Question: Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. 1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution. Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.

Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: Yes, I agree with Pro's sources in Round 5 that list all of the ways in which human activity plays a role in affecting global climate. Unfortunately, Pro failed to acknowledge the issue of "Attribution of Recent Climate Change" which I brought up in Round 4. Without doing so, it is impossible to conclude that ". .. Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming" as Pro has done. To further bolster my argument, I will reference the 376 page scholarly book (published in 2015) "Climate Change, Multidecadal and Beyond" . https://books.google.ca... which flatly states outright in the introduction "Many questions concerning the nature and causes of climate variability on the multidecadal time scale are still unresolved. ". This book also references a Technical Summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report which acknowledges "Difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes at smaller than continental scales and over time scales less than 50 years. " (Solomon et al. , 2007). While generalist websites for the public (such as the ones referenced by pro) may ignore the issue of attribution, clearly scholars and climate scientists cannot and do not. The book I referenced demonstrates that scientists are working very hard on the attribution issue, and may resolve it in the near future thanks to ever improving technology, statistics and modeling. However, being that the world's top scientists have not resolved the issue of climate change attribution, it is far too premature for "pro" declare a victory or a conclusion that humanity is the "main" cause of climate change (based on the information contained in generalist websites), especially in the context of a Multidecadal view. I was very much hoping that Pro would address the issue of 'Attribution of Recent Climate Change' which I introduced in Round 4.

Title: Environmentalism is a sound belief Content: 1. Global Warming Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees C with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations. Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 degrees C for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 degrees C for their highest. The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations. Humans have been responsible for global warming because they are the main cause of greenhouse gas concentration increases, which are the main cause of the recent warming. Environmentalism says that the only way to combat global warming is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which, by the above standard, will reduce global warming. Therefore, environmentalism makes a verified prediction here.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2. Genetically Modified Organisms The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses. Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk. The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)R13;which is linked to cancer. Environmentalism predicts that GMOs are bad for the body, and the above information verifies this prediction. Therefore, environmentalism makes a verified prediction here.6 3. Keystone XL Pipeline The Canadian tar sands oil pits lie under an enormous boreal forest, which sequesters a huge amount of carbon dioxide, and is the only habitat for some of the largest populations of woodland caribou left in the world; in addition, 30 percent of North America's songbirds and 40% of its waterfowl rely on the wetlands and waterways of the boreal forest. Getting the tar sands requires clear-cutting thousands of acres of the boreal forests, diverting rivers, and strip-mining. Destroying that forest will certainly make those species of songbirds go extinct, and significantly increase global warming. The tar sands are sticky and dirty. There are additional negative systemic effects. Heat is not enough to get tar to flow. To get tar out of the ground, you have to pump in a huge amount of water and toxic chemicals. The water used to go underneath the sticky oil and pushing it up is so polluted by the toxic chemicals that it is rendered unfit to drink. The oil companies do not pay for the water; they simply drain the aquifer it comes from while letting much of the poisoned water stay in the ground. The Keystone XL pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides 30% of America's ground water, and over 1.5 million people rely on. So, you get a destruction of forests and several species as well as increasing global warming, and polluting vast sums of water which all results into a dirty environment. And, since the TransCanada would not register spills under 800,000 gallons, many areas that had spills (the first section spilled 12 times in the first year), would be allowed to splurge and flood our wildlands with hot toxic water. Environmentalism predicts that the KXL will be dangerous to the environment, and this has been confirmed. Therefore, environmentalism makes a verified prediction here.7, 8 Because environmentalism has made several verified predictions, it is sound. Works Cited: 1 http://www.nap.edu... 2 http://www.ipcc.ch... 3 http://nationalacademies.org... 4 http://www.ipcc.ch... 5 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu... 6 http://www.care2.com... 7 Lakoff, George. The Little Blue Book (2012): pp. 98-100 8 http://www.esquire.com...

Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Just for clarification when I say human activity I mean the activity to the addition of climate change, as you could see by the evidence I used. What level of change contributes to climate change would be the rising temperatures. Since that humans release so much C02 and pollute the air it contributes to warming the planet. The EPA predicts in the next 100 years global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees. Now you may say that isn't much but that will cause the melting of the ice caps which will cause rising sea levels which will sink cities, as National Geographic reports. As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS. My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there. Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent. So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate.

Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.

Title: The significant bulk of scientific research says it is happening Content: The biggest collection of specialist scientists in the world say that the worlds climate is changing as a result of human activity. The scientific community almost unanimously agrees that man-caused global warming is a severe threat, and the evidence is stacking.

Title: The claim that "97% of scientists agree 'man made global warming' exists" is a lie. Content: John Kerry has been quoted as saying, "And let there be no doubt in anybody"s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change"and it will change dramatically for the worse." This is very false. But leaving aside the catastrophic/"change dramatically for the worse" assertion which is not supported by any scientific agreement. The most common source of this 97% number is in Cook et al. (2013) which leaves out the 'catastrophic' part. In Cook"s summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." ( main cause meaning over 50%) 97% of what? Of papers they surveyed. Not climate scientists. However, if we were to say "97 percent of papers by climate scientists endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause" this too would also false. ---------------------------------------- This is not a debate on if global warming exists or doesn't exist. This is not a debate on if global warming is harmful to humans. This is a debate on the 'Man Made' with the 97% claim. If it is not man made then it's usage is meaningless, and the claim should not be used. If there is not a 97% consensus, the the claim should not be used. My argument is that 97% of scientists, or climate scientists, or climate papers DO NOT agree that 'man made global warming' exists, and anyone who claims this is misrepresenting facts, and that the 97% claim should be disregarded a false. The Con side must prove that: 97% of scientists/climate scientists/climate papers agree that Warming is Man Made(51%).

Title: Global Warming is Real and is Manmade! Content: In ROUND 3 I will continue my ROUND 2 response, where I will show the link between carbon dioxide emitted by human activity and the increase in global surface temperatures. In the final ROUND I will go over the effects of climate change caused by global warming.Carbon Dioxide (and Other Green House Gases) are Causing Global Warming and Climate ChangeWith the advent of the industrial revolution, human-induced global warming--through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation--has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations and other green house gases [1][2]. However, climate scientists overwhelmingly pin the blame of global warming on carbon dioxide because it is the most widely and most abundantly emitted green house gas of human activity [3]. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), carbon dioxide and methane are responsible for more than 84% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of green house gases [3]. The remaining percent of warming can be attributed to green house gases like nitrous oxide and flourinated gases [3]. By itself, the IPCC has affirmed that carbon dioxide is reponsible for 54.7% of the global warming caused by green house gases; that's because it is the most abundantly produced green house gas of human activity and because it has an enormous radiative impact compared to other green house gases when accounting for its abundance in the atmosphere, its indirect heating effects, and because of the CO2 molecule's long lifetime in the atmosphere [3][4]. In fact, only water vapor has a stronger green house gas effect than carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, but unlike CO2 water vapor isn't being emitted naturally by any known source at a large enough scale to be blamed for global warming [4]; water vapor does contribute to global warming, but this is because of a feedback loop caused as other green house gasses in our atmosphere increase in concentration and heat up the Earth's lower atmosphere [5].As the Earth's atmosphere and surface become warmer because of green house gas emissions, this drive's more water vapor to be absorbed into the air, further heating our planet; this water vapor loop is well-understood and contributes to anthropogenic (human induced) global warming [5].However, other green house gases emitted by human activity drive this loop and are primarily responsible for global warming. As the statistic above shows, carbon dioxide is responsible for 54.7% of the warming being inflicted on our planet because of human activity. As I demonstrated with the graph on carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere in ROUND 2 (and as I reported in ROUND 1), never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high as it is today! Ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration (the highest concentration) of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million--and that 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 activity, such as through large-scale deforestation, land use changes (such as methane emission from ammonia-based fertilizers), and the burning fossil fuels (which include coal and gasoline) [2]. The IPCC reports that in the last 150 years, human activity has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 398 parts per million today [2]! According to the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA), humans largely emit carbon dioxide and other green house gases from the production of electricity and from transportation; in the U.S. these two behaviors contribute to 60.8% of all the nation's emitted green house gases in a single year [3]. Other behaviors, such as those of industry, businesses, of agricultural, and of energy use in homes, contribute to the remaining 39% of the nation's green house gas emissions [3].Global warming is produced when green house gases in the atmosphere--water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide--accumulate in the atmosphere and act as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing the sun's radiative heat and warming the Earth's surface [2]. Nature uses green house gases to facilitate heat trapping from the sun's rays to warm the Earth and make biological life on the planet possible. But if the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere become excessive, this can overheat the planet, alter the Earth's climate system, injure natural ecosystems, and make it harder for biological processes to take place and be maintained. This is exactly what's happening now and generating planet-altering climate change (these effects will be explicated in the final ROUND).Volcanes and Changes in the Sun's Solar Output are Not Contributing to Global WarmingSome skeptics claim that erupting land and submarine volcanoes are causing global warming. But reports by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that volcanoes primarily emit gases, like sulfur dioxide, at high enough concentrations so as to encourage global cooling [6]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[6]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [6].Some opponents of manmade global warming claim that the Sun's solar output is responsible for the current rise in atmospheric temperatures--that humans are not responsible for the modern warming trend. But this is a view that the scientists firmly dispute, based on a variety of evidence (2):--Scientists point out that, since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased only slightly.--If the warming were caused by increased radiation coming from the sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead what they observe is a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. Scientists say that this is a strong indication that green house gases are responsible for global warming, because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere.--Computer climate models that include solar irradiance changes can't reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in green house gases.All of these bits evidence demonstrate that solar irradiance is not responsible for the rise in Earth's surface temperatures over the last century or more.Elevations in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations have been responsible for Prehistoric Rises in Global Surface TemperaturesScientists that study prehistoric ice ages and warming ages point out that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by geologic activity or other natural events has consistently led to warming trends in Earth's history. For example, the Ice Age that stretched during most of the Cryogenian Period (840 - 635 million years ago) had the potential to cover the entire globe and would have been a major setback for biological life and evolution in general had it been this severe. Scientists that study the period point out that this extreme condition never occured because, as the Earth froze, atmospheric oxygen was forced into the oceans, which oxidized organic matter and released CO2 into the atmosphere, preventing temperatures from falling any lower [7]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [7]. Scientists also point out that a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to prehistoric Warming Ages. 55 million years ago, the Earth entered a sudden and rapid global warming event, which scientists call the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Analysis firmly demonstrates that the quantity of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose significantly at the beginning of this period [8] [9]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [8] [9]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[10].That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [11]. [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[2] (http://climate.nasa.gov...)[3] (http://www.epa.gov...)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[5] (http://www.nasa.gov...)[6] (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...)[7] (http://news.softpedia.com...)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://smithsonianscience.org...)[10] (http://www.livescience.com...)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Title: CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Content: The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term "climate change" as- a significant change in the usual climatic conditions especially that thought to be caused by global warming. This 'climate change' can be caused by natural or human induced impacts. The global average temperature has risen by nearly a degree in the past 50 years. Scientists around the world have been recording temperature increases, raised ocean levels and melting of ice caps. All this is evidence that the earth is experiencing a "climate change". Many people believe that this change is primarily due to the fact that our CO2 emissions have created more greenhouse gases. They believe that there is a relationship between the rise in temperatures and the rise in CO2 emissions. Data shows an "association" between temperature levels and CO2 emissions but does not necessarily prove that increased CO2 levels are the most significant aspect of today"s climate change. For something complex like the weather system, many scientists are needed to unravel the story behind climate change. While most scientists believe climate change occurs, not all agree on the extent and relevance of human activity as an influence on climate change. While major international climate agencies all emphasise the critical role of CO2 emissions in climate change, others are not so sure. For example, some scientists have conducted research that suggests that temperatures were higher than they are today, during the Roman and Medieval periods. These ancient civilisations would not have emitted CO2 emissions as we do today, so why did their temperatures rise? Temperatures have risen and fallen for a long time. The National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) states that climate change over the longer term is mainly due to the amount of sun energy hitting the Earth. Slight changes in the Earth"s orbit and changes in sun ray intensity, can alter the temperatures here on Earth. Even so, most scientists still emphasise the role of CO2 emissions in unprecedented, rapid global warming. The frank fact is that climate change cannot be stopped. It is completely natural.

Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: 1: Does Global Warming exist?Yes, but how do we know? The amount of evidence is compelling and indisputable from the rising global sea level to global temperature rise, warming oceans, to shrinking ice sheets. Other ways we know that global warming exists includes but is not limited to; Declining Arctic Sea, Glacial Retreat, Extreme Weather, Decreased Snow Cover, Ocean Acidification. Now that we can agree that Global Warming exists the question becomes2: Is it man made?“97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” (1)This effect made by humans is called the greenhouse effect. Defined that is “warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”(2) This is mainly caused by burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil. It is also caused by the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts, which runs assessment reports concluded “there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.”(3)Conclusion: As we can see that Global warming exists and the experts in the field overwhelmingly conclude that Global warming is likely man made we can conclude that Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Sources:(1) http://iopscience.iop.org...(2) http://climate.nasa.gov...(3) http://climate.nasa.gov...

Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for joining this debate and wish them best of luck to them now to clarify a few definitions: (merriam-webster) human- of, relating to, or characteristic of humans activities- the quality or state of being active (in this case, pollution and burning of fossil fuels) main- primary cause- a reason for an action or condition global warming- an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 1.) the earth is heating up because of the dawning ice age a.) About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative 8 degress celcius to about one degree celcius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last era of warming about 115,000 years ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have been recorded. b.) "Within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world." (Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans.) This is the side of global warming according to Avery and Singer, two scientists studying climate change. Their research was compiled from years of research on tree rings, ice cores, prehistoric villages, fossils, titanium profiles and numerous other sources. 2.) burning fossil fuels only accounts for a small percent of greenhouse gases a.) The burning of fossil fuels by humans is most often the culprit of global warming but in Avery and Singers research they go on to say that the burning of fossil fuels has little effect on global warming and does not speed up the process. In fact, studies show that humans burning fossil fuels actually account for aprox. 18% of greenhouse gases. Other sources are main contributors. These sources are volcanoes, trees, and even cosmic rays from space can greatly increase greenhouse gases. b.) New research involving ice core results allow us to distinguish which came first, temperature change or change in CO2 levels. Scientists from an organization called icecap concluded that temperature change actually preceded change in CO2 levels by over 800 years. So in fact, temperature change actually causes CO2 levels to rise and NOT HUMANS.

Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: The word 'main' as used in the debate heading presents the position that humanity's contribution to global warming is greater in magnitude than any other factor. The definition of 'main' could be explained as: chief or principal in rank, importance, size, etc. Therefore, Pro must prove that the human portion is in fact the largest of factors. Of course, the human portion needn't be greater than 50% of the total effect if there are multiple elements/factors at play. I also agree that it is more than possible that human activities could affect, change or initiate natural processes, but again, that would have to be quantified (what portion of a natural system has been altered by human elements versus natural change). Natural and human effect can be intertwined and extremely complicated, if not impossible to differentiate and separate. This is referred to as the "attribution of recent climate change". I will reference the following scholarly article: https://gfdl.noaa.gov... "Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report". The authors make several important conclusions in this comprehensive study: "Greenhouse warming alone is insufficient to explain the observed pattern of climate change." and "The most probable cause of the observed warming is a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources (see also Tett et al. 1999). But given the large model uncertainties and limited data, a reliable weighting of the different factors contributing to the observed climate change cannot currently be given. In short, we cannot attribute, at this time, with a high level of statistical significance, the observed changes in global and large-scale regional climate to anthropogenic forcing alone.". This research contradicts Pro's assertion that human causes are definitively more important than natural ones. In addition, to say that our current warming trend was caused solely by the industrial age based on the chart I presented (in round 3) would be to dismiss the fact that the sharp rebound from the Little Ice Age and commencement of our current warming trend (1600-) was initiated and occurred well before human activity was a relevant factor. I agree with much of the content contained within the two sites referenced by pro, but none of them contains information that establishes that human activity plays a greater role than natural variability. The CO2 now website asserts that "The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions." and lists several of the unique contributions and circumstances associated with human activity and greenhouse gasses. It also states that "the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes." These are grand statements, but there is no attempt to quantify them unlike the formal research document I presented above (which contradicts these sites). There is also no mention on Pro's sites of the fact that our current warming period was initiated well before the industrial age and human influence by natural forces. Even the IPCC continues to protect its reputation by using vague terms such as "...likely" regarding the position of humanity's "...dominant role in global warming". I acknowledge that we currently are experiencing global warming. For those who lived in 1100 BC and 1300 AD, they also experienced global warming on a larger scale than we do today, even though human activity had little correlation to that warming. Thus, to say that Global Warming is unique to the industrial age is false. It is also very likely that scientists will one day be able to prove/quantify what portion of Human Activity is attributable to global warming. Presently, it is not possible as my opponent acknowledges. This is why no scientist(s) or scientific body has declared a victory on this issue (A quantified attribution of recent climate change). In fact, a very large amount of money and large amount of research continues to be spent on this very issue because it has yet to be proved or resolved. I also agree that the current warming period presented on the on the chart I referenced is abrupt and is likely a reflection of the influence of human activity. Being that this warming period has yet to exceed several recent warming periods in effect and duration, we need more time in order to be able to place our current warming period into the context of other prior larger warming periods. It is simply premature to state definitively that human activity is the main factor in global warming. My statement is reflected in the current feverish rate of research being performed into the Attribution of Recent Climate Change. If a definitive conclusion had been reached, this research would not be needed to such a degree. Keep in mind, that I am not advocating that humanity should not take responsibility towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary.

