Global Warming Exists

== Re: Burden of Proof and Conduct == Con is once again completely wrong in his shifting of the burden of proof. This is fallacious. He writes, "You state that global warming exist in your profile. I challanged that opinion. You are pro for it, I am con. You have burden of proof, not me." Nowhere in my profile did I STATE that I believed in global warming; it is simply listed that I am Pro in the Big Issues section. My opponent is the one making a claim - that global warming does not exist - and thus if he wanted to debate it the proper resolution would have read "Global warming does not exist" in which he would have accepted the Pro position. Because the instigator always has the burden of proof, we do not require Pro to have the burden of proof. I have presented several debates as evidence of this both in the last round and in the comments section - which conveniently my opponent has completely ignored. Moreover if you look up the BOP, it never once states anywhere that *Pro* has the burden [1], [2], etc. In fact it specifically states that it is the burden of the one making the claim to prove their point. Con began this debate trying to prove that global warming does not exist, ergo he has the BOP. Additionally, calling my opponent a n00b is not insulting -- it's a fact. He just joined this website and is therefore ignorant to debating etiquette. How is that insulting? My opponent on the other hand has insulted me on more than one occasion, even insinuating that it must be "that time of the month" just because he is probably embarrassed by the fact that a woman absolutely destroyed him in this debate. What a pity. He also presents a slew of ad hominems (more fallacies) and says that he does not care about conduct points. == Re: Temperature Increase == Con states that global warming does not equal climate change. The definitions of global warming read an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere - especially a sustained increase that causes climatic changes [3], an overall increase in world temperatures which may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases [4], etc. Con is straw manning me; I never said that an increase in temperature alone referred to global warming. Instead I proved how carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect was relevant to global warming. I fulfilled the burden in affirming these things; Con did not even address the arguments I have presented regarding carbon dioxide, earth's trapping of gases, etc. Con does however concede that humans are responsible for climate change. == Re: Cold Temperatures and Harsh Winters == Con writes, Statistics regarding temperatures and whether from recent years are irrelevant in a topic called "global warming" ??? This should be only about these kinds of statistics." Quite obviously this is completely contradictory to his last assertion that climate change and global warming are not the same thing (which I have also proven by giving a handful of sources who note that Con's assessment was completely wrong). If Con is saying that temperature (climate) has nothing to do with global warming, then why is he talking about cold weather? Moreover I've already explained (and again cited and sourced) a plethora of evidence that cold weather and harsh winters have absolutely nothing to do with disproving global warming. If Con chose to remain ignorant and not educate himself on that reality, then that is his problem. However he has done absolutely nothing to refute that fact. Instead he concludes, "I know that the last winter was the coldest winter of my entire life." Once again, I've explained and sourced in the last round exactly why that is entirely irrelevant. == Conclusion == Con ignored pretty much every single one of my arguments from the last round. He didn't refute the fact that the most reputable scientists and organizations in the world all affirm that global warming exists. He did not respond to my point that excess carbon dioxide alters the process by which naturally occurring greenhouse gases trap the sun's heat before it can be released back into space, and that excess carbon dioxide (which we output into the atmosphere) creates a warming effect on the planet. Furthermore, Con did not address my argument about all of the glaciers melting. He did not respond to my contentions regarding all of the records showing overall warming, satellites all showing evidence of warming, the sea temperature warming, the proof regarding tree rings, the proof regarding coral proxys, etc. Basically Con did not respond to any single argument I made, and instead just repeated the comment that some parts of the world are experiencing harsh winters. Since that it is his ONLY contention, and I have already disputed how that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, then the audience has no choice but to vote PRO. == RFD == Before the Debate: PRO After the Debate: PRO Spelling and Grammar: PRO Better Arguments: PRO; Con did not respond to any of mine and I refuted his one (awful) argument Better Sources: PRO; Con did not provide any relevant sources and instead listed his 'brain' as a source Better Conduct: PRO; Con did nothing but straw man my arguments and present one ad hominem after another. He resorted to insulting me, and shifted the burden of proof. He also left one debate round blank (R1). == References == [1] http://www.nizkor.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [4] http://www.crh.noaa.gov...