Global Warming

With all due respect, your argument is fatally flawed. Even if I momentarily disregard the factual errors, the way you have set it up makes it impossible for me to effectively debate. By taking the pro stance on this debate, it appears as if I am affirming that I want "higher temperatures and more beaches". For the purposes of this debate, I will from now on assume that we are debating on whether global warming is a true phenomenon or not. Personally, I am all for environmental protection. And I understand that there are definite problems with today's' environment. But are these issues a direct result of global warming? I strongly disagree. There are numerous other factors, which I will outline throughout this debate, that cause higher global temperatures. I will begin this round by specifically responding to each of Smarticles' contentions. The first contention made was "Global Warming is bad" This statement was made with absolutely no proof to back it up. Empty words do not win debates. Facts do. According to Timothy Ball, who has a PhD in Climatology, "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification." A person with a PhD in Climatology obviously would be a much more reliable source than someone with no such qualifications who makes a factless claim. I will now move on to the second contention which was "many animals die cause there habitat is getting destroyed". Again, a factless claim. I agree that innocent and defenseless animals are killed everyday by those who disregard their habitats. But is global warming causing their deaths? There are numerous other factors that go into destruction of habitats. New construction of subdivisions and office buildings, ocean oil spills, wet land draining, dam building, parking lots, and diverting drainage are all ways to destroy habitats and subsequently cause animals to die. Smarticles cannot possibly claim that global warming is the chief cause (or causes any for that matter)of habitat destruction. By no means am I saying that these habitats should not be protected, I am merely pointing out that resources that would be used on global warming prevention should be used to prevent habitat destruction. We should focus our resources on actual problems that are grounded in fact. "It is also slowly destroying our ozone with pollution." was the next baseless contention made by Smarticles. If Smarticles had researched prior to making this claim, they would have realized that ozone layer depletion is caused by the release of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, into the atmosphere. Global Warming does NOT cause ozone layer depletion. In the 1970's it became evident that CFCs were destroying the Earth's protection against ultraviolet rays, the ozone layer. CFCs were gradually phased out over the next twenty years. The Environmental Protection Agency offers this proof that the ozone layer is currently healing. "Because of measures taken under the Protocol, emissions of ozone-depleting substances are already falling. Based on measurements of total inorganic chlorine in the atmosphere, which stopped increasing in 1997 and 1998, stratospheric chlorine levels have peaked and are no longer increasing. The good news is that the natural ozone production process will heal the ozone layer in about 50 years." The last claim made by Smarticles was this gem "I don't understand how people can even not care about these animals because they want to have higher temperatures and more beaches." This contention will not even require evidence to rebut because it is so ridiculous. People do not address Global Warming because it has been proved not to exist. They do not do it because they want more beaches. Warmer temperatures do not magically melt grass, create sand, and make beaches. Years of weathering by oceans and other bodies of water creates beaches. Additionally, there is no way to prove that the majority of people want higher temperatures. Why would they want higher temperatures anyway? Couldn't they just move to a place closer to the equator? This claim is ludicrous to the extreme. In conclusion, I have effectively rebutted all of Smarticle's baseless claims about global warming. To the voters, I understand that global warming is a controversial issue that may be close to your hearts. Please consider your choice based not on the issue, but on the way the issue was debated. Thank you for taking the time to follow this round.