Title: Official May Tournament Final: Global Warming Content: HOUSEKEEPING1. In my Round 2 argument, I mistakenly wrote, "I have now established that [human activity] is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 75%." I meant to write 65%, which is the actual number. That is an approximate estimate, and my estimate is closer to 62.5% of the warming (which means human activity has caused 85% of global warming since 1975, indicating a climate sensitivity of around 2 degrees C).2. Con writes, "My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory." Note that I couldn't have dropped anything, since this *is* Con's C1, R2. CON's CASEOverviews1. Con's first contention is a defense. It doesn't give any offense, i.e. does not provide a reason for judges to vote for his side. Con argues that CO2 does not have an effect, which merely preempts an argument that asserts that CO2 does have an effect. I ask judges to take this into consideration. I will refute that argument anyway. 2. The second contention Con presents is a "kritik" of the topic. A "kritik" is defined as an argument that challenges an assumption in the resolution. The second contention says global warming doesn't even exist, therefore is not man-made. Therefore, its topicality is indirect, making it a "kritik." Rule 6 prohibits "kritiks." Please note this violation. C1. Carbon Dioxide and TemperaturesCarbon dioxide does not exactly correlate with temperature. However, the radiative forcing of CO2 and the sun allows for a direct correlation. The sun drives much of modern climate change. The most recent spurt of global warming was caused by the sun, thus carbon dioxide drives climate change and is a major forcing. [1] The below graph illustrates a correlation between the forcings of the sun and CO2, and the rise in temperature. [2] The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature. [3] The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years. A comparison of the warming between the troposphere and the stratosphere can demonstrate this. Majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is found in the upper troposphere, entailing that carbon dioxide would cause higher temperatures in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. [4, 5] The following graph depicts the temperature effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. [6] Robert Berner and Zavareth Kothavala argue, " The exact values of CO2...should not be taken literally...[O]ver the long term, there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature." [7] The following graph shows the uncertainty of values of CO2. [8] Furthermore, I can turn the entire argument against Con. This is primarily because many of the greenhouse gases mentioned - with high global warming potentials - act as positive feedbacks. Water vapor, the greenhouse gas that has the highest effect on climate, as conceded by Con, also acts as the largest positive feedback. Brian J. Soden and Isaac M. Held write, "Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response." [9] This means the effects of water vapor help my case. A positive feedback loop would also allow CO2 level increase to cause an increase in the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. "When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect...Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1 degree C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3 degrees Celsius." [10] This is affirmed by the research of Soden and Held, who find that water vapor is the primary atmospheric feedback on Earth. [11]C2. The Temperature of the EarthAll my opponents studies are faulty and unreliable. These are the reasons. Firstly, my opponent's first graph shows the temperature of the Earth in relation to the temperature of the Earth millions of years ago. This can be discredited, because "global warming" only began in the 19th century, after the Earth was relatively normal. The definition of global warming given in the debate concerns the 19th century. Discredit the first graph. Secondly, the idea of the "global warming hiatus," which my opponent brings up, is flawed. My opponent's data is largely based on TSS data. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. [12, 13] Further, the long-term trend of increasing temperatures is due to CO2. Short-term variability happens all the time; it does not mean that the long-term increase is going to stabilize forever. Oscillation phenomena, or "La Nena" phenomena, will result in the trend changing, but will revert to a positive trend eventually. [14] Thirdly, the heat content of Earth is actually increasing. "This new research combines measurements of oceanheat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heatthrough to 2008...Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 10^21 Joules per year." [15] The below graph represents this. [16] Also, "Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to filter out the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and solar and volcanic activity (Figure 2), and found that the underlying global surface and lower atmospherewarming trends have remained very steady in recent years." [15] The below graph portrays the data. [17] Con then reiterates the argument from water vapor, which is addressed above. He then straw-mans my position, since I did not present the hockey stick graph. SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://www.jamstec.go.jp...4 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...9 - http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...10 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://nsstc.uah.edu...13 - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...14 - http://tinyurl.com...15 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...16 - http://www.ess.uci.edu...17 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. Over to Con!

Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: wow Krebs, way to show up BUDDY. If we were in a real debate round I would have to insist that I take this match because of my opponents lack of second speech. Because of this, I have nothing to rebutt.

Title: Climate change Content: I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans "drive" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining "stable" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc. ) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one "imposed" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the "secret agenda" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc. ) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was "something" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the "all this happened before and it will happen again" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc. ). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] . http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] . http://www.newsweek.com... [5] . http://www.geocraft.com...

Title: global climate change is human caused Content: Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped. It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before. Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily. This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming. Why don't we define Global Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: •Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun •Natural processes within the climate system (e.g. ,changes in ocean circulation) •Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification) Notice the part where it says "human activities". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming.

Title: Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. Content: "Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim." harrytrumanSunspots play a minimal role. As for CO2 levels only being a small part of the greenhouse gases this is true. Neverthless, naturally occuring CO2 is balanced out. Human industry made CO2 is not. Thanks for the debate.http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: Thanks to my opponent for a well written response. I.i. The rest of the solar system While fluctuations in solar activity can affect Earth's climate, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly created by humans. [1] Abdussamatov blamed solar fluctuations for the attenuation of ice caps on Mars. However, these changes were likely not due to the Sun, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.[1] Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says that Abdussamatov's idea is nonsense. [1] I.ii. The Position of the Milky Way Galaxy "Every approximately 135 million years, Earth enters a more populated area of the Milky Way, and as a result, more cosmic rays hit the Earth, which causes cooling." 135 million years. Wikipedia says: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 "C (1.4 "F)."[2] This was nowhere near 135 million years. How could this suddenly happen? II. Earthly causes I.i. Ocean Current Anomalies "Ocean temperature anomalies seem to be rising-along with the temperature." The temperature of the ocean can also be affected by the CO2 and Methane levels, (Which I proved that were going up in the last round. ) as those warm the surface and air, won't it be plausible that the air is warming the oceans and not the other way around? Plus, In the picture you posted, it DID affect the temperature, but it still was going up, which I proved was man made. II.ii. Clouds: A Continuation of Point I.ii. See my refutation on Point I.ii. III. The 1500-Year Cycle I.S.I.L. is not even a scientific organization at all. " The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) is an association of individuals and organizations dedicated to building a free and peaceful world, respect for individual rights and liberties, and an open and competitive economic system based on voluntary exchange and free trade. ISIL currently has members and representatives in over 100 countries."3] I.S.I.L. even said "To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. " Even though that is not true. "Industrialized countries commit to reduce their emissions by 40% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. Emissions from forest destruction are reduced by three quarters (75%)Emissions from forest destruction are reduced by three quarters (75%)" [4] IV. The Sun: The Proof of Theories I.ii and II.ii Refuted in I.i. [1]http://www.livescience.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.isil.org... [4]http://wwf.panda.org...

Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Seeing that you have a rich source of information I can easily rebut the case. To address you examples that humans are different than dinosaurs. Not to mention the fact that during the dinosaurs time there was just 1 continent. So to end this debate my case has won because I have easily shown that humans harmful activity have increased Global Warming, you're entire case is built upon the facts that if the dinosaurs lived through it we can. Well that was a 165 million years ago buddy, Earth has changed. For these reasons this is why Pro has won this debate.

Title: Global Warming is caused by humans Content: Good luck. I only have two points at the moment. So here they are: (1) Earth's mean surface temperature has increased about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientist are more than 90% certain that human activities' such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary cause of increases of the greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a lowest of 2 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit and a highest of 4.5 to 11.5 degrees during the 21st century. (2) According to NASA, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil have increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) Sites: (1) en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Gobal_warming (2) climate. nasa. gov/causes/

Title: The scientific community as a whole has lost it's credibility with the gloabal warming THEORY Content: You still haven't defined what you mean by "the scientific community." You also haven't provided any data for me to consider. The external links I provided you with are full of data, and references to the research, including this statement written by a scientist. " There is no longer any doubt in the scientific community that global warming is happening and that human beings are responsible for the majority of it. The reason doubt persists in communities around the world is because a few energy companies have been spending millions of dollars funding think tanks that publish skewed information and disinformation about global warming. They have been intentionally and deliberately confusing the public in order to stall action. They use terms such as "junk science" to disparage rigorous, peer-reviewed, university-funded climate science. The term "junk science" was originally coined by corporate attorneys, according to Sheldon Rampton, director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which has been monitoring public relations and corporate law for almost two decades. At the same time, they call "sound science" any research or findings that suggest that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the environment. It doesn't matter if this "sound science" is criticized by every major academic science organization or goes against consensus, as long as it gives the industries that funded it a blank check to do whatever they want. And in all honesty, theirs is a story than many of us would like to believe – the amount of personal sacrifice and lifestyle change that is being called for to halt global warming seems immense and daunting. But not all energy companies have been so reticent to change. When the public gathers to discuss global warming, some energy companies bring their lawyers and spin doctors. Others bring their research and development teams. British Petroleum, which changed its name last year to Beyond Petroleum, has so far spent $8 billion on research and development of renewable energy. There is no future in fossil fuels – and it is incumbent upon energy companies, if they want to be industry leaders, to participate in building the world's energy future. For more information on how ExxonMobil has been fueling global warming controversy and confusing the public, click here for a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in January 2007. This comprehensive paper details their investigation of the company's funding of industry front groups, support of non-peer-reviewed science, and powerful influence on public policy. " In a debate, usually it's good to address a person's statements. Though I'm starting to get the impression that you actually need to believe that Global Climate Change isn't happening. That's why I asked you to refrain from "belief." in the first place. Though it might have been more constructive for me to ask you to spell it correctly rather than refrain from it's use.

Title: "Global Warming" is a hoax Content: While a healthy sense of skepticism is always recommended, it is unfortunately the case that the issue of Global Climate Change has become politicized and that the small amount of skepticism on GCC has been over-hyped by the various well-funded industries that don't want the government to take action with pollution and efficiency controls. When surveyed, the vast majority of climate scientists (from organizations such as the National Academies of Science) believe that human activity is to blame for the recent climate changes, though some may disagree on the severity. First, it's inaccurate to characterize the position of the pro-Global Warming/Global Climate Change crowd as believing that the earth is "melting." It is their contention that human activity has finally reached the capacity (through our advanced industrial state) of being able to influence the planet's climate by throwing off-kilter the self-regulating mechanisms that keep our climate stable. Second, the sentence beginning with "According to Accu-Weather" is an unattributed secondhand quote from the anti-Global Warming website globalwarming.org (maintained by the "Cooler Heads Coalition" which is an anti-global warming front group backed by a variety of conservative think tanks and carbon industry proponents). Further, the quote does not come from AccuWeather (as it is attributed), which does not take a position on the issue of Global Climate Change; rather they provide a forum for various persons on either side of the aisle to present their cases. It's likely that the quote should be attributed to one or another of those individuals. Ignoring the source of the AccuWeather quote, measuring temperature and carbon output over the past few decades is insufficient as a much larger sample size is required to draw accurate conclusions about the nature of the climate changes we're currently experiencing. When one expands the record over millions of years (with the data we have available from ice cores and other data collection forms), it becomes apparent that we are experiencing an unprecedented warming trend, and that carbon output levels are at an all-time high. When combining instrumental temperature records for the past 150 years with "proxy indicators" like ice cores and tree rings, we can construct a picture of the global temperature that shows a marked increase in temperature beginning in the 19th century (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). These findings are verified by nearly a dozen other model- and proxy-based reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere. The quote "about 80% of the CO2 from human activities was added to the air after 1940" is also an unattributed secondhand quote pulled from a source I can't identify. The simplest refutation of it is the fact that the rise of industrialism pre-dates 1940. It's not as though 1940 was the first year a coal-fired power plant went into operation; quite the contrary – coal, for example, has been mined and burned for industrial operations since the end of the 18th century. Assuming the statistic is true; it should stand as an alarming example of how rapidly CO2 output has increased in recent decades. The period of cooling between the 40s and the 70s is attributed by many to sulphate aerosols. Not only that, but it's important not to focus too closely on CO2 given that it is estimated to be responsible for only about 25 percent of the greenhouse effect at most – there are plenty of other influential greenhouse gases and other factors that weigh in. Ironically, the period of cooling is a superb example of how much human activity can affect the climate: when chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned virtually worldwide in the 1980s – it had a striking observable effect on the phenomenon of ozone depletion. The claim about Antarctica warming is patently false. Quoting from NASA's article "Two Decades of Temperature Change in Antarctica" on its Earth Observatory site: "Across most of the continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean, temperatures climbed." The British Antarctic Survey concluded likewise, saying that the Antarctic Peninsula is "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet" in its article "Climate Change." It's possible (given the other unattributed statistics and quotes) that the claim about Antarctica was taken from fiction author Michael Crichton's shoddily-researched book "State of Fear" in which Crichton (a global warming skeptic) misappropriated research by Peter Doran to make a similar claim. Doran publicly rebuffed Crichton (and all other Global Warming skeptics misusing his data) by saying "...our results have been misused as "evidence" against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'...". With respect to the final claim, I can find zero evidence that the National Science Foundation's Long-Term Ecological Research Project has found that Antarctica has cooled. Quite the contrary – instead of being Global Climate Change skeptics, the NRS's LTER recognizes the significant consequences of Global Warming, stating on its website: "The study of Global Change is particularly important as it is now clear that human social and economic activities around the world are having an impact that can be measured at the level of the entire Earth and its atmosphere, oceans, and land surface. Human activities are probably the most rapidly changing component among the major regulators of the Earth system, and may—in the future—play a dominant role in the regulation of global climate, global biogeochemistry, and the diversity and stability of global ecosystems."

Title: Anthropogenic global climate change. Content: In my debate I will be trying not to persuade you that humans are totally responsible for global warming, but the major cause is from animals etc, with still little help from the humans. It would be totally biased if you wanted me to defend humans completely out of global warming for such as a fart contributes. At the end of this debate I hope to have abolished the Anthropogenic title from your moot, and (as seen from the previous debate) from your stubborn mind. No need for any clarifications. Thank You and good luck!

Title: Impromptu Debate Content: I'll be CON the resolution "Global Warming is a sham..." First, I'd like to note that global warming refers to an increase in the earth's temperature. Evidence indicates that the earth's temperature has actually increased by 1.4 degrees around the world since 1880, so technically the resolution has already been affirmed. However most friction pertaining to this subject questions whether or not human activity is to blame for global warming. I'd like to note that I don't have to prove that global warming is man-made, only that it is happening (based on the resolution). Regardless, I definitely think there's evidence that human activity has contributed to this problem. Most scientists throughout the world acknowledge the problem of global warming, and more importantly, note humans as avid contributors. "This conclusion is shared by the national science academies of developed and developing countries plus many other organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to provide the world with 'a clear scientific view' on climate change. The only real debate is about how fast warming will occur, and how much damage will be done, as a result of human activities that produce heat-trapping CO2 and other greenhouse-gas emissions" [1]. A basic understanding of elementary science helps reveal why human activity and global warming is evident. For instance, pollution, deforestation, and industrialization have increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface; it's no wonder the earth's temperature will therefore inevitably increase. Another problem is that humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it, which will obviously affect the way the earth heats and cools itself [2]. Excess carbon dioxide (which we output into the atmosphere) creates a warming effect on the planet [3]. One thing to keep in mind that weather cannot be confused with climate; in other words just because some places experience frigidly cold weather doesn't mean that the overall CLIMATE of the earth is not changing [4]. Various forms of evidence prove that climate change (global warming) is occurring and has been steadily increasing gradually over time. Atmospheric temperature measurements taken from orbiting satellites show warming; records of coral proxy and trees indicate global warming; the drastic rise in sea level indicates global warming; the glaciers melting at an alarming rate signifies global warming; records from scientific organizations such as NOAA, HADCRU, JMA and even NASA show that the earth's temperature on average has been increasing since the 1800s [5]. At this point, it would be irresponsible to ignore all of the blatant evidence and scientific proof, as well as committed statements by the most revered scientists themselves, all taking a firm stance on the issue that global warming DOES exist (and humans contribute to the problem). [1] http://www.environmentaldefense.net... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.pewclimate.org... [4] http://abcnews.go.com... [5] http://www.environmentaldefense.net...

Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether "human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what "human activity" is and what level of change constitutes "Climate Change". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.

Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: Changes in the temperature or direction of the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north from the Gulf of Mexico, have heated sediments in a strip along the North Atlantic seafloor by 8 degrees Celsius, unlocking 2.5 billion metric tons of methane from deep-sea caches, scientists report in the Oct. 25 [1] Understanding these processes is important to global climate studies because the Gulf Stream plays a major role in the distribution of heat in the northern hemisphere.[4] This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces? It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities, according to the EPA. A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It"s all about money. B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size. [1] http://www.sciencenews.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: i'd like to refute my opponents points and then return back to defending mine. regarding my opponents first point, his point simply stated that humans pollute the earth. duh. of course human pollute the earth but this evidence is not conclusive enough to state that they are the main cause of the earth's rising temperature. we must look to a far greater source of carbon and other greenhouse gases: the earth itself. trees, volcanoes, and cosmic rays all cause the atmosphere to trap in heat. and there is far more carbon being produced by these natural occurances than humans as proven by avery's and singer's studies. to place this blame of such great magnitude on humans is proposterous. and also, no where in any research could i find a stat that humans cause "more than 50%" of global warming. in my opponents second point, he simply stated that people believe in the greenhouse gas theory. although this is true, i have evidence to support the other side. recently a petition was circulating around the oregon institute of science and medicine of over 17,000 highly qualified scientists who believe that humans releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will not cause a catastrophe in the foreseeable future. in response another petition had been created recieving only 2,600 signatures stating that humans are causing this change. signatures for this survey consisted of only 10% scientists and of that 10%, only 1% were climatologists. and also a recent court case in britain ruled that "an inconvenient truth" could not be shown in school because it was ruled non-factual. my opponent states that the UN agrees with him that humans are the cause of global warming but if you gander at his debate history, he is involved in a debate that states the UN is a bad organization. a little hypocritical, huh krebs? :) moving to my side of the argument my opponent showed no means of proving that global warming is not happened because of the earth's dawning ice age so this point still stands. i clearly prove that because we are coming up on an ice age, this is the culprit of rising temperatures and not humans my second point covered fossil fuel emissions which is most commonly named for causing global warming and i disproved this and stated that rising temperature actually causes rising CO2 levels and not the other way around thank you.

