Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Your argument for those facts are that you think my sources aren't credible? People like you make me laugh.Just out of curiosity, what is your education level? Newsmax is not an unbiased scholarly scientific source. Newsmax is a very politically biased "conservative" propaganda source. I know. I used to be a "conservative" when I was young and uneducated, and I trusted Newsmax. Now I know that the words of scientists are more credible than the words of propagandists and spinmasters who have no education in science.-Go ahead and look up ClimateGate. There will be multiple sources so you can go ahead and pick the most credible, in your opinion. My source for that is The Wall Street Journal.There are plenty of places on the internet that say the Holocaust didn't happen too, but that doesn't mean they are credible and written by historians. Climategate. Okay, so we're back to you claiming that science is a global conspiracy. I am well-versed in this nonsense. The Wallstreet Journal is not a scientific source. It is a great place to go for information on stocks, and capitalistic activities, but not science.-There are plenty of credible people who know that global warming is not caused my human actions. The definition of global warming is the increase in the earth's temperature that, according to most scientists, is occurring as a result of the carbon dioxide that is produced when fossil fuels are burned collecting in the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun. That's a definition straight from a textbook. Notice how is says MOST SCIENTISTS, not all. Not all scientists agree with you and to say that all scientists think that we cause global warming is ignorant. There are plenty of scientists who say that we ARE NOT the cause.You're right. There are people, like YOU (people without an education, who don't understand science) that deny science, but actual scientists (98% and growing) don't deny science. You would have to deny fundamental basics of science to deny that global warming is caused by people, which you are doing. This is not a debate to people who understand how science works. It's only a debate for people like you.There are hardly any recently written peer-reveiwed journals that deny science. Sure, you can find Newsmax, Wallstreet Journal, and Fox News Entertainment, but NASA, NOAA, IPCC, ANY .edu, ANY research University around the world, supports that science is real. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: between November 2012, and December 2013, there were 2259 peer-reviewed articles written by 9136 scientists (people who understand science), and only 1 denied science. This isn't a 50/50 debate that could go either way. It's actually 99.0009/0.0001. So, by "plenty of scientists," you mean 1 in 9136. Only people who don't understand science or people who want to fool you into denying science to give more liberty to oil companies that are causing this, want you to think this is even debatable. -The fact that over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that humans are not the cause of global warming can't be denied. Go ahead and google it for yourself if you still don't believe me.Do you know how many scientists exist in the world? That's nothing. According to CIA Factbook and AAAS, there are 5.8 MILLION scientists in the world. I'm going to assume you're telling me the truth (even though not everything on the internet is true, as I've shown), so let's get the percentage of "scientists" that deny science (being paid by big oil), versus the scientist who understand science let's see: 31,000/5,800,000=.00534483 OR .5% So, good for you! You have .5% of the world's scientists on your side, and I have everyone else.-You're telling me that I don't understand the basic fundamentals of science, but you're ignoring the facts that I'm stating about specific heat.That's because you don't understand basic fundamentals about science. You said that the only way our atmosphere can trap heat, is if we had a glass bubble around it, and, since I've taken science classes and astronomy classes at the University Level, I can tell you how it actually works, and you're wrong on a very fundamental level. If the greenhouse effect didn't exist, our planet wouldn't be habitable because of the natural amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by our active geology!-I never even mentioned anything about gravity because that's not the main focus here.Gravity is important to understanding why we have an atmosphere. All you're doing is taking what I said, twisting it, and then saying something irrelevant.No. I'm bringing up very relevant scientific facts that are necessary to explaining how this all works. You're just ignoring it because it's more important to you that you believe what the "conservative" party line is, than the truth.While doing all of this, you fail to actually prove me wrong of anything.I've proven your wrong repeatedly using scientific facts. You've used politically biased websites, and non-scientific sources to refute me.  Back to what I was saying, the little amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere cannot do a thing. You say this as if it were a fact, but you do not have a PhD in science, and don't even understand how the atmosphere works! What you should have said is, "I don't think the little amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can do a thing, but I'm not a scientist, and I'm still learning basics about science." -If you're going to say that carbon dioxide is harmful, then explain to me how water vapor hasn't killed us by now.Well, for one, they are chemically different. One is CO2, and the other is H2O. Go have a gander at a periodic table.  WATER VAPOR is the thing to worry about, NOT carbon dioxide.This makes no sense, scientifically. -I have not mentioned anything even remotely relevant to politics. All I'm doing is simply giving you the scientific facts, which you can't seem to comprehend.I find it strange that you say that, and use sources like NEWSMAX, ClimateGate, a tiny amount of scientists who were paid by big oil, and other non-scientific sources to refute scientific facts. For someone who hasn't brought up politics, you're keeping awfully close to the GOP's party line. -The fact that you're denying me on how the temperature of earth has not changed and the polar ice caps are increasing just means that you are living proof of someone who fell into the propaganda.The Average Global Temperature of the earth HAS changed (increased) since the 1890s. Any credible scientific source will show you this. I WILL NOT deny facts. You can, if you want. If by "propaganda" you mean, "educated to facts and science," then you're right. Do. The. Research.You mean like, hang out with people with PhDs in Science and take lots of University Level classes in science, and read peer-reviewed articles written by scientific experts? Yeah. I already do that. -You're treating scientists like they are gods. Whatever they have to say, you aimlessly follow them and what they say.No, not really. I just know that they have more education about science and more expertise in science because that's what they do for a living. I am not arrogant enough to think that I know more about science than someone who has a PhD, and decades of research under their belts. It's not that scientists are gods, they just know more about science than I do, and I know more about science than most uneducated people do. The logic, evidence, and facts behind anthropogenic global warming is really solid, and if you bothered learning about it, you'd see what I'm talking about. You aren't more open-minded than me, you are just denying facts. If you want to talk about who's more open-minded, I used to deny science too, but now that I've seen the evidence, and truth behind the scientific explanation, I've changed my mind because I realized it would be stupid not to. It's like this: if you took your car to a shop, and every single mechanic in the shop said that your wheel bearings are going bad, and you have no understanding of how cars work, would you defer to the trained car mechanics who have decades of experience? Or would you, someone who doesn't know how cars work at all, and have never gotten under one, going to argue and tell them that they don't know what they're talking about?-Call me a conservative, call me a liberal, call me a republican, call me a democrat, call me whatever you want. I don't believe something just because the politicians said it was true.Good, then we're on the same page: trust scientists about science over politicians and political spin-doctors.  I'm not like you. I'm an individual who did the research myself. You should try it sometime.I not only did the research (which is why I changed my mind), I also have the education to be able to evaluate sources; you should try it sometime. Now that you've gotten into ad hominem attacks, can you get back to trying to make claims about science, so we can stick to facts?Just because there's a website on the internet that tells you something doesn't mean it's true. There are websites devoted to the Holocaust being a global Jewish Conspiracy, but any reputable historian would tell you the Holocaust actually happened. Likewise, as there are a few websites and .5% of "scientists (on the payroll of big oil)" in the world that deny global warming, doesn't mean it's the truth. Science is not a "liberal" conspiracy. Science, as a discipline, is actually open to being proven wrong, but so far, the attempts at proving science wrong have been refuted. Scientists need evidence for a theory to be scrapped, and so far, nothing any of these "scientists" have brought to the table, has disproven anything, and if you think you, someone who just has google, knows as much about science as an actual scientists with a PhD and decades of research, you're wrong. Truth is not subjective, especially in science.