pollutant this doesn’t mean it’s good or not harmful. As it’s just semantics.The argument is stated as an example of what a threat is similarly to your usage of "10 Indicators of a Human fingerprint on Climate Change".It still has nothing to do with global warming. Its seems like Con is arguing semantics. When ocean waters absorb CO2 they become acidic. That doesn't mean that oceans will become acid. Ocean life is very sensitive to even slight pH level changes. Any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment. The acidity in global surface waters has increased by 30% in the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected to the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems.Agreed upon by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) said "The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer." - The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009[3]When the surface waters become more acidic, it becomes much more difficult for marine life such as corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them. [4]“However my opponent does not take into account the possibility of bacterial contamination of seawater that could harm marine life. For example, the bacteria, Vibrio tubiashii, is currently known to kill oysters, but it is unknown if Vibrio tubiashii is fatal to other shellfish.”Is this bacteria affecting marine food chains and is this bacteria located in certain places or all over the globe? This fits with the analogy with the murders in the town. Con only touched upon 2 of 5 affects of Global Warming and didn't fulfill his BOP by showing global warming isn't a threat[1]http://www.sciencedaily.com...[2]http://www.nature.com...[3]http://www.interacademies.net...[4]http://www.skepticalscience.com...

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

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.

First, its irrelevant that it water vapor only stays for 10 days because it'll be replaced. Water vapor makes up 95% of green house gases and its impacted mostly by volcanoes and changes in solar activity. You say it "can't build up and considerably warm the earth" but thats just not true, look at dry deserts-- they are 100 degrees during daytime and -10 degrees at night, due to there being to water. CO2 does not have anywhere the impact of water vapor as you claim! And most CO2 comes from natural sources like the ocean. Also your point that after world war 2, that there were more volcanic reactions is just not ture--- http://agatelady.blogspot.com... Volcanic reactions continue to go up yet temperatures haven't gone down. This shows the inconsistency of evidence for global warming. Every prediction for global warming made, have turned out to be false. They've constantly been wrong! So I end, Polar bears are thriving, not dying!

I accept and look forward to a good debate! I would also just like to clarify that my understanding coming into this debate based on the title is that I'm not necessarily arguing that manmade CO2 is the sole cause but that it is a cause of global warming. After all, carbon dioxide isn't even the only greenhouse gas!

We do not agree! Are we having a debate or a discussion? You are contending that global warming is killing people, yet you offer no evidence linking any deaths to global warming. I am contending that global warming cannot kill anybody, because man-made global warming is a hoax. I would expect in your next and final round, you would try and prove that global warming exists, and then link it to some deaths.

R2 ArgumentsA scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change." But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [1]Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so."in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke." [2]"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " [3]"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." [4]"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al " [5]My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating.Sources:1. http://science.sciencemag.org...2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...3. http://dx.doi.org...4. http://www.nature.com...5. http://iopscience.iop.org...

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

"There is clear evidence that the world is warming." And cooling. It always has warmed and cooled, and probably always will. The earth's climate is in a constant state of change. That's nature. "There is no reason to believe it won't continue warming." We do have historical evidence the the globe warms and cools without any help from us. Is this solid evidence that the earth will begin cooling again? Absolutely not. Can one use this historical evidence to make a better argument than those who claim the earth will now break from its natural pattern simply because it is currently in a state of warming? Absolutely. Scientists cannot see the future, and any current trend is no evidence of its longevity. Had we been around during previous warming and cooling periods, there would be no way to foretell impending reversals in climate change. And still today, there is no way to tell. No scientist will refute that fact. If we stick with history (versus fortune telling) as an indicator of future climate activity, we can expect many more climate swings in each direction for millions of years to come. "This will be disastrous for many people and other species in the world." Regardless of what disasters lie ahead, there is no solid evidence that human beings cause a significant amount of global warming. Therefore, we are not able to know for sure if any change in our behavior will counter the phenomenon. Although the environmentalists got up from the debate table and walked away claiming they've "arrived at a consensus," the debate is not over. We should not act unless we know. It is not enough to suspect and defend an uncertain position simply because there is no evidence to the contrary. "Therefore it is hypocritical and unethical not to act against it." I'm for action in response to knowledge, but not in response to unsubstantiated claims. If George Bush had the same philosophy we would not have invaded Iraq.

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...].