Title: Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face. Content: Definitions:Climate Change: the warming of earth's climate that is caused by human activity. NOTE: global warming means the same thing. Greenhouse gas: a gas contributing to climate changeEmission: the greenhouse gas output of a machine(car, factory, etc. )Good Luck!

Title: Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change Content: Thank you for your reminder that I have not given a single evidence that goes against your case. To fight against a popular belief, the odds have been against me from the beginning. You have certainly won if this was a popularity contest. What I want to say in my previous argument was that you have not put matters into perspective. Here are my facts which I hope can put matters into perspective: A)Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future B) CO2 is not the only driver to climate change; atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. C) The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere " the primary driver of recent climate change " has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. D) Solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate. E) I hope you can agree that the Sun is an independent system of the Earth. Therefore, whatever we do on earth do not affect the sun's activities. My Analysis of the situation: [A] means that the earth is capable of sustaining life and handling CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have today. [B] & [C] support the CO2 level is 10 times more than now prior to the dinosaurs, which roughly supports [A] [D] supports that it is the combined effect of sun and CO2 that contributes to the climate change. You can see that even if we increase our current output, it would take a long time to create CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have now. Even at that level, earth can sustain life like dinosaurs. Therefore, human activity does contribute to climate change in the time scale of a 100 year, but to put in into perspective, over the time scale that date back to the beginning of life, human contributed CO2 level doesn"t affect life all that much. The sun would probably be a greater contributing factor than us human. Of course, with that said, even if we are not the major contributing factor, it is always our responsibilities to do less harm to others and to the nature" even though the sun would have killed us anyway in the end.

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Thanks to my opponent! Reading their arguments I can see this will be a great debate! I'd like to remind my opponent that although this is a rebuttal round, per the rules, new arguments can still be made.Also, there was a problem with my sources in the previous round. I will present them again:[1] http://climate.nasa.gov...[2] [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...[8] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...[9] http://www.forbes.com...[10] http://www.nasa.gov...[11] http://www.nasa.gov...[12] Rebuttals==Rebuttal 1: To doubt =/= To refute==My opponent's first argument poses a few flaws. First of all, the new figure that has been presented has *barely changed* looking at the more recent years of the graph. Also, the change at the start of the graph is a difference of what seems to be less than 0.2 degrees Celcius, which doesn't even change the fact that the warming is significant. But that isn't the point. The point is the question of what to trust. "Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction." - My opponentWhile I can agree that this may pose doubt, I can also ask the audience to *turn* this argument, because more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy, no matter how close they are. Therefore, my opponent's argument here only proves that there was no hiatus and the doubt should be cast on the 2014 update.Finally, I will stress this as much as I can: *This doesn't refute the notion that humans are a significant cause of global warming, because so far it only focuses on temperatures instead of causation.*==Rebuttal 2: Methodology Bias==There is no doubt that methodologies change throughout the course of time, as we advance with new technology. However, shouldn't it be safer to trust more modern methods rather than outdated ones? A lot of my opponent's part 2, 3 and 4 arguments are based solely off the fact that methodologies change, rather than addressing the fact that new methodologies can be used to update old figures, as was done with NASA's figure.Another version of figure 6 in my opponent's round can be seen here [1]: s://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...; alt="Graph showing no slow down in global warming" />What really matters is what my opponent says about his GHCN analysis of the high monthly average delta graph. He claims that the cooling period might explain why figures 4 and 5 start at a certain point. But there wasn't any major increase trend in ice even before the 70's [2]: "Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same, and about 90% of glaciers are shrinking worldwide (Figure 2)." - Skeptical Science [2]Sea levels have also been rising since the 1800's [3]: "A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century." - Skeptical Science [3] The most important part is where my opponent claims that the trend is almost nothing and can't be used for future predictions. This graph closely resembles the one found here [4]: This figure was created from the actual temperature rise graphs from choosing the most actively reporting stations. Unfortunately, my opponent never gives a reason as to why there was a cooling in 1945 - 1970. The reason to this is actually one of my opponent's arguments: methodologies changed right at that time. This would imply that graphed temperatures rapidly changed, and in this case, dropped. [5]Not only that, but the cooling was actually due to sulphate aerosols being released into the atmosphere [5]. Sulphate aerosols reflect solar energy back into space. This was not only caused by humans releasing such aerosols, but also by volcanic eruptions [5]. The greenhouse effect would start dominating climate again in the 70s, and the rapid warming has continued until today [5]. Therefore, rather than arguing we are not a cause of either, we should be discussing that we are the cause of both, and that the cooling was just a temporary decline.==Rebuttal 3: Is The Cause Solar Output?==The crux of my opponent's argument here is that pan evaporation correlates more with solar activity, and that the sudden increase would be because of a rip in the Northern Pole, weaking the Earth's magnetic field. We both agree that the sun's activity has remained quite constant in recent history. However, if the sudden warming were due to this rip, we can logically conclude that the atmosphere would be warmer within all layers as would happen with a situation where the sun actually increased in activity [6]. However, we have actually seen "a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere." - NASA [6]Therefore, my opponent's arguments are null.New contentions ==Contention 4: Positive feedbacks strengthen forcings==Forcings are factors that "force" climate to change. Feedbacks are factors that amplify or diminish the effect of forcings. Because positive feedbacks dominate climate, the effect of forcings are significantly amplified [7]: ==Conclusion==The evidence I have put out proves my opponent's arguments null and even contradicting as some of his data does not consider other factors. Therefore, so far a conclusion can be made that human effects do play a big part in global warming.==Sources==[1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[4] http://wattsupwiththat.com...[5] https://www.skepticalscience.com...[6] http://climate.nasa.gov...[7] http://www.nasa.gov...To Con!

Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I do not dispute the existence and reality of Global Warming. I do assert, however, that it is impossible to quantify on a global scale, what part of global warming is attributable to Human activities as compared to natural change. Therefore, to state that humanity is the main cause of global warming is, at time present, impossible to prove. Geographers and Geologists consider the state of the Earth at time present to be in an ice age, albeit a late stage. This means that there have been periods in the history of the earth with less ice coverage, higher sea levels, and warmer mean global temperatures. As an example, a major component of the Glacial retreat we are witnessing today is attributable to natural rebound from the little ice age (approximately 1300 to 1850). Certainly human activity has amplified this rebound, but to what degree is indefinable. There are also many other potential amplifying factors, a few of which are listed on the Environmental Protection Agencies Website: . http://www3.epa.gov... Note, that even this reputable website is unable to quantify human contribution vs natural causes. I will also cite an article on the little ice-age for the benefit of my opponent: . http://www.britannica.com... I would also refer my opponent to the regional research of Glaciologist Dr. Johannes Koch regarding glacial retreat in Garibaldi Park (and other regional locations) which document the geological evidence of glacial retreat since the Little Ice Age glacial extant. The immense role of the Little Ice Age on climate is well established in this research. . http://kochj.brandonu.ca... or . http://kochj.brandonu.ca...

Title: Global warming is not solely humans fault. Content: Thanks for letting me debate you on this. My opponent doesn't believe we humans have caused global warming. I believe we did. Here, you can see it's very likely that humans caused it. Experts said it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... "99 percent" is what it is, ladies and gentleman. Human activity, such as fossil fuel emissions from not-so-eco-friendly humans, agriculture, and other human-stuff has cornered our climate into the "heat zone." Our atmosphere can withstand only so much smog and exhaust from automobiles, airplanes, and boats. Smoking of cigarettes can also make a small contribution. Here are some of the biggest contributors. Source: http://www.ecobridge.org... - Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants - Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars - Carbon Dioxide from Airplanes - Carbon Dioxide from Buildings - Methane - Nitrous oxide - Deforestation As you can see, these projects were introduced to the Earth by man.

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Same.

Title: Human caused global warming is 'overhyped' Content: Hello Muslimnomore! "I am certain that the emission of green house gases produced through human activity has affected climates and temperatures world wide. There is no question about this in my mind. It is not even a matter of mere correlation really." Great! This we can agree on. "1. Human caused global warming will accelerate the arrival of the next ice age (in less than 100 years)." They used to say this during the "global warming" days, but since the model has shifted to "climate change" most scientists agree that co2 actually does the opposite. It heats up our planet in certain areas, but this causes polar caps and icebergs to melt, sending cold waters towards the equator and causing certain areas to actually cool rather than warm. It was 73 F in New York on Dec. 24th, 2013. Then again: http://www.usatoday.com... It is 52 here in Va, highly unusual. And very miserable, might I add. "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." Some of the dangers we face are extreme climates, heightened sea levels (flooding), and much greater ocean acidity (already up about 30% since the industrial revolution). http://climate.nasa.gov... So no, it won't accelerate our ice age, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad. "2. Human caused global warming will result in large areas of land (such as the majority of Bangladesh) to become submerged in water (in less than 100 years)." "Rising sea level is a threat to people who live near the ocean. Some low-lying areas will have more frequent flooding, and very low-lying land could be submerged completely. Rising sea level can also harm important coastal ecosystems like mangrove forests and coral reefs." -- http://epa.gov... "climate change is expected to substantially increase these already high relative rates by increasing the global rate of sea-level rise. Although the response of ice sheets to warmer temperatures can not be predicted, there is a consensus that sea level rise will accelerate as ocean waters expand and glaciers retreat." -- http://www.epa.gov... "3. Human caused global warming has lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes and other storms around the globe." "The latest science connecting hurricanes and global warming suggests more is yet to come. Tropical storms are likely to bring: higher wind speeds; more precipitation; and bigger storm surge in the coming decades. Over the course of this century, maximum wind speeds could increase 2-11 percent and rainfall could increase 3-31 percent." -- http://www.nwf.org... Also, "Warming-driven sea level rise makes storm surges more destructive; increased water vapor in the atmosphere leads to 5 to 10% more rainfall and increases the risk of flooding; because water vapor and higher ocean temperatures help fuel the storm, it is likely to be more intense and bigger as well; and the unusual path of the storm...caused by a very strong blocking high pressure system that recent studies have linked to warming. " -- http://thinkprogress.org... I hope I have answered all of your questions regarding climate change!

Title: Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity. Content: Definitions:Climate Change: the warming of earth's climate that is caused by human activity. NOTE: global warming means the same thing. Greenhouse gas: a gas contributing to climate changeEmission: the greenhouse gas output of a machine(car, factory, etc. )Good Luck!

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: This debate is being canceled. Please redirect all your attention to the original debate that had been hijacked by a Troll, but is freed back up.http://www.debate.org...

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: It's unfortunate that my opponent decided to write up his response to the contradiction in his data so rashly. Perhaps if he had taken a day to digest the argument he would have been able to come up with a better response.Since this is a long debate I'm going to use this round as a tldr to summarize the evidence, and give my opponent one last chance to attempt to refute the challenges he's chosen to ignore, or breeze past.EvidenceNot Human Caused1) 1970 has more ice than 1870My opponent seems to be unable to read his own graph, Figure 12. According to his own data, which he did not decide to toss out, the Sum total of Ice loss in 1970 was between -300 and -400, and in 1870 it's clearly more than -400. Because it's going with a communalative total this means there was an increase in Ice.Now I gave my opponent, and you the judges lots of leeway to reject the evidence completely. However, he has not, and misunderstands what I was talking about with the change in the number of sampled glaciers. When you add in a large amount of sample like in Figure 7 when the number of Weather Stations goes from about 500 to over a thousand the graph becomes exaggerated. According to Figure 17 that's exactly what happened with the glacier data around 1976 where the sampling nearly double.2) Weather Station data shows no correlation change with human activity in the 115 year range of this debate.This is simply a fact that can't actually be refuted. The truth is that when you do a comparative analysis for weather stations that use the complete set. In other words. they exist at the start, 1900, and exist at the end 2015 you get no noticeable correlation with an increase in temperature. My opponent was even nice enough to find a second source confirming this with a smaller more restrictive dataset.So, why would you want to include a bunch of weather stations from 1970 that have no records going back to 1900 when you want to know what changes in weather can be observed from 1900 to 2015?The answer is simple. Figure 10 shows 1970 as a low point in temperature, and, if Figure 12 is not discarded, is corroborated by the ice data. The several thousand stations added thought the 70's can only show an increase because they started at the bottom, and have no past beyond that, like the high of the 30's, to be compared to. It results in the increase being exaggerated, in much the same way Figure 12 has exaggerations.3) The Pan Evaporation Rate is by far the most important fassett of this debate.The fact that this rate stays relatively constant from 1980 to 2005 corroborates the conclusions drawn from Figure 10. The fact that it changes in late 2010 to strongly correlate to solar cycle 24 which NASA has predicted in 2008 would subject the Earth to an unusually large volume of Solar Storms because of an effect with our Electromagnetic field suggest some important things. Most importantly that is shows changes in the Earth's Energy footprint, and second that the changes that it shows has nothing to do with the actions of man. So if we blame the heat waves of 2012, and the record heat of 2014 on global warming the real culprit is solar storms made possible by a weird effect in our electromagnetic field, and a dual peak, 2012 and 2014, in solar cycles 24.Man Caused Evidence1) Sea LevelsOn the surface it may seem that sea levels support my opponent. However, this requires that he reject his own glacial data. After all if the Volume of Ice is high in 1970 than it was in 1870 where did this ice come from? Then without the dataset to recreate the graph we can't reliably show the CO2 and Sea Levels side by side to see how well or not well they correlate. In my view the bulge of CO2 from the 70's isn't visible the poor quality graph of the Sea Levels, and the source for that dataset has long since taken it down, or moved it. It's even possible that sea levels, and the Ice Data are both correct, but that would require believing something like our pumping of groundwater could have had an impact on the amount of available water, but that's not global warming if you accept that.2) Mixed Methodology Temperature GraphsA good portion of my argument involves a bit of education about how mixed methodologies can warp a graph. The easiest way to resolve this kind of an argument is to separate out the methodologies, and treat each of them separately. I've done this with the weather station data.Now his latest temperature graph does attempt at showing a correlation between CO2, and temperature. However, if we accept the Round 3 temperature graph there are a few problem. First I'm glad my opponent finally has a graph that shows a clear run up in temperature for the 30's unlike his others. However, this exposes that the correlation only exists for about 1960 to 2000 maybe 2015 since it's hard to tell on the edge of a graph if the trend is continuing, or not. In his graph the temperature is noticeably higher compared to the CO2 levels breaking the correlation for the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Then in the early 1900's it's noticeably lower breaking the correlation yet again. Finally in the 1880's it's noticeably higher than the CO2 would imply. If CO2 so definitively correlates for a brief period in the 20's and from 1960 to present why does it deviate so violently in the other periods? It could be that the CO2 measurements in that graph are an over smoothed representation of the truth, or it could be that the correlation never really was to begin with.3) VenusThis is actually a minor point, but I'm aware that some people will look at the example of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and think that it is somehow proof.Fact, even if we burned all the Coal, and Oil on the planet, and even if we were in the orbit of Venus we still wouldn't even approach the temperatures of Venus. The reason has to do with Atmospheric pressure and Ideal Gases. CO2 and O2 are close enough to Ideal Gases that they actually obey the Ideal Gas Laws.When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2. Now we just need to apply Avogadro's Law.Avogadro's Law“equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules”This means that the atmospheric pressure will remain the same at 1 Bar for Earth, but Venus has 92 Bars of pressure, or 9200%. No amount of burning will cause us to add atmosphere. We can only convert it. Now volcanoes can inject CO2 without burning, and that's one of the few ways it can be approached. However, even with the same exact atmosphere we'd still be colder because when our electromagnetic field is working we don't get the additional heat that Venus does because it spins too slowly to have a field large enough to deflect them.This is why the Venus, and Mars analogy is false. It is a gross over simplification of the truth. It neglects that we don't add atmosphere, but rather convert it. It also ignores out electromagnetic field which is the main difference between Earth and Venus, and Mars.Thank you, and I await our final round.

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: I will enumerate more of my opponents graphs.Figure 12: Global Glacier Cumulative Volume ChangesFigure 13: Proportions of growing and shrinking glaciers in 2009Figure 14: Sea Levels since 1870Figure 15: US Stations reporting continuously from 1900 to 2000Figure 16: Feedbacks vs Forcings GraphPart 6: Contradictory Glacial, Sea Level, and Temperature DataFigure 12 is interesting not because it counters any of my argument, but because it puts my opponents temperature, and sea level data in contradiction with it. If you look at 1970 in Figure 12 You'll notice the volume of glacial ice is higher than any point from 1870 to 1970. How did we get more Ice in 1970? If we accept that the melt of glaciers is caused solely by heat, and if we accept ether Figure 2, or the corrected Figure 6 then we have a problem. The dates leading up to 1970 don't show any noticeable decline in temperature that would explain it, and the Figure 14 sea levels don't show any stabilizing or drop in sea level to address where this extra water for the ice even came from.We're locked into another contradiction similar to the one that I started with. Ether the Glacial data is correct, and temperature, and sea level is incorrect. The Inverse of that, or both are wrong.There are a couple of issues with Figure 12 that will need to be disclosed and accounted for before we can con to a decision about which data is correct. According to my opponent's source the number of glaciers represented from 1946 on back is in the single digits. It's not until about 1960 that we have about 30 glaciers represented in the sample. If we take a look at Figure 10 we can see that this is the point where the yearly median drops below zero implying slightly colder than average temperatures.If you look at Figure 12 at 1980 you'll notice the angle of decrease shows a slowing which would imply that the temperature decreased, or had a slower accent than in prior years. In Figures 2, and 6 no such indication is given, but in Figure 10 the early 80's shows another decline in temperatures before the 90's where it finally moves above zero implying higher than normal temperatures, and thus a steeper decline in volume.In other words Figure 12 is in less contradiction with Figure 11 then it is with Figures 2, 6, and 14.However, Figure 12 also suffers from exaggeration of features due to changing sample size. This is address in my analysis in step 4, and when I brought up the causes of the differences between Figure 7 and Figure 8. Adding in a thousand weather stations radically altered the graph which is why step 4 restricted weather stations to existing at the start and end of the analysis. So where does the sampling look like for Glaciers? My opponent's source is very nice to graph it out for us to see on their intermediate discussion of glacial ice.Figure 17: Number of observed glaciers As you can see just prior to 1976 there was only about 45 glaciers in the data. Then it spontaneously has about 20, nearly half of the prior sample, added in. This continues until the early 80's where that with a sample of just over 90 has doubled the sample. Then throw out the 90's regular sampling increased, and this would further exaggerate the changes because we hasn't sampled the glaciers in that method in the past.Now I'd love to download the generate the data properly myself. My opponents source does point people towards it here: wgms.ch/data_databaseversions/ However the data isn't high quality like the GHCN dataset, and would require more time than I have in this debate to properly process. It also doesn't have what I would consider a high enough quantity of data. It barely has 30 glaciers sampled regularly, and I'd personally prefer 100 before I started making definitive claims about what the data says. Even the source claims that they have 228 glaciers in the data, and the only way for that to work with the sample graph is if glaciers skip years, and aren't fully represented every year, and across every season in a year.Part 7: Hiatus Proof?My opponent is under the mistaken belief that I've proven the hiatus to be false. Unfortunately Part 1 of my argument does everything, but that. I've proven only that two parts of the global warming argument about the hiatus are in stark contradiction with each other. That only proves one, or both are wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't prove which one is actually wrong. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are the evidence that undermines Figures 2, and 6 strongly suggesting that data in both cases is flawed. It's up you the judges to choose which you believe. However, using my opponent's reasoning that “because more recent updates are and should be seen as more trustworthy” is counter to logic, reason, and debate. It is an appeal to the authority of newness, and not a rational reason at all.Part 8: Correlation vs CausationMy opponent seems to be under the impression that my only focuses on the temperatures, and doesn't refute humans as the cause. There is a phrase in statistics that you may have heard. “Correlation does not imply causation”, but that's only half the phrase. These other half is, “There is no causation without correlation”. Simply put if there is no correlation between global warming and human activity as Figure 10 shows then humans are certainly not the cause. However, if you believe Figure 2, or 6, and that they correlate to human CO2 activity then there is the additional burden of proving that the correlation causal, and not just correlational.It's an unfortunate asymmetry in statistical arguments. There is a possibility that even if there isn't a correlation that maybe the correlation is just smaller than can be measured with the available data, but that would yield that human activity is an insignificant factor in global warming.As for correlation issues my opponent has another problem. If we believe Figure 14 we'd expect out CO2 emissions to map over it, and show a visible correlation. Now both CO2, and Ocean levels have gone up over time, but just going up isn't enough. Sea levels have a nice smooth mathematical curve built into it. I'd have loved to have put both the CO2 and Figure 14 together, but my opponents source linking to the data to do that leads to a 404 error:http://www.pol.ac.uk...Figure 18: CO2 Emissions If you notice between 1950 and 200 there is a bulge in out CO2 emissions, and between 1980 and 2000 a different rate of increase until 2000 where it is in line with an exponential trend that started in 1870. These features would be expected in the Sea Levels data if they were strongly correlated, but it looks like by the seal levels that it's an exponential trend that never varies in the way out CO2 emissions do. My data is courtesy of Source 8. Now if my opponent can find the source for this Figure I'd be happy to merge the sea level in so we can see just how much it doesn't correlate. Most other sources only give about 10 years of data.Part 9: Solar ActivityMy opponent is under the impression that he can wave his hands, and assert an argument, and data is null just because it doesn't conform to his world view. He'd have to explain the lack of movement in the past data, and give an appropriate alternative for Cycle 24 correlating, but not prior. NASA's assessment in 2008 on the effect of Solar Storms due to this unprecedented phenomenon had no prior data. Outside of the last decade this was never observed before. Claiming that we should see all layers heat up as he claims to try to ‘nullify' is nothing more than an unsupported assumption.Part 10: Dust BowlMy opponent makes the claim that I hadn't explained the downward change in the median, and then attempted to assert that it must be from a change in methodology. Though I'm not against this possibility claiming that a change in any of the graphs is due to a methodology change requires further explanation. Parts 2, 3, and 4 are extensive explanation of methodological errors. However, I did explain the change in the graph even if it was indirect. In the 1930's there was a excessive drought, and heat waves. Part of this being clearly represented in the data is due to the United States having the best most consistent weather station data for the last century, and even more so in my opponent's Figure 15 because it is only the United States of America 600 weather stations vs my sample of 1170 weather stations. Now this event very much did occur, and is verified in the EPA Heat Wave Index that shows the 30's were exceedingly bad even by today's standards, and you can read source 5 to see further analysis on this Great Depression causing event if you doubt the 30's heat waves weren't hell on Earth.Now why the 30's was Hell on Earth is anybody's guess. We know it was bad, and man made CO2 emissions were even lower so blaming them enters into contradiction with the present high emissions. Personally I'd love it if there was enough pan evaporation data to verify that there was, or was not a correlation with sunspots, but the available GHCN data is too small for that period evaporation data.Part 11: Contention 4My opponents 4th contention appears to be missing an actual argument to go with it, or even a time period to show the change in forcing, and feedbacks over time. Perhaps he will clarify in the next round what he was going after with it.Part 12: Earth, Mars, and VenusI'm out of time, and characters so I will have to cut my response a bit, and hope to come back to this part if possible.I await my opponent.[8] http://cdiac.ornl.gov...

Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: I'm arguing that global climate change is not impacted by humans. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1. Earth's climate has often warmed and cooled, and the recent rise in global temperature is within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years. A study from 2013 claimed that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century. 2. Changes in global temperature are generally due to variations in the sun's heat, not by human activity. The majority of the observed climate changes between the 20th and 21st centuries has corresponded with multiple solar cycles. In 2012 it was discovered that there was a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic, not by human activity.3. The receding glaciers are not a result of human activity, but rather have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes. A 2014 study of over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas proved that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. Another study claimed that receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to "atmospheric circulation changes" that caused West Antarctica to warm rapidly. 4. CO2 is not the cause. In 2003, a study showed that over the past four climactic cycles (which have occurred during the past 240,000 years) warming has not followed, but rather preceded, a rise of CO2.Of the CO2 that humans have produced between 2002-2011, about 50% has been re-absorbed by earth's "carbon sinks."Within the past 16 years there has been an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still the earth has not warmed significantly. http://climatechange.procon.org...

Title: Human activities are the main cause global warming. Content: Okay, so I would like to agree with all of your definitions starting off, and we are going to keep the terms so we don't have definition clashes (like value clashes except more annoying…just kidding I love clashes of any kind that is why I debate) I would like to quickly define predicted: foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason. (Merriam-webster) For my quick resolutional analysis, I will state: going by your definitions, mainly that of your global warming definition, all I have to prove is that human activities are the main cause of pollution, which according to your definition of global warming is the predicted cause of, and to show that the prediction is based off of observation, experience or scientific reason. 1st point: Humans are the main cause of Pollution. According to library.thinkquest.org, there are six different kinds of pollution: air, water, land, noise, radioactive, and thermal. a)air- air pollution is mostly caused by motor vehicle exhaust and industrial processes. Through motor vehicle exhaust, the combustion of the fuel creates oxides of lead, nitrogen, and sulpher. These oxides are more commonly known as ‘smog' and when they dissolve into water vapors they create acid rain. Industrial processes create big black smoke, (seen near many cities nowadays) that is nothing more than a gigantic creator of CFC's (clarification: chlorofluorocarbon) that rearrange the structure of the O otherwise known as the ozone layer gas. b) water-defined as being foreign matter that deteriorates the quality of water. The main causes are: petroleum based products, agriculture chemicals, and soil pollution. Quick run through, oil spills etc., pesticides that cover fruits and veggies that humans and animals eat, and finally our chemicals that seep through the ground and enter underground resevoirs. c)land- decomposition of solid waste, and the accumulation of non-biodegradable materials. Also the destruction of our environment falls into this category, such as the fact that every year we are losing 6 million hectares of land, loss of 24 billion tons of topsoil (the soil that lets us grow food), loss of 15 million acres of prime farm land to mismanagement and overuse, etc... the list goes on. d)noise-not a very popular pollution that people focuse on, but here we go: road traffic noise, air traffic, rail traffic, neighborhood noise, industrial noises, etc. while there are natural noises such as waves hitting the beach or even mating calls of monkeys, that are grossly overshadowed by the noise we cause. e)radioactive- the main causes are the disposal of nuclear waste, and nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants. i think you get this point but just a quickfact, the half life of these radioactive substances have half lives of over 10,000 years. Right now the best america can do is bury these deep underground in some bunker in nevada. f)thermal- the most important type of pollution that is related to this debate. the two types that direct us the most, but are not thought about as much are the deforestation of shorelines and soil erosion. the first one, the deforestation of shorelines contributes greatly to the fact that the trees once holding the shoreline together are now being harvested for paper and etc. without these trees, not only is more soil going into the water, but also increases the amount of surface area of the water. the second type helps explains this more, soil erosion. muddy water that is created by the deforestation of shorelines, makes this water filled with sediment and other materials that have increased the light absorbtion into the water. Because the water now has much more light absorbtion, increasing the temperature of the water. This water heats up, and now we have melting polar ice caps. yes, the melting polar ice caps. Just as an example we have the Ward Hunt Ice shelf that has been in solid condition for the past 3,000 years. It started cracking in 2000 and now is currently in pieces. (NASA) When these break off, they start melting in the much warmer salt water and then raise the water level. And because there are less ice shelves, there is not as much sunlight being reflected back into space, rather more sunlight being absorbed. The cycle just continues over and over. 2) Global Warming Theory exists off of observation, experience and scientific reason. The people who are mostly pushing this theory is the IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) who is made up of over 350 scientific experts and government representatives, and their report was contributed and edited by over 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors (IPCC) all from over 130 countries. The specific summary for policy makers included 600 authors from over 40 different countries, more than 620 expert reviewers, and government reviewers and representatives from over 113 countries. (IPCC) I think this counts for observation and experience. For scientific reason, here is their reasoning: We are certain of the following: there is a greenhouse effect...; emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it. We calculate with confidence that: ...CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect; long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilise their concentrations at today's levels... For my arguments: 1)Yes I agree that over a period of several hundred years the temperature will slowly rise, but to have such dramatic rise in the past few years is not the earth in a cycle, but rather outside influences, more specifically human influences. If we look to my information, supported by the UN and more than 130 countries, as well as hundred of climate experts, they all found the same thing, humans are affecting global warming whether we want to admit it or not. More than that, they have found that we are the cause of over 50% of it all. 2)For burning fossil fuels is only 18%, yes I agree with that too. But, we are not looking to ONLY fossil fuels contributing to greenhouse gases. Methane is not a fossil fuel (look to livestock raised by farmers..;)..) yet it contributes greatly to the global warming problem. If you look back to my first point and proof of pollution and greenhouse gases (specifically water vapor) we see that we do cause the majority. good luck KB

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.I don't intend on reposting any of my opponents graphs, or data. However it is important that I enumerate his graphs.Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 for 650,000 yearsFigure 2: Global Land-Ocean Temperature IndexFigure 3: Greenhouse ExplanationFigure 4: Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice August 1979 to 2013Figure 5: Sea Level ChangePart 1: DoubtIt's telling that my opponent makes the claim that it is irrefutable, and then uses Figure 2. Even NASA, and NOAA would refute that graph since in June of this year they published serious corrections in an attempt to remove the hiatus from the argument.Figure 6: Corrected Figure 2 Now this claim that the pause doesn't exist poses a problem because a few years ago the claim was that the pause was caused by about 17 volcanoes back as little as 2014[2]. So which is it? Does the pause exist, and was caused by Volcanoes, or does the pause not exist, and was caused by weighting issues in the data? Any reasonable person should now have some doubt in the basic data claims of global warming for a basic contradiction.Part 2: Methodology BiasUnderstanding instrument, and methodology bias is needed to understand what was done in Figure 6, and understand if we should accept the graph at all.The data that is being corrected is the Ocean temperature measurements done by volunteer ships in the early half of the data. By itself this isn't a problem. The ship data has a higher inaccuracy, but all the ship data would have similar errors, and when compared to the same methodology there wouldn't be an issue. When you mix in other methodologies this error can become a big problem. What caused these differences isn't hard to understand. Think of a time where we collected temperature data without the aid of a machine. If someone has to go out, and check the temperature, and record it there is always the possibility they missed the true high, and missed the true low. When we get to machine aided recording missing that true high, and true low is drastically reduced. Furthermore the error is unidirectional. Missing the true high will only result in a lower value. Just as missing the true low only results in a higher value.We can actually see this type of bias in weather station dataset call the GHCN Data: [3]If we didn't accept the methodology bias Figure 7 would present an interesting problem since the average high increase about 4 degrees C, and the average Low decreases by about 6 degrees C. If that was global warming the decrease in the low would seriously outweigh the increase in the high.Figure 7: All GHCN High and Low Temperature Yearly Averages Part 3: Addressing BiasTo address bias the bias must remain as constant as possible. Part of the reason for only debating the last 115 years is that the bias for weather station methodology hasn't radically changed unlike in the seventeen, and eighteen hundreds where changes in methodology were much more common. By just comparing a station to itself, and only looking at the stations delta from hits own average we can show that the abrupt change around 1900 was actually an illusion caused by a large number of stations following a similar methodology, and not an actual change in temperature.We can see in Figure 8 that the change is more gradual like the low temperature in Figure 7. The disagreement between the two graphs implies that the change is due to method changes, and not due to real changes.Figure 8: All GHCN Station High Temperature Average Delta Figure 9: All GHCN Station Low Temperature Average Delta It would be an error to accept either Figure 7 or 8 as the truth. Both still suffer from a change in methodology bias, but they reflect that change differently. They both also high the noise in the data by utilizing a yearly, and 5 year mean. However, if you do accept Figure 7 as the truth you'd still have to reconcile the issue that Figure 9 shows that the Low temperature being higher than our modern time.We also have an issue with sample size. At the earliest part of the data there is only 1 station. It's not until the 1870's that we start to get a decent sample size to start to remove statistical sampling errors, but even then it's only at a minimum. At the peak of the data in 2005 we have nearly 14 thousand station, but by 2015 we only have 10 thousand stations. This radical change in sample size can cause. Just as in 1893 we only had 563 stations but in 1894 we had 1353 which is responsible for the abrupt change in Figure 7.The methodology below is what I will use to address each of these issues.Methodology GHCN Data Analysis: 1. To process this data the first step is to convert each stations monthly 31 day values into a single monthly median value for each station.2. Then each stations monthly median values are averages to create the average median for the life of the station.3. The station average median is then subtracted from the station median to create a delta that represents that stations change away from the average median.4. Stations are then selected based on the date of operation. For analysis starting in 1900 all weather stations that were operational in 1900 and operational at the end of the analysis must be used. Weather stations that were not operational at the start of the analysis cannot be used because they will induce a change in the region bias.5. From there the data can be graphed, or each months delta for the year can be averaged to create a yearly change for a simpler graph.Part 4: GHCN Data AnalysisFigure 10 below is the above analysis applied to the Global Historical Climatology Network Data. The blue dots represent the monthly noise that Figure 2, and 6 hides. We can now see that the average temperature varies by +- 4 degrees from normal, and not the few tenths of a degree that the yearly mean implies. As a note the two largest positive deviations from the mean are March 2010, and 2012 by 6.1, and 6.6 degrees respectively. They are separated by nearly a century, and show that the high temperatures of 2012 are hardly abnormal.If you notice in the graph between 1930, and 1940 you'll notice a clear bulge in the 5 year mean about zero. This is of note because it correlates with the known heat waves of the 30's that attributed to an climaxed with the Dust Bowl in 1936 as seen in the EPA Heat Wave Index[5]. Anyone looking at this data in the 50's and 60's might actually believe that we were heading towards a global cooling event since in the 70's the median clearly drops below zero. Conversely anyone starting their analysis in the 70's is starting at a low, and thus only see a movement upwards. Which may also explain my opponent's Figures 4 and 5 which start with the low 70's era, and lack any data for the early half of the 115 year period this debate is over.We can even apply a trend line to see if there is a trend upwards over the time period. There is a slight trend of 0.0009 degrees celsius per year, but this is with an R Squared of 0.0004 which means the significance of that upward trend is almost nothing, and can't be used for any real future predictions. For those unfamiliar with R Squared we really want to see a value as close to 1 as possible. A value of 0.5 is ok for some things like predicting erratic human behavior, but the more significant the claim the closer to 1 it needs to be. 0.0004 is so close to zero that it may as well be zero.Figure 10: GHCN High Monthly Average Delta 1900 - 2015 I'd present A figure on the Low, but it would be redundant with Figure 10, and given the time and text constraints I will cut it from my argument.Part 5: Is Temperature the Appropriate Measure?When we say that CO2 causes the Earth's temperature to rise what we really mean is that the increase in CO2 causes the atmosphere to hold more energy. The Pan Evaporation Rate can be used to measure the energy in the atmosphere. If you take a look at Figure 11 you'll notice it significantly deviates from a rather consistent trend. I've reduced the time range to 1980 to 2015 to give the largest possible sample of 156 pans in the GHCN dataset.Figure 11: Pan Evaporation to Sun Spots If we accept the increase is due to an abnormal warming due to solar storms that track with sun spots then we have a problem from the lack of any significant change during the man made ramp up of CO2 over the last 3, and a half decades. Since the sun's solar output varies by about 0.1 percent[6] it could be that even adding more CO2 has little effect because we've long since been able to absorb nearly all of the available solar energy.So why is there a spontaneous increase after 2005? In 2008 NASA announced a discovery of an odd phenomena. They observed a Northern polarity Coronal Mass Ejection rip open our Northern Magnetic pole, and thus exposed the entire day side of the planet to solar storms that it doesn't normally get[7]. This resulted in the prediction that solar cycle 24 which would send more northern polarity CME's towards the Earth would, and subject us to an unusually high volume of Solar Storms that our Magnetic field usually protects us from. This would also explain why the shape with many of the same peaks and valleys visible in the data.[1] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...[2] http://time.com...[3] ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/[4] https://en.wikipedia.org... (Only as a reference to a historical fact)[5] http://www3.epa.gov...[6] http://www.dailykos.com...[7] http://science.nasa.gov...

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Same, Same.

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: I accept.

Title: Climate Change is man caused Content: My position on climate change is that not only do I believe in it but I believe it is man caused. I will start My opening argument to state that global warming is a proven fact and anyone that disagrees with me is ignorant on this subject. 97% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily human caused. Also the arguments stated by Human-caused climate change deniers are pointless and not fact driven. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources(s): Shaftel, H. (Ed.). (2012, January 5). Global Climate Change: Consensus. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov...

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate. ______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising. DEFINITIONS Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans. Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS. Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizesRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALSRound 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original caseRound 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttalsRound 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc. )11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.12. Kritiks of the topic are not accepted. As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!

Title: Climate change is real and caused by humans Content: Okay first off, you keep saying climate change is real. IT IS! the climate changes constantly according to the season. We are arguing that that GLOBAL WARMING isn't real. All you are doing is rebutting my arguments saying that they are not caused by humans, so in saying, your saying I'm correct. You have made no arguments suggesting that humans cause global warming, because there is none. All you have said is that most Scientist agree with global warming and that they believe that humans are a main cause of it, but yet where is the evidence. I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more arguments. Some of the cause is in the arctic; the polar ice caps are melting faster than it can be evaporated .This process may be reversed in 10-20 years. Humans are only responsible for less than 3 % of all the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Geologists Nicholas Chackleton and Neil Opdyke both from Cambridge University wrote in a quaternary research journal. Estimating the average world temperature has been slowly increasing over the last one million years, long before the human industries started releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together. The sun actually has little to do with actually heating the atmosphere with its high frequency radiation. Something as hot as the sun can"t give off low frequency radiation called infrared. Instead, the sun"s rays heats the Earth"s surface, this weakens the radiation to infrared. From there it moves in to the earth"s atmosphere by any means necessary (Conduction, convection, evaporation). Then the inferred radiation is absorbed by the CO2. Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times. The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. The human industry has only been around for around 200 years. The earth has been warming since the dinosaur ages. Without a doubt, humans have caused minimal changes to our environment as it is already warming itself. Nature is sending Carbon dioxide in to out atmosphere by natural disasters. For example, the eruption of Mt. St Helens has sent more carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere than humans have for over decades. In fact, that eruption actually caused global cooling of 1 degree. According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth"s temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally. This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It"s not our fault we breathe, it"s completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere. Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year"s average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would have been destroyed long ago. So how could humans cause global warming if global warming was around before humans even existed? Sources: http://scienceray.com...

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Well, a troll who is now banned accepted my other debate, so I am doing this again. Thank you to Medv4380 for accepting this debate. However, they have yet to respond and start accepting debate challenges. The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate.______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising.DEFINITIONS Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans.Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS.Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizesRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:Round 1: Acceptance.Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALSRound 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original caseRound 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttalsRound 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc.)11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.12. Kritiks are not accepted.As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Same

Title: No time to hold back Content: Among other factors which may be responsible for climate change, human action is generally regarded a strong contribution – and one which looks set to increase, particularly in light of the swift industrialization of certain large nations, such as China. There may not be time to wait. "At least 40 per cent of the world's economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources." — The Convention About Life on Earth (UN Convention on Biodiversity) Climate change interferes with ecosystem functioning and resources provided by the 'natural' environment. For example, rainfall in the tropics is largely created by the rainforests themselves, the potential for pharmaceuticals being discovered, timber resources etc. These have been valued at US $33 trillion. This is compared to a global GNP of $18 trillion.

Title: Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind Content: Models show that both nature and human activity contribute to the warming of this century, however, when humans are taken out of the mix, the warming trend that would occur does not match the warming that is currently happening. http://www.koshland-science-museum.org... "the main reason for warming is greenhouse gases. These are naturally occurring however in the past 200 years since the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have increased – especially CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, which come from the burning of fossil fuels, vehicles, agriculture & mining" http://www.wnrmag.com... As mentioned – nature and human activity work hand in hand in global warming. For example, water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is natures way of keeping the earth at a stable temperature, however other greenhouse gases are rising and do contribute to the greenhouse effect. As the planet increases in temperature, more water can be held therefore also increasing the temperature – so nature and human activity work together to raise temperatures one step at a time. http://www.slate.com... As an example of how CO2 and temperature seem to go hand and hand a website is provided http://www.whrc.org... I like how you mention that it is the political argument that climate change is real and science proves that it is false – then why is it that it seems that scientists agree that climate change is real and it is the corporations, lobbyists and politicians who is altering reports from their own "climate scientists". http://www.csmonitor.com... http://www.sciencemag.org... "To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced. These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics." -from the David Suzuki website. In case you didn't know, David Suzuki is the Rick Nash/Wayne Gretzky/Bruce Lee/Muhammed Ali of environmental science and causes. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. It shows said personnel admitting the science is bunk. http://www.cbc.ca... The trend of China and India and their increase in manufacturing and gas powered vehicles will exasperate the problems of air pollution. Despite progressive efforts, the global affect of a rapidly heating, changing environment, toxins affected the food chain, the oceans rising. The incomes and economics so many of rely on will change rapidly. The ecosystem we rely on is under threat and I provide the evidence to prove the conspiracy to deny the science. Quite simply there is no peer reviewed science that states human activity does not cause global warming. My opponent show the signs of a Republican fanatic who allows his thinking to be ruled by the economics and politics that is threatened by the science.

Title: Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions Content: Dear audience, please excuse my opponent for his outrageous conduct. During this round, if anyone has been manipulated by the fiendish approach my opponent has set, I will set them straight in this round.REBUTTALS "My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change."This, Mr. Adams, is why I am concerned on your motives of conduct, if you are willing to stoop to such a low in this debate. I will quote what YOU said in the opening round, in which I agreed to and accepted."PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists).CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. "You have lost this debate, because you have admitted to C02 emissions factoring into global warming! You made a very poor mistake in doing this Mr. Adams. Next time, I advise you to pay closer attention to such things. ALL I have to do in this debate is to PROVE TO YOU THAT C02 EMISSIONS EFFECT CLIMATE CHANGE! I have done this plenty of times, and can continue doing so as much as I please, because this is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN!"And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph."I must say, I laugh out loud when I read this. You must not have read your source very well, because it actually incriminates your point. And when you are called out on it, you say that it is FALSE! There, dear audience, you have heard it straight from my opponents own mouth. He is saying that the sources he has used in this debate are completely and utterly FALSE! Thus we cannot credit anything he has said in this ENTIRE debate, as apparently his sources all show mis-conducted information. This, however I already knew, and hopefully the audience did as well, given the vast amount of research and evidence I have shown you all strictly contradicting his evidence."The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data." Let's keep in mind, that this is the graph from my OPPONENTS own source. That aside, this was cited within the source from the government site, that I listed above. My opponent is trying to dis-credit the carbon dioxide information analysis center of the information on c02 effecting the climate change. His basis for this is extremely unwarranted, and he provides absolutely no bearing of proof to back this claim up! He is basically filling his entire round with Fluff and nonsense, and I hope the audience understands this when reading the debate. "Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t."Except for it did! Your sources were wrong, you know they were wrong, and admit to them being wrong! So that must mean the information I provided proving that C02 emissions effecting global warming strongly in the past 10 years must be accurate. See all the graphs above. "And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures."Lol which one, pray, may I ask? Because I have shown 3-4 different graphs, statistics, and other outstanding information that proves that C02 DOES effect the climate. In fact you have too. Until you can dis-prove MY evidence with statistics, or graphs, mine holds the most priority at the moment. Next my opponent does some weird sketches on my graph. Again this is another attempt to manipulate the audience.He is saying that the graph DOESN'T show that C02 emissions effect the climate. If you look at the graph, you will see that as the C02 Emissions rise, so does the temperature. Especially within the last 20 years, that graph shows imminent temperature reports rising subsequently with the C02 emissions. "Every place I put a line is where correlation broke."Again, you are mis-understanding my goal in this debate. My goal is to prove that with the rise of C02 emissions, comes the rise of temperatures. Never once in the opening round did you say that I must prove that ONLY C02 emissions were a factor in global climate change. However, I HAVE proven that climate change does occur AS A RESULT of C02 emissions.That's it! That's all I needed to win this debate, as is CLEARLY defined by my opponent in R1! His continued pursuance of the opinion that C02 emissions do not effect the climate change very much, are blatantly going against his win condition for this debate. "My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point."Yes your source MAJORLY contradicts you and your goal in this debate. And your wrong, as it actually shows a major correlation between temperature rises and C02. " I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. "Listen. I DO NOT CARE. I never once said in this ENTIRE debate, nor did I have to, that C02 emissions were the only cause of global warming. I have proven that C02 emissions DO harm the environment. That much you CANNOT dis-agree with. Your conduct in this debate is superfluously appalling. Again, however, I would probably attribute that to your age." My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate."Is that all you care about, is winning a debate based on a technicality? Despite the fact that I have PROVEN that C02 emissions are a huge factor in global temperature rising? Dear audience, my opponent attempts to ignore logic and valid information and is hoping to steal a win on the debate because of it, though he excused this in the beginning of his last round. The evidence is still there, it's still valid, and I do not care if you choose to ignore it. I will leave that up to the audience to decide.CONCLUSION My opponent has shown extremely poor conduct throughout this entire debate, and I hope the audience sees this as clearly as I have. My opponent attempts to ignore the light of all the evidence I have provided. He completely contradicts his own sources, which actually just help me out. I recommend the audience go through and read his source and find all the contradicting evidence he has to offer.My opponent says I have not upheld the burden of proof. If anyone buys this I strongly suggest they re-read that in which I have offered. I remain, that the evidence in R1 is still valid, and in R2, and none of it should be discounted on a technicality. I really hope for my opponents mental health, that he educates himself further on such subjects before starting debates on them.With that said, I strongly urge the voters to vote PRO.Thankyou.

Title: Climate change Content: Global Warming (or climate change in the hot way) is the thing. It is a win or lose election debate topic. It is also very contested in the public field (media). The IPCC states that it exists and that it is human induced. State intervention is often motivated by climate change concerns. However there are many scientists, people and companies that contest climate change or human induced climate change. They have interesting arguments. I believe that they are mistaken. I define human global warming as the abnormal and significant increase of mean global temperatures caused (in part) by human activity. I expect to win if i can show that 1 climate change (in the sense of global warming) exists 2 it is caused in a significant degree by human activity I consider that my opponent wins if he/she is able to negate either of the above. I will affirm 3 arguments to sustain my position: science cvasi-consensus, observable events in the world around us, mental experiment. At this moment there is near consensus between scientists that global warming exists and is human induced[1]. The scientific model is quite simple to understand and makes sense. It is clear that the weather is influenced by many factors, and some are more powerful than others. The greenhouse effect is a powerful factor as shown by the super greenhouse effect on Venus. [2] Green house gases have increased at the highest level in the last 650 000 years after the industrial revolution. [3] To bring the scientific argument down to the human level and to avoid an authority argument i will point out that ice caps are already melting, the first drowned polar bears were found, more violent weather is happening etc. What is more, the arctic ice shows an increase in carbon concentration and temperature.[4] The mental experiment part is more complex in the sense that it involves the concept of positive feed-back. The oceans trap carbon while they are cold, when they heat up they release carbon. This a positive feed-back loop and it means that things will only get worse.[5] . Humans have reached a level where they can affect the climate. Acid rains and other city related weather are examples of humans influencing weather. In conclusion, from the scientific, factual and mental experiment arguments I conclude that global warming exists and it is human induced. Looking forward for a good debate. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org... [2] http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu... [3] http://news.mongabay.com... [4] http://www.heatisonline.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Manmade global climate change is real and a threat. Content: RebuttalsFirst my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist. Opponent's arguments.1. Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidThis is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]"The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation" [2]From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically. Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on recordArgument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />Argument 3 Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theoryAntarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3]"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.""Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5]4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesThis is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]""When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. "show picture of graph if possible." [6][7]Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures. Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority. Sources2. https://www.epa.gov...3. http://grist.org...4. http://grist.org...5. http://grist.org...6. http://grist.org...7. http://www.grida.no...

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Oompa-Loompa doompadee-doo

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Go to the other debate! :)Waive

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Thank you Con for this debate. Solar Activity (SA) Contrary to what Con claims, the intensity of the Sun has dipped (16) Of particular import are these parts: "It is curious that the theory depends so much on sparse information " what we know about the climates on other planets and their history " yet its proponents resolutely ignore the most compelling evidence against the notion. Over the last fifty years, the sun"s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat. We can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures. ... Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto"s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The "evidence" for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That"s equivalent to observing the Earth"s weather for just three weeks out of the year." In addition, let's consider the Sun's intensity in the variation of the "brightness", it's nonetheless too small to account for the earth's recent warming (17), measuring at only 0.1% over an 11 year solar cycle: " "The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record," said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann." According to NCDC, the earth's base temperature, without greenhouse warming is 0"F, or -18"C. The amount of warming due to GH effect at ~1900C.E. is 57"F (32"C) (18). There has been a .74"C increase in temp over 110 years, and is rising at the rate of .13 , or 1.56"C/century recently: "Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74"C (plus or minus 0.18"C) since the late"19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13"C (plus or minus 0.03"C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70"N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995." The percent change in temperature over the last 110 years is .74"C/32"C = +2.3%, and the change in solar radiance has increased (19): "Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study." The extrapolated amount of change in solar radiance in the last 110 years is + .55%. The ratio of change of temperature to the rate of change of solar radiance is 2.3%/.55% = 4.2 times as fast. Not only that, but the rate of change of temperature is increasing. Now compare these two graphs, the first is the changes to solar radiance over the last 150 years (20), and then the temperature change(21). The SR baseline is flat and the TC baseline is rising, thus, solar output and global temp over a 150 year period shows no correlation, and there is a 4.2 times greater increase in TC than solar output. So SR can, at most, only account for less than 25% of the total increase in temperature over the last 110 years. Troposphere Temperature and Cooling (TT) (TC) On the subject of the troposphere, I will point out that the TT decreases with altitude. With a more energetic dynamic occurring in the troposphere due to heating, or overall energy increase, the higher and lower altitude air will mix more and the resultant surface temps will appear cooler even though the overall heat content of the troposphere has increased! On Con's source 6 (which, incidentally, comes from a denier site), please observe Con's accompanying graph the length of line the "cooling" is based on. The overall graph shows data consistent with longer term warming. By taking the shorter time frame that the author does (11 years), the graph can be interpreted, for the years 1979 " 1989, to show an even more dramatic cooling effect, even though the long term trend including that time frame is warming. Ten years or so, periods are not relevant, contrary to what the author tries to show. Another method of TC is by the energy expended in increasingly energetic storm systems. These systems have a net cooling effect on the troposphere, as explained in Con's very own [6]: "I have to wonder whether the atmosphere is currently in a destabilized state. I doubt that surface temperatures anomalies are as anomalously low as the mid-troposphere temperatures are running, which in combination with anomalously cold mid- and upper-tropospheric temperatures means there is extra energy available for storms. " Oceans and PDO Con claims the oceans are losing heat and that the PDO is "in a cool cycle". However, this is due to an unusually intense el Nino in 1998, which produced the overall heating, as there is a great lag effect to el Nino of several years. Of course there is cooling as the ocean returns to homostasis. Furthermore, Con's "Examiner" link that he uses to support his claim is extremely suspect, because the whole report is not included in the link Con gives, and leaves out the part where the author of the research doesn"t claim the cooling is long term, but is a possible short term anomaly, and also the author of the Examiner article fudged and discarded data that did not fit his hypothesis. To quote a comment from said article: "I couldn"t help but notice that your article follows the NASA article almost exactly (though not literally copying from it) and the graphs on your article are also present in the NASA article. But the strange thing is " besides some misquoting, ie Takmong Wong never said the cooling could be due to melting Arctic sea ice " that you don"t finish the story that it turned out there was a problem with the measurements and thus there was no global cooling. You just leave the most important thing out!" As pointed out earlier in my R3, Con has relied on confirmed climate deniers who aren't even climatologists and also is guilty of relying on outdated data, as BobC also points out about the Examiner article in the sixth comment down. La Nina has been the influence for ocean cooling since 2006 (22), which paints a considerably different picture on Con's argument. Notice that el Nino didn"t return until 2009, and is not included in Con's studies which only date UP TO 2009. Also note that whatever the ocean temps, it is a red herring. The global temps are still increasing dramatically, and furthermore, no one knows what affects ocean temperatures reliably. On a side note, the author of this article that Con links to for his ocean temperature arguments ALSO predicted that Arctic ice levels would begin to increase, based on his interpretation of the ocean temp papers. His predictions were wrong. What does that tell us about the veracity of his ocean temp arguments? Conclusion That humans are the main cause of global warming is overwhelmingly evident, and SA alone isn't enough. Sources: (16) http://www.skepticalscience.com... (17) http://www.livescience.com... (18) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... (19) http://www.nasa.gov... (20) http://www.nasa.gov... (21) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... (22) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: I accept.

Title: global climate change is human caused Content: Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming.

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Thanks to my opponent, it's been fun.I will respond to the points my opponent has made in this round, and clarify my case.But first of all, I am sure that I hadn't ignored a piece of my opponent's case. Don't trust this claim as just because a response is brief doesn't mean it's not valid.==Rebuttal 1: 1970 has more ice than 1870==My opponent is correct that the data is cumulative. However, he drops my response to this when I stated that there was an apparent but brief drop in temperature caused by sulphate aerosols. I don't agree with how my opponent states I must drop the evidence simply because his basis is that there was an increase in ice for 20 years (even though the line starts dropping rapidly). If we were to apply a trend line the line would most definitely be slanted downwards towards the right. His argument doesn't explain the rest of the graph showing sharp declines in ice. I find that my opponent nitpicks at every little flaw that doesn't seem right even though the rest supports my argument, and he ends up dropping the rest of the graph altogether.I think what my opponent focuses the most on, however, is how figures are exaggerated as more and more climate stations are set up, and he attempts to apply that to temperature record figures. However, the notion that temperature record figures are untrustworthy is false, as has been shown throughout the debate [1]: "For example, a study by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link toglobal surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two[.]" - Skeptical Science [1]==Rebuttal 2: No correlation==This point as a large relation with the first point, and doesn't affect much in the debate. Basically my opponent states that we can't trust graphs that start in the 70's because it was a low point in global warming. There are two points to make:(A) Again, my opponent doesn't focus on the rest of the graphs with clearly agree with my case in the debate.(B) The only figures I gave which started in the 70's are the ones I had replaced with other data.Again, this point is null because it has little to no weight in this debate.==Rebuttal 3: Pan Evaporation==My opponent drops my response to this argument, where I gave the two statements that (a) we cannot use the method because no sources or figures measuring temperature correlate with pan evaporation, and (b) global warming is found to be affected by human causes the most, as shown in the last round.After doing some research, I found that pan evaporation did have to do with climate, but not with global warming. This extends the point of my rebuttal [2]:"Pan evaporation is a measurement that combines or integrates the effects of several climate elements: temperature, humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. Evaporation is greatest on hot, windy, dry, sunny days; and is greatly reduced when clouds block the sun and when air is cool, calm, and humid. Pan evaporation measurements enable farmers and ranchers to understand how much water their crops will need." - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopediia [2]Wikipedia states that pan evaporation helps farmers and ranchers to correctly water their crops. But never does it say anything about energy in the atmosphere.==Counter 1: Sea Levels==My opponent seems to make a valid point about the glaical and ice contradiction, but it isn't valid. Glaciers hold less than 2% of the water on Earth [3]:"The amount of water locked up in ice and snow is only about 1.7 percent of all water on Earth[.]" - Textile Waste Diversion Inc. [3]Glaciers were just a part of my argument to show that ice was melting. The fact that glaciers hold so little of the world's water barely makes any difference in the rise in sea levels, especially since most glaciers exist inland, but not near the oceans, as most glaciers are of the Himalayas, which are inland [4][5]: "The Himalayan–Karakoram (HK) region has among the largest glacier coverage outside the polar regions[.]" - Estimating the volume of glaciers in the Himalayan–Karakoram region using different methods [5]This alone means that glaciers can be used as evidence for global warming, but NOT to disprove its existence. My opponent's rebuttal is null.==Counter 2: Mixed Methodologies==This, again, is an example of the nitpicking my opponent has done throughout the debate. Correlation =/= imitation. But if my opponent still can't accept my graph, here are the reasons why my opponent's rebuttal isn't coherent:1. My opponent emphasized a lot on the heat waves of the 30's, so the fact that he's using that to try and prove there isn't a correlation is beyond me.2. Where the temperature drops out (more so not) of the correlation is so insignificant that it may as well be part of the correlation. Somehow my opponent thinks that a difference in correlation about a millimeter or less for a graph THAT size still counts as proof that the correlation is false.==Counter 3: Other planets=="When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2." - OpponentMy opponent now suddenly agrees that CO2 has a heating effect, which is different from the last few contentions. But if this is untrue, see my previous counter.My opponent also agrees that we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere, even though oxygen is being taken out of the air. It's basically a concession of this point because my opponent agrees the atmosphere on Venus is thick with greenhous gases. P1) More CO2 in the atmosphere = Earth heats upP2) We are putting more CO2 into the atmosphereC) We are heating up Earth.As for the electromagnetic field, my opponent ignores that Mercury does not have a major electromagnetic field either [6]."Mercury’s magnetic field is 150 times weaker than that of our planet, however." - Phys.org [6] And with a distance much smaller from the sun than other planets, you'd expect that Mercury would be hotter. However, BECAUSE Venus has such an atmosphere it is simply that much hotter.==Dropped arguments==My opponent drops many arguments in the debate, which is lucky because they seem to be important points.He drops the points:- That natural causes have a much smaller heating effect than with human effects- That positive feedbacks amplify heating effects- That the increase in glaciers is probably due to the brief drops in temperature that were only temporary and caused by humans as well- That methodology changes don't change the actual temperature- That we can't use pan evaporation because it is not relevant to the debate- That temperatures are perfectly fine evidence in terms of this debate- That the corrections made in NASA's graph do not make much difference- That newer sources are usually more trustworthy, especially when made by a government websiteThose are the ones that I can think of at the top of my head, and there could be more. Don't let my opponent respond to them because it is unfair if he responds when I can't.==Conclusion== There are huge holes in my opponent's argument, as well as big contradictions. Their arguments are more like theories (or even just hypotheses) because they nitpick at things if something isn't perfect. And my opponent can throw any theory he wants at me but scientific research somehow, as tylergraham said, always seems to fly in his face.The resolution is soundly affirmed.==Sources==[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://textilewastediversion.com...[4] http://oi52.tinypic.com...[5] http://www.the-cryosphere.net...[6] http://phys.org...Final round to con!

Title: Global Warming is primarily caused by humans Content: I accept your challenge. I accept the conditions unto which it has been made. Begin when ready.

Title: Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind Content: I continued the debate without giving my cell number. For those of you who have any doubts on human caused climate change or just skeptical, check out this page: http://gristmill.grist.org... Thanks for coming out, Sadolite.

Title: Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies Content: Hello, Mac, and I am glad you instigated this debate. My opponent’s arguments rely on three main contentions: 1) Global warming is real and is a threat 2) Global warming is caused by human activity 3) We should attempt to stop global warming I will refute them as follows: 1. Global warming is real and a threat My opponent’s main point here is the expected sea level rise. However, some scientific papers have been released showing the sea level rise has been over predicted and that in many parts of the world, sea level rise isn’t happening at all. The IPCC’s data claiming massive sea level rise has been grossly exaggerated and is utterly incorrect. For example, Bangladesh should have been engulfed in water, or should be seeing significant problems. In 2007, the IPCC proclaimed their doomsday. However recent data shows the sea levels there are not rising [1]. My opponent also forgets the possible benefits of Global Warming. For example, parts of Canada, Russia, and Argentina too cold for industrialization and farming would become reachable. Historically, warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere acted as a benefit for the Vikings. Greenland and Iceland’s productivity rose, the increased rain caused better harvests, and lead to the Vikings making landfall in the New World. The increased CO2 would make plant growth easier and enhance the world, making it muck more habitable. Some of the warmest periods in our history, the world flourished with resources aplenty; a warmer climate could easily be good for you and me [2]. My opponents other point here is the reality of global warming, and here I agree. There has been an overall warming trend since 1850, however I dispute current warming. Global warming stopped in 1997, with an overall decrease in temperature since then. Using NOAA data starting from 2000, to avoid the El Niño year in 1998 (which ‘refutes’ the global warming stopped theory) shows no change. A slight decrease in temperature, although the trend is less. There has been no warming since 1997, and no statistically significant warming since 1995 [3]. 2. Humans are the cause of global warming This is the main contention of the debate; if it is awful, but natural, we can’t stop it: changing our ways of life would be worthless. If it is still happening but is natural, we can’t stop it and changing would, again, be a pointless exercise. So, I explain the reasoning on why claiming humans cause global warming is illogical. First, CO2 and other emissions increase during a good economy. After the 1940’s, a post-war economic boom occurred. At this time, when CO2 increased, is when scientists said humans first began to have a large impact on global warming. Interestingly, temperatures decreased at this time. Alarmists have tried to counter these claims, but their logic fails to hold up [4]. Either way, my opponent has only assumed humans are the main cause of the warming; he has given little evidence himself that we are the cause. Correlation is always an argument in this debate. People have argued there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, however this is simply untrue. CO2 only correlates r= .44, with 1 being perfect and 0 being none at all. This means the correlation rates fair to poor. The sun scores better, with an r= .57, meaning it rates to fair to good. And the PDO correlates the best, with an 0.83 rating good [5]. It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it. Further, the current warming should have been predicted, as according to Singers 1,500 sun cycle the current warming was right on time. The majority of geologists—about 50%—believe global warming is a natural cycle and the current warming is right on time [6]. Other explanations, like cosmic rays, also seems like a possible factors. In short wording: Humans likely do not play a major role in global warming, although we likely exacerbate the situation a little bit. 3. It should be stopped—specifically with green energy If my opponent wishes to bring up another solution, I am all ears. However he currently argues green energy is the solution. Lets go down the list: a) Wind power There is a simple problem with wind: the fact that wind is not always blowing, and its upfront capital costs more then outweighs the fact that wind, itself, is free. Wind itself has lees value then its fossil fuel competitors and must be placed in areas with constant (or higher then average) wind amounts, limiting its universality. Unlike Fossil fuel plants, which can be planted anywhere. There is other, in my opinion more real, issues then global warming. Wind stations kill the avian populations and take up a lot of space, often ruining natural beauty. Many rodents actually like the wind farms and live inside the fan. Rodents—a food source for many predators—get killed trying to eat them. And, obviously, other birds will fly through the places and get whacked and die. Some Wind projects take 10 billion pounds of raw materials. If we assume global warming is man made, the CO2 created by the mining and construction often times shrinks the overall benefit. b) Solar Potential market chare for solar has been overestimated time and time again and the subsidies that the industry relies on—because it is not competitive with fossil fuel because the marker does not favor it—costs millions of dollars, even more then the Wind subsidies. Thermal solar plants need 1,000 times more the resources fossil fuel plants need. Some studies argue: “Solar Two looks good on paper, and it is expected to provide steady baseload electricity as well as late afternoon peaking capacity, but the future of all the central solar generators is in doubt. They are expensive to build, their very scale escalates financial risks--as with nuclear power--and their massive height (in excess of 200 meters) may attract opposition.”[7] Other Solar industries (there are many) require millions of dollars to operate and to even be on the market and commercialize their products. Many environmentalists have a actually given up on some solar markets, like photovoltaic, in favor of nuclear (something they usually despise) because of the destruction of those solar plants. c) Hydro Even environmentalists have left hydro power, uttering the power source in the same breath as they do natural gas, coal, and nuclear. From a conservative standpoint, the construction of Hydro power is actually very invasive on the surrounding community and cost millions. On a more liberal note, the hydro plants take a lot of resources to build and kill and disturb many fish populations. The cost of current hydro plants are 5-6 times more expensive per kilowatt hour then other fossil fuels. d) Case study: Michigan There has been no net job growth because of their green energy, they have created jobs in one sector but have taken them away from another. Their energy prices have increased and their prices continue to increase. Other states, like North Dakota, have welcomed fossil fuels and have had a net job growth and prices fall. Studies have shown for every one job created in their oil industry, another three are created because of decreased energy costs [8]. CONCLUSION: I have proven my opponents premises to be incorrect and his solution of green energy is impractical, harmful to the economy, and, sometimes, not even green. (longest url's shortened to make room) 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://www.stanford.edu... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...; 5. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 6. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.heritage.org...

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: doop-dee-doo

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: I am here going to prove to the audience and to my opposition that global warming is primarily caused by homo sapiens and is thus a characteristic of the anthropocene - a term recently created by geologists to express "the age of man." I have yet to thorougly read my opponent's arguments, so anything that I write that may seem to be a rebuttal is pure coincidence. I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate and hope for an interesting exchange of ideas. Either he'll learn something or I will!Three Steps to Damaging the Planet (Human Style)A) Find the gases that cause the planet to warmThe following gases contribute to the greenhouse effect... (10)Feedback GasesWATER VAPOURWater vapour is a "feedback" to the climate rather than a cause of climate change. It is a greenhouse gas, but it does not contribute to a change in the greenhouse effect, rather, it changes with the temperature of the atmosphere, and thus acts as a way of telling if we're doing things right. Put simply, we on earth can't directly affect the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, but more of it should tell us that the temperature of the planet is warming (because it evaporates. We can't heat the oceans by ourselves so we need something less direct.) and thus there's a cause - effect relationship - more CO2/Methane/etc. = Higher Temperaures = More Water VapourCausal GasesMETHANENot what you were expecting, right? But still very important. Most mammals have natural methane emissions of a kind, and this can change, so this will go into our recipe for messing with our climate. Naturally, however, it is emitted at 270 teragrams per year (9) Come back to this later.NITROUS OXIDEAlso causal to rather than resulting from a change in climate, that is, we can change how much goes into the atmosphere.CFCsThe same ones that destroy the ozone layer, this time, they're back to destroy the biosphere. I say "destroy" because CFCs are as irrefutably man - made as CO2 and Methane are not, and therefore MUST be at least one reason that the atmosphere is warming. (Since they are artificial, to say that an increase in their quantity has non - anthropogenic causes would be like saying that trees can be made of plastic).CARBON DIOXIDEThe classic greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is absorbed to some extent in grass and trees (photosynthesis) on a natural level, and otherwise may be released through volcanoe and major forest fires, or the combustion of organic material. This usually accounts for 750 gigatons (8) of CO2 moving through the carbon cycle every year, not including human intervention.The gases listed here under causal warm the earth through the greenhouse effect. This is not controversial, here's how it works (7)The greenhouse effect, WITHOUT human intervention (except obviously in CFCs), is caused by the above gases in the above way. Now all we have to do is add a greedy, unenlightened species and we're on our way...B) Ensure that those gases enter and remain in the atmosphere in greater (or lesser) quantities than beforeMETHANEHumans add 330 teragrams per year (9) of methane to the atmosphere every year to the 270 teragrams already entering it, mostly through methane emitted by livestock (a single modern cow emits 270 kg of methane each year), from decay in landfills and from waste treatment, not to mention the burning of biomass. If the 330 teragrams going into the atmosphere WITHOUT humans every year causes 9% of the greenhouse effect, as noted above, then that amount doubling will, of course, ENHANCE the greenhouse effect, causing - global warming. The truth is that it would be strange if it DIDN'T. There are now 2 billion cows on the planet, far more than at any point in history. They, through methane emissions, are enhancing the greenhouse effect.CARBON DIOXIDEIt has been mentioned that 750 gigatons goes through the carbon cycle every year. Humans add 29 gigatons (8) - haha, the opposition says, the amount of human emissions of CO2 every year pale in compare to how much goes through the carbon cycle! But then one takes closer look - every year, 439 gigatons are released and 450 are absorbed by plants and trees. Suddenly, the 29 gigatons becomes much more frightening, especially when one observes that carbon dioxide is now at 390 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere, nearly twice as high as it has been for the last 500,000 years! The higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is also caused, of course, by the fact that our conversion of land for agriculture has led to land with plants that absorb less CO2 (virtually all my references will say this) so that the number of gigatons absorbed (450) is decreasing whilst the 29 is increasing, resulting in idle CO2 sitting around, warming up the atmosphere - as it must as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is poisonous as well, by the way, so even if my worthy opponent and/or audience leaves this debate with their minds unchanged on the topic of anthropogenic global warming, remember that there is still reason for CO2 emissions to be curtailed!CFCsThis is an optimistic part of the human - greenhouse effect story in that we actually stopped putting CFCs into the atmosphere when we realized how awful they were for the ozone layer. Therefore we do not put CFCs into the atmosphere any more - it's like a defunct greenhouse gas, in retirement.NITROUS OXIDENO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of 121 years (11) so naturally even a small amount of nitrous coming out of your exhaust enhances global warming for years to come. And when it's 110 to 240 thousand tonnes coming from car exhaust pipes every year, you know you have a problem. Add 2 to 4 million tonnes from fertilization practices in agriculture and you have a MAJOR problem! Add to this the fact that NO2 is 310 times as powerful as CO2 as a greenhouse gas and you have a full blown nightmare.Given the endless facts and evidence presented above, it would be strange if the atmosphere was NOT warming up from human intervention. The below only affirms what should be evident. On to our third and final step.C) Watch as the planet warms or cools six degrees, the difference between now and the last ice ageIt is often mentioned that the earth's climate has change in the past, and that is most assuredly true. It is also true, of course, that the earth's climate can change in the future, and for different reasons. However, what is unique about the warming of the anthropocene is that it has happened and is happening so suddenly, more suddenly than in the past. The closest example of climate change at this speed (just 120 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution), obviously excluding the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, is the Palaeo - Eocene Thermal Maximum (13) about 55 million years ago, when the climate changed 5 to 8 degrees,that warming, of course, took several thousand years.Sources1. http://climate.nasa.gov...2. http://www.climatechangechallenge.org...3. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...4. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...5. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...6. http://www.nytimes.com...7. http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...8. http://www.skepticalscience.com...9. http://en.wikipedia.org...10. http://raytekmalaysia.blogspot.ca...11. http://www.flickoff.org...12. http://www.epa.gov...13. http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Title: Climate change is both real and a serious issue Content: I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause "great floods" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...

Title: Quote debate Content: Sorry about that, I was on February Break and I use my computer at school for DDO. Global Warming: "The most important thing about global warming is this. Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it's all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it." -Mike Huckabee Donald Trump for President(Pro) "I"m the worst thing that"s ever happened to ISIS." -Donald Trump himself

Title: The sun drives the global climate Content: It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate and so it makes sense that it has the biggest impact on our climate rather than anything that humans might be doing. The sun is therefore the most likely cause of global warming. Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen argues that climate change is caused by solar activity.[[Louise Gray, 'Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'', The Telegraph, 8/12/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html%5D%5D Solar activity, as determined by sunspot activity, is historically high being at its highest over the last 60-70 years for over 8000 years. Solar activity could affect climate by variation in the Sun's output or potentially through having an effect on cloud formation. Solanski et al. Sunspot numbers and cosmic ray fluxes... show correlations and anti-correlations with a number of reconstructions of the terrestrial Northern Hemisphere temperature, which cover a time span of up to 1800 years. This indicates that periods of higher solar activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated with warmer climate, and vice versa... This suggests that effects induced by cosmic rays may affect the long-term terrestrial climate. The positive correlation between the geomagnetic dipole moment and the temperature reconstructions provides further evidence favoring the cosmic ray influence on the terrestrial climate. [[I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanski, M. Schussler, K. Mursula, Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, 1/10/05 http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf%5D%5D

Title: Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity Content: I believe that climate change is serious and urgent problem facing us today. In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to climate change facing the people of the world. I look forward to having a good debate and learning a lot from it.

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Numerous alternate causes to global warming prove that humans are not the primary source. Adopt a mindset of innocent until proven guilty, the affirmative must prove beyond correlation and doubt that human cause warming. The Pro must win that mankind is the "principal [and] leading" meaning that if I win that there is an alternative cause that is more responsible for warming than humans, or at least humans are not a major cause, then I win the debate. (First Pro speech)As the Con, I may contradict myself as my sole purpose is to disprove the Pro's statement. The Pro must remain consistent to prove their position.First, 1,500 year climate cycles. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist with a PhD from Princeton who founded the the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and Dennis Avery, a agricultural analyst who was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement, agree that there is substantial evidence around the world that climate cycles easily explain the warming we currently see. There is already a scientific consensus that cooling cycles (Ice Ages) exist, so it already not unreasonable to assume that warming cycles also exist. From 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age caused the earth to be about 2.5 degrees Celsius cooler than average. The Modern Warming portion of the cycle began in 1850, and "warming will continue for some time in the future, perhaps 200 years or more, regardless of human activity." Thus, today's warming can be explained by these climate cycles. These scientists gathered data from North America to Asia, and they use the ice caps in Greenland to further prove that by the way the ice formed, there must have been 1,500 year warming cycles. Sea sediment core in Ireland also shows the 1,500 year cycle. Fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings, and mountain tree lines all provide evidence to this theory because scientists can find how they were created or observe differing distances of tree rings to find the amount of warming that these objects underwent while being created. It's important to realize that completely dismissing 1,500 year cycles dismisses "human histories from the past 2,000 years...and a variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers." (1) The Vostok ice sample that the rise and fall of CO2 correlate with natural cycles. Temperatures correlate with Ice Age minimus and maximus. There is a 420,000 thousand year cycle of carbon emissions. Given that humans release very little of the total carbon ouput, the correlation is between the carbon cycle and temperature cycle. (5)Secondly, human emissions of carbon dioxide are specifically not to blame. Patrick Moore, a former member of Greenpeace and an ecologist said the following while testifying in front of Congress: "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years." In fact, carbon dioxide levels were 10x higher during the Ice Ages than they are now. This was also true 500 million years ago before evolution had created humans. Not only does this empiric disprove that humans are a major cause of increased carbon dioxide, but it also disproves that CO2 causing warming. Regardless of the theoretical examples the Pro provides, empirics trump. Third, the industrial revolution began in 1750, yet only from 1910 to 1940, there was an increase in .5 degrees Celsius of the global temperature. There was more than enough time for factories to produce enough carbon dioxide to have resulted in warming before those 200 years. This delay in increase prove that humans are not the main cause and is evidence of the climate cycles. (2) During this time, temperatures were much higher than today, but CO2 levels were lower. This places doubt in the significance of anthropogenic CO2 release. (7)Fourth, the climate rapidly changes to different stimuli. Anthony Lupo, assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at Columbia and an expert reviewer for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang, discusses the fact that regional climates tend to experience much more change than globally. However, climates change rapidly, so if human emissions of CO2 really are responsible for warming, then 1) there should already be a much larger change in global temperature given the huge increase of CO2 emissions and 2) even when there were smaller amounts of CO2, this should have been enough to trigger an environmental change (3).Fifth, climate models fail. There was an increase in global temperature of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This clearly disproves the numerous computer models that the Pro cites as CO2 had increased after 2000 (2). Many believe that there will be an increase of anywhere from 2-11 degrees Fahrenheit due to info from computer models. Misinterpretation of results and models lacking the complexities of the fundamental global processes mean that these cannot be trusted. Consistently, politicians like Al Gore have predicted that the world would have literally ended by now. Prefer direct facts and empirical examples rather than theoretical results of greenhouse gases. Thus, do not automatically trust that greenhouse gases cause warming without direct evidence from changes in temperature â€" the facts don't support this conclusion. (3) Though the Earth is warming, it's cooler than expected. There should have already been a two degree Celsius increase 100,000 years ago. (5) [Insert pie graph from this source]Sixth, fossil fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 levels according to the most accurate NASA data. From 1940 to 1950, CO2 levels flatlined. The only change was roughly .8 ppm downwards. World War II caused a massive increase in fossil fuel levels, yet this did not change CO2 levels. Prefer empirics. (4) Also, the Vostok ice core sample proves. CO2 increases did not increase temperature for 800 years. This sample also explains why a fall in temperature and a fall in CO2 correlate — cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water. Even more, temperature falls around 800-1,000 years before CO2 levels rise or fall giving water time to absorb the CO2. (5)Seventh, even if humans do increase CO2 levels, they're only responsible for a 3% increase. Even that released CO2 is not all directly released into the atmosphere given that the oceans absorb so much of it. Limestone, chalk, and other rocks have 100x as much CO2 as the atmosphere. This 3% is responsible for .27% of the greenhouse effect. "If we were to cease all transport and industry right now, it is very unrealistic to assume that it would have any impact on global warming." (5) Eighth, solar radiation is the single largest cause of warming. NASA repeatedly releases articles explaining the importance of the sun and sun cycles on the Earth. The near infrared and visible light waves are absorbed by the lower atmosphere, the oceans, and the land. Thus, these areas heat resulting in a higher global average temperature. Even more, absorption of UV rays heats the stratosphere. There's a general scientific consensus that this increases temperatures in the troposphere. Additionally, sun spots serve to reduce or increase warming. These can sway warming either way considering that these are 11 year cycles. This can explain why times of higher CO2 did not increase temperature. Scientists believe that the sun is responsible for at least half of all the climate change seen in the past 110 years. Even the IPCC, an organization devoted to creating response to globa warming, agrees. (6)The 100,000 year cycle of radiation resulting from the elliptical orbit of the Earth is at a peak and will be for the next several thousand years. This radiation is consistent with spikes in CO2 methane. The melting of ice caps has happened with each of these cycles. The huge volume of these gases is too high to be anthropogenic but is consistent with previous cycles. Mars is also increasing in temperature due to the recent increase in solar radiation. Dr. H. Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg Pulkova Astronomical Observatory, believes that the Earth has hit a temperature ceiling and will enter a cooling period despite fossil fuel use. This explanation accounts for the lack of increased greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. (7) [Insert Figure III]ConclusionSolar radiation, solar cycles, and multiple terrestrial temperature cycles are greater and more probable causes of warming. Humans produce very little emissions given the oceans' absorption and solar radiation cycles. The Earth has consistently changed temperatures before humans populated the planet. Even more, multiple empirics and evidence from around the world disprove the importance of humans on warming. 3% is a ridiculously small number when compared to multiple other emittors. CO2 levels were higher in the Ice Age when the Earth was substantially cooler. By placing some amount of doubt in the significance of mankind's importance on warming while promoting several other causes, humans are at least not the main factor of warming.(1) http://www.ncpa.org...(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(3) http://www.napsnet.com...(4)http://www.americanthinker.com...(5) http://www.collective-evolution.com...(6) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...(7) http://www.americanthinker.com...**I'm going to advertise my surveillance debate here: comment on that page if interested! :)

Title: Wave Carpet Renewable Energy Content: HarmsA. Global warming is real and caused by humans – the only way to avoid the devastating impacts of warming, such as extinction, is to reduce CO2 emissions IPCC, 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 11/2/14, “Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report”, http://www.ipcc.ch...) "Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence) (Figure SPM.10). In most scenarios without additional mitigation efforts (those with 2100 atmospheric concentrations >1000ppm CO2eq), warming is more likely than not to exceed 4°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential constraints on common human activities, and limited potential for adaptation in some cases (high confidence). Some risks of climate change, such as risks to unique and threatened systems and risks associated with extreme weather events, are moderate to high at temperatures 1°C to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. {2.3, Figure 2.5, 3.2, 3.4, Box 2.4, Table SPM.1}¶Substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades can substantially reduce risks of climate change by limiting warming in the second half of the 21st century and beyond. Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Limiting risks across reasons for concern would imply a limit for cumulative emissions of CO2. Such a limit would require that global net emissions of CO2 eventually decrease to zero and would constrain annual emissions over the next few decades (Figure SPM.10) (high confidence)." B. Climate change is a very serious threat to national and global security; if left unchecked it will affect stability, disease, migration, and access to food, water, and electricity. It will also lead to an increase in extremist ideologies and foster terrorism. Pentagon Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, 10/13/2014 The Pentagon (the headquarters of the DoD), 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, October 13, 2014, pages 4-5 "Maintaining stability within and among other nations is an important means of avoiding full-R08;scale military conflicts. The impacts of climate change maycause instability in other countries by impairing access to food and water, damaging infrastructure, spreading disease, uprooting and displacing large numbers of people, compelling mass migration, interrupting commercial activity, or restricting electricity availability. These developments could undermine already fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively, and challenge currently stable governments, as well as increase competition and tension between countries vying for limited resources. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism." Plan:The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development of earth’s oceans by implementing wave carpet renewable energy in the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone.Advantage One: EconomyA. Wave energy will not only save the environment, but it will create jobs and will boost the economy Bedard, 7 (Roger, Roger Bedard is the Ocean Energy Leader at the Electric Power Research Institute, “Economic and social benefits from wave energy conversion marine technology” http://faculty.washington.edu...) "The economic opportunities are significant. An relatively minor investment today by government could stimulate a worldwide industry generating billions of dollars of economic output and employing thousands of people while using an abundant and clean natural resource.Ocean energy is an indigenous energy resource. By harvesting this indigenous resource, jobs will be created and localeconomies will be improved. Construction and operations of wave energy plants would bring significant positive economic impacts to coastal states. As an example, EPRI estimates that the operation and maintenance activities alone will create about 25 direct local jobs per 100 MW wave power plant and these jobs are permanentfor as long as the plant is in operation.The U.S. economy would benefit from the large export potential of a strong domestic renewable energy industry." B. Adding to this, wave carpet technology can create $16 billion of revenue in the US annually – the benefits of the plan are obvious TAF Lab, 13 (Theoretical and applied Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of UC Berkeley, “Wave Carpet: An Efficient and Multidirectional Ocean Wave Energy Converter” http://taflab.berkeley.edu...) "we can use the power of ocean waves to generate electricity and fresh waterWave Energy is able to efficiently harvest this energy. The ability to cancel waves can be used to create safe zones in the ocean, prevent erosion and protect harbors the energy conversion creates seawater at high pressure. This can be used to generate electricity, be used for desalination and for the distribution of fresh waterWorld-wide demand for electricity is expected to double.According to the Electric Power Research Institutean estimate of ocean wave energyindicatesmarket value eventually reaching $16 billion per year." Advantage Three: WaterA. A global water crisis will occur in the next 30 years unless we switch to renewable energy Tully, 14 (Andy, veteran news reporter and news editor for oilprice.com, “Humanity May Face Choice By 2040: Conventional Energy or Drinking Water”, http://oilprice.com...) "A set of studies based on three years of research concludes that by 2040, the need for drinking water and water for use in energy production will create dire shortages.¶ Conventional electricity generation is the largest source of water use in most countries. Water is used to cool power plants to keep them functional. Most power utilities don’t even record the amount of water they use.¶ “It’s a huge problem that the electricity sector do not even realize how much water they actually consume,” says Professor Benjamin Sovacool of Denmark’s Aarhus University, one of the institutions involved in the research. “And together with the fact that we do not have unlimited water resources, it could lead to a serious crisis if nobody acts on it soon.”¶ The research, which included projections of the availability of water and the growth of the world’s population, found that by 2020, between 30 percent and 40 percent of the planet will no longer have direct access to clean drinking water. The problem could be made even worse if climate change accelerates, creating more heat and causing more water evaporation.¶ That means humankind must decide how water is used, Sovacool says. “Do we want to spend it on keeping the power plants going or as drinking water? We don’t have enough water to do both,” he says.¶ The researchers, also from the Vermont Law School and CNA Corporation in the US, a non-profit research institute in Arlington, Va., focused their studies on specific utilities and other energy suppliers in four countries: China, France, India and the United States.¶ First, they identified each country’s energy needs, then factored in projections of water availability in each country and its population level as far as 2040. In all four cases, they discovered, there will not be enough water by then both to drink and to use at electricity-generating plants.¶ So how to prevent this conflict? The studies agreed on starting with the simplest solution: Alternative sources of electricity that don’t require massive amounts of water.¶ The recommendations are improving energy efficiency, conducting more research on alternative cooling mechanisms, logging water use at power plants, making massive investments in solar and wind energy, and abandoning fossil fuel facilities in all areas susceptible to water shortages.¶ This last proposal may be the most difficult to implement because parched areas now include half of Earth. But Sovacool says it would be worth the investment.¶ “If we keep doing business as usual, we are facing an insurmountable water shortage – even if water was free, because it’s not a matter of the price,” he says. “There will be no water by 2040 if we keep doing what we’re doing today. There’s no time to waste. We need to act now.” B. The Wave Carpet desalinates water, solving for water shortages Johnson, 14 (Carolyn, writer for ABC, 3/10/14, “Berkeley team tackles drought with waves” http://abc7news.com...) "The action of the hydraulic pumps connected to the carpet forces seawater through a single line, which creates a high-pressure flow that can be used to produce electricity on shore. Pumps could also be used to provide something just as valuable to drought stricken California: fresh, drinkable water, forced through desalination filters.¶ "In fact in the current test we have it generates high pressure water that can be used for desalination. And desalination is the first application we're working on at this point," says Alam.¶ The team is currently setting up partnerships to create a large scale prototype, and hopes to begin ocean testing within two years.¶ "With this kind of technology we could fill in the gaps," says Lehmann. "In terms of over-all production of electricity, we could switch over to fresh water, and at night when there's no sun, we could produce electricity."Because it sits on the ocean floor, researchers believe it will take far less punishment than surface systems and potentially require less maintenance."

Title: Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy. Content: Obviously a counter-study to global warming would be predominantly funded by thoe who the myth of global warming woudl affect most. Billionaires want to stay rich, not lose customers due to a myth. That is jsut a stupid argument and irrelevant to your debate. I have nothing more to say because you raised no valid point regarding evidence supporting global warming nor why it deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy. You merely discussed climate change itself. Not at all explaining why it's due to humans. Thus you have not achieved your BOP and I win.

Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I will restate, than in order to establish that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, it is necessary to quantify the amount and effect (not qualify). No scientist or scientific body to date, to my knowledge, has been able to do so. Specifically, anyone making the assertion that humans are the primary cause of global warming must scientifically establish/prove what percentage is human as compare to natural variability and natural causes. It is not good enough to use terms such as "significant" and "substantially" as they are extremely vague inconclusive terms. An even worse approach is to take the line of reasoning presented on the timeforchange.org site referenced by my opponent, which virtually ignores the question/possibility of natural factors. I will reference the following chart by Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann to illustrate my position: http://www.longrangeweather.com... Note that on this chart there have been two periods with higher and more prolonged global warming periods in 1100 BC and 1300 AD (up to two-fold greater). My opponent also dismissed the importance of the naturally occurring little ice-age, yet its effect was over three-fold greater than our so called current "human" caused warming period. Being that natural causes are scientifically established to have created global temperature swings 3 times larger, and hundreds of years longer in duration than our current warming period (as recent as 1600 - 1800 AD), it is complete pseudo-science to claim that natural cycles play an insignificant role in global temperature change. In fact, being that we are presently in a period where we would naturally expect to see a warming period in the natural global temperature cycle, one would expect that human activity would have created the largest warming event in the last 5000 years. The chart/link I presented establishes that this kind of warming simply hasn't happened. The evidence I presented could even be used as an argument that Mankind's impact on global warming is negligible as compared to natural variability. Lastly, I acknowledge that my sources attribute a portion of climate change to human activity, but again, "significant" and "substantially" is not a quantification as I asserted earlier. I would ask that my opponent reference scholarly material that definitively establishes that human activity outweighs all other possible natural elements and variables in global climate change.

Title: Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans Content: I'll start this off with a background of the issue. *** Background: Some disagree on the degree to which global warming might also be caused simply by natural changes in the earth's climate. Some claim that humans are the chief cause of the warming that has occurred over roughly the past century, while others claim that our role has been relatively insignificant as compared to natural forces. Therefore, the debate roughly defined here centers on the question of whether human are the "chief" or "most significant" cause of the recent global warming trend seen over the past century and today. This debate is important in the way of determining policy responses. If, for instance, the human cause of global warming was concluded to be relatively minor, then some would argue that policies attempting to address these human causes (carbon emissions regulations. .. ) are misplaced. Conversely, a conclusion that humans are the chief cause of global warming would provide valid support for efforts that attempt to stem these human-causes. Of course, conclusions that humans are, for instance, 30% of the cause would create a more challenging set of questions in the way of how to prioritize a human response. Still, the undeniable fact that the earth is getting warmer leads to a range of separate debates that need not consider the underlying cause. *** (Start off borrowed and edited from Yvette) Start off, Thank you for accepting this debate. If you accept this debate, you agree to the rules and formats of the debate. Breaking the rules and formats of the debate is considered forfeiture. I will claim the burden of proof. However, we must both prove or show evidence of our claims. Rules: 1. No insults or ad hominem. 2. The scientific position that no thing can be proved 100% and can only be shown to be closer to the truth and/or more likely to be true is the basis of our discussion. 3. The purpose of our debate is to determine whether or not is is reasonable to say that the phenomenon known as Global Warming is not caused mostly by humanity. There may be evidence both ways showing reasons why it is likely or unlikely. It must, on the whole, be more likely than unlikely. 4. The CON must argue that Global warming, the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation, is caused by human action. 5. No arguments will be presented in Round 1. As the burden of proof is on me, I must make the first argument. My opponent must simply agree to the rules in Round 1.

Title: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: Now, in debunking the opponent’s case, we have to observe one thing; accordingly to the Industrial Revolution/Co2 release correlation graph, we can see that the Co2 release has gone outside the main tenants of the normal Co2 equilibrium, which accordingly is around (when effected by negative feedback) 200ppmv. However, we humans now have a ppmv-Co2 rate of 380ppmv, henceforth this may be an offspring, but very unlikely, of huge negative feedback, or it may be the beginning of huge positive feedback in the creation of a new Venus-like Equilibrium. The opponent mentions the 100,000 years Ice Age Cycle phenomenon; henceforth, we are heading towards another “Ice Age” in the opponent’s view. Firstly, the world’s orbit-tilt, which causes the earth’s temperature to change (as well as volcanoes), are not acting as strong as they were during the last Ice Age. This means that the current Interglacial might be extended by 10,000 years. Apart from this, the plethora of Greenhouse Release, from Co2 and other gasses, outweigh the cooling capacity of the world. If they weren’t, then the world would have been experiencing a period of cool-down, perhaps a mini-Ice Age, from the 1950s. However, as seen, this has not been the case. [1] Apart from this, the opponent’s graph seems to show that in each 100,000 year Ice Age cycles; there has been a natural release of Co2 that has caused a gradual change in temperature. However, scientists know about how this change of temperature came about already. Interglacial epochs were characterized by the balance of Co2 concentration in the air and the Co2 sink in the ocean. There have been occasional times of massive Co2 release rise from volcanic eruptions known as large igneous provinces. These large igneous provinces have been known to cause a sudden change in temperature; however, there are no large igneous provinces that are active. Apart from this, one must observe the fact that today’s volcano does not emit as much Co2 as humans. In fact, accordingly to the USGS, annually humans generate 130 times more Co2 gas than volcanoes. The opponent is implying that there are natural causes for Co2 and other greenhouse gas release in the world; however, there is a plethora of evidence that suggests the contrary. This data has already been presented. Apart from this, correlation is not causation; because the current Co2 rates in the atmosphere correlates with those of ancient times (which it does not, as already stated), does not mean that this rapid release of Co2 has not been caused by humans. The opponent must observe; there is a difference between gradual change and sudden change. Gradual change implies that the change is made clear gradually. Sudden change is built upon the common knowledge that this change is sudden and unexpected. If this were to have been gradual change, then we humans would have knew about this much later; however, that is not the case. The opponent seems to argue that this change is normal for the earth; however, we must see that before 1750, Co2 was at a rate of 20ppm in the atmosphere; however, this Co2 rate rose rapidly from 1750, after the industrialization of human capital output capabilities. Now it is at 379ppm, an 18 times increase from the pre-1750 rate. Fossil fuel usage has released 7.2 gigaton of Co2 in 2000-2005. (gigaton-1 billion metric tons). One cannot simply argue that humans do not play a massive role; we are messing with the earth’s ability to absorb Co2 via deforestation, as well as adding 42% more Co2 into the earth’s atmosphere within the last 300 years. Humans have, in a significant manner, effected the overall global temperature. Citations: [1] . http://www.skepticalscience.com...

Title: Humans are responsible for global warming Content: It's been said that humans are responsible for "Global Warming" due to our carbon emissions and high atmospheric pollution rate. While I agree that we are polluting the atmosphere at an extremely high rate, I disagree that, our carbon emissions are to blame. According to Science Magazine, measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Also, A 2005 study published in Nature found that "high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100" in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, any human produced CO2 is re absorbed by the oceans, trees and plants, preventing the CO2 from gathering in the atmosphere. I look forward to debating you, and good luck!!

Title: Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions Content: I am assuming that I will be arguing that humans are a major cause to global warming increases with C02 emissions. My first point, is that C02 emissions are scientifically proven to be a mjor leading cause in the rise of global climate changes, IE Global warming. "Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e. g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. " . http://timeforchange.org...From the year 1991 to the year 2005, There has been a significant increase in harm done to the atmosphere, mainly due to C02 emissions. See picture. "This graph best represents what is taking place world wide. Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. As of beginning of 2007, the CO2 concentration is already at 380 ppm and it raises on average 2 - 3 ppm each year, so that the critical value will be reached in approximately 20 to 30 years from now. "The point here, is that C02 emissions DO harm the atmosphere. My opponent cannot prove that it doesn't because statistically, scientifically, and factually, the evidence stacks up. What has happened recently? "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U. S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle--both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. " The carbon Dioxide emitted is MAN MADE. The things we use everyday, emit vasts amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal, natural gas, and oil are prime examples of things that we humans use daily that attribute to harsh environmental conditions. To be more specific, here is a graph that shows details on what things most commonly used to emit human made Carbon Dioxide. The information cited above is from the Environmental Protection agency, and backed from a government based site. . http://www.epa.gov... Without tryin to sounds to repetive, I don't really know how else to argue this point. It is man made. There are tons of statistics, data, analytics, etc, that I could continue citing that prove the point here. Also, I am not entirely sure what my opponent is going to attempt to argue. In his first round, he says: "CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions" What exactly do you mean by human emissions? For example I am arguing what you said to argue, however I am also arguing that C02 emissions are man made. I ask this because I don't want to have any confusions. None-the-less I have uphelp the BOP in this debate so far, as asked in round 1. I ask that any further clarifications on the topic be made in the following rebuttal, and I will respond in the like.

Title: Humans are not causing global warming so Kyoto can't solve it Content: Natural causes are principally responsible for global warming today, making Kyoto irrelevant. Every 100,000 years, a cycle of glacial and inter-glacial periods occur. We are at the peak of the 10,000 year interglacial warming period before the next 100,000 year ice age. Our warming now is part of this cycle. Only planetary interactions between the sun and earth can cause such regular, but lengthy cycle's. This leads to the conclusion that the sun is most responsible. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol bases its carbon-cutting objectives on the assumption that humans are chiefly responsible for global warming; a false assumption.

Title: Global Warming Content: You first made the point about how I implied carbon dioxide is placed in the atmosphere by humans. You then procede to cherry pick a quote of mine without placing it into context. My point on that post is simply listing a possible alternate theory to climate change. You then refute my evidence and my link.I failed to provide you with the actual hieght of the jar that is my fault, but the equation you have provided is faulty, the equation says the amount of co2 humans emmision, you neglected my actual point of the cows in your equation.This organization, http://timeforchange.org... that 1 kilogram of meat is responsible for the amount of carbon in the atmosphere as a car driving 250 kilometers. http://www.fao.org..., this website reports that livestock is a bigger threat than humans in contributing to climate change.Also the same webiste, skeptical science, states that natural causes like oceans and vegitation are 750 giggatons while out output is 29giggatonsLet me use your equation ( (The amount of CO2 emitted by humans in 2010 in tons) * (Number of kilograms in a ton) / (Density of CO2 in kg/m^3) ) / ( (Area of Rhode Island in square miles) * (Number of square meters in a square mile) ) = Height of jar in metersLets switch it up witht the amount of greenhouses gases emmited by nature in tons. ( (The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by nature in 2010 in tons) * (Number of kilograms in a ton) / (Density of CO2 in kg/m^3) ) / ( (Area of Rhode Island in square miles) * (Number of square meters in a square mile) ) = Height of jar in meters,The same webiste foa.org says that cows where responable for 250 million tons so lets do a equation,(29,000,000,000,000* 907.185/ 1.98) / (1212* 2589988) = 2338635.750884500000 meters or 2,338 miles compared to the 4 mile high jar humans emit. nature greenhouse gases > humansLook at this the same website you are using to 'disprove me' is also disproving you!!! http://www.skepticalscience.com... that unlike what you said albedo clouds are changing and that there are emmiting more than 2x the greenhouse gases humans are emmitingYou wanted citation for the gravitational magnetic oscillations, here it is: A book from Cornelius van Huten https://books.google.com...You claim that the sun is on a cooling trend : https://www.skepticalscience.com...this link says other wise, they claim that the Earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling and that is backed up by the natural cycles of the magnetic field and the sun.Then you once again deny something I said as faulty well let me back that up too, http://io9.com...You then say that "if you believe that Co2 emmitions are causing something else to cause global warming, it means that you believe in man-made global warming." I have just proved with evidence,something you failed to provide, and using the links that you provided me that nature emmits more than 35x the amount of greenhouse gases that humans emmit.

Title: Human caused global warming is 'overhyped' Content: I am certain that the emission of green house gases produced through human activity has affected climates and temperatures world wide. There is no question about this in my mind. It is not even a matter of mere correlation really. Greenhouse gases trap heat and human beings are pumping out excessive amounts of ghg's into the Earth's atmosphere. I am not certain that human caused global warming is as big of a threat as the scientific community and popular media purport. Specifically, I am not convinced that the following claims are true: 1. Human caused global warming will accelerate the arrival of the next ice age (in less than 100 years). 2. Human caused global warming will result in large areas of land (such as the majority of Bangladesh) to become submerged in water (in less than 100 years). 3. Human caused global warming has lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes and other storms around the globe. I believe that BOP is on con to prove that the above statements are true. alternatively, Con can also argue that no one actually makes such statements about human caused global warming, and/or that there are other more serious effects that merit even greater media attention. My position is that human caused global warming is 'overhyped' because statements like 1,2, and 3 are regularly made but all of these predictions are difficult to back up with science because our current understanding and knowledge of climate patterns is very limited. Admittedly, there is a lot I need to learn about global warming and my primary aim here is to find out what I am missing.

Title: Global Warming is primarily caused by humans Content: StructureR1 - Acceptance onlyR2 - Each side presents their claimR3 - RebuttalsR4 - Closing StatementsRules1. ) Use Reliable sources2. ) List sources at the end of the text3. ) No trolling4. ) No forfeiting5. ) No "K's"6. )

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Correlation and CausationConsider the Cenozoic era (the last 65 million years). Overall, solar activity increased 0.4% over this period. "Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era. " The CO2 levels caused a much higher forcing. In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from at least 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages. The resulting climate forcing, as can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m^2. It is clear that CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic. "[1]In fact, the temperature changes correspond to the CO2 changes. ". .. there is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. "[2]This graph shows the CO2-temperature correlation over the last 700,000 years: Excess CO2 traps heat. Considering the recent global warming, satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding ". .. direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect. " In other words, the Earth is retaining more of the heat that it receives from the sun that it received from before. This excess heat manifests itself through global temperature increases. "If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation. A closer look at the downward radiation finds moreheat returning at CO2 wavelengths,leadin to the conclusion that '. .. this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. '"[3][4][5]Evidence of Mankind's Influence on the Recent Global Warming TrendIt would be rather coincidental if the recent rise in global warming happened to start just around the time that humans started to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. However, there is direct evidence as well, in addition to the already established correlation between temperature and CO2. Now, it is known that CO2 levels are increasing. "In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. " CO2 levels are increasing at a level not seen in at least 500,000 years, if not longer. [6]Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations over the last 10000 years: [7][8]Now, carbon has several isotopes, three of which are C12, C13, and C14. C14 is radioactive, and has a half life of around 5,730 years. The CO2 emissions that humans make come from fossil fuels. Thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C14/C12 ratio to decline, because, while there is a relatively constant amount of C14 in the atmosphere due to continuous replenishment (when a neutron collides with a regular nitrogen atom, a C14 atom and a proton result), the amount of C14 in the Earth has steadily decreased because it is not replenished, and since fossil fuels come from the ground, almost pure C12 is being ejected into the atmosphere. Indeed, it is observed that the C14/C12 ratio has declined. And thus, if humans were the cause of the excess CO2, we'd except the C13/C12 ratio to decline, because plants find it easier to take in carbon dioxide with a C12 atom than one with a C13 atom, implying that plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere and, since animals eat plants (either by directly eating then or eating something that eats plants), also implying that fossils also have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmopshere, implying that we'd see a decline in the C13/C12 ratio as well. Indeed it is also observed that the C13/C12 ratio has declined. [9][10][11]This can be observed in the graph below (this is the C13/C12 ratio over the last 650 years; the C14/C12 ratio graph was too big to put in the debate): The evidence that this excess CO2 is the cause of the recent global warming is voluminous. One piece of evidence is a comparison of warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. Because the CO2 is in the upper troposphere, the troposphere temperature would increase, while the stratospheric temperature would decrease, because there would be less heat reaching the stratosphere. "Computer model estimates of the ‘human influence’ fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. "[4][12][13]This graph shows this: [4]Another piece of evidence is the frequency of cold days and nights. Because the sun only shines in the day time, is the sun was causing global warming, the days would warm faster than the nights, while if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, this wouldn't be observed. It is the latter's prediction that is observed. "What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days. "[4][14]This can be shown in the below graph: [4]Overall, the evidence shows that human-emitted greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. CO2, in addition to other gases like methane and nitrous oxide are being emitted by humans in very large amounts, and this is manifesting itself in an increase in the average global temperature. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksClimate sensitivity is the amount the temperature would rise if the CO2 concentration were doubled. Obviously, if there's a large climate sensitivity, then increases in CO2 have large effect. It is known that the climate sensitivity is around 1 degree C. However, this can be amplified through feedbacks. Positive ones amplify the sensitivity, while negative ones diminish the sensitivity. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down on the former, that positive feedbacks are happening. Increases in CO2 cause temperature increases, which are amplified by water vapor and the effect on clouds. "Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. "[15]This can be shown in the below graph: Further, increases in CO2 affect the carbon cycle in this way: Global warming can result in the death of vegetation (due to droughts) and the warming of the ocean. Both of these further reduce the maximum absorption of the Earths carbon cycle, thus resulting in even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And with this, CO2 increases even more. In other words, CO2-caused temperature increases are amplified by positive feedbacks and the mechanics of the carbon cycle. So, the positive feedback amplifies the climate sensitivity. How much it is amplified can be determined through study. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is “the dominant [method] in the literature”, these findings support the notion of climate sensitivity as maximum 4 degrees C, a mean of 3 degrees C, and likely not lower than 3 degrees. [16]The graph below gives a statistical analysis: [17]The mean is around 3 degrees C. The CO2 that humans emit thus has an effect of 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. This can be shown by the fact that CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to around 400 ppm. This is an increase of around 40%. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. Indeed, temperatures have increased around this amount over the last 150 years. The anthropogenic-forcing climate models thus match observations. [18]In other words, in addition to the direct evidence of how the Earth is warming, the climate models based on a greenhouse gas cause to global warming explain almost perfectly the recent global warming. This is a lot of evidence for a human case to the recent global warming. ConclusionGreenhouse gases cause global warming because of their heat trapping abilities. Humans have been emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases over the last 150 years, and this shows itself on the CO2 measurements. The atmospheric warming pattern and greater heating at night are evidence that the recent global warming is caused by those human emitted greenhouse gases. These increases are amplified through the water vapor and cloud positive feedbacks and the positive feedback that arises through the climate cycle. The climate sensitivity ends up being around 3 degrees C. Finally, the CO2-temperature record shows that the two correlate with remarkable correlation. SourcesSources in comments.

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: I. The Sun Is Warming Since the Other Planets Are WarmingI admit, the sun is cooling currently, but the correlation between the sun and the climate is reinforced by this by my earlier proof that the Earth's temperature is stabilizing, and thus beginning to cool. The sun is warmer now than at any time in the last 11500 years. [1] "Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. "[2][3]This can be seen in this graph: [3]Recently, the sun has cooled compared to recent times. But one, climate lags behind solar activity, and two, this is being seen in the recent temperature slowdown. ". .. the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a "global cooling" may be on the horizon--a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles. "[4]Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming, 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming. [5]This can also be seen in climate data: [6]. Longer term, here is a correlation of a solar proxy to a temperature proxy for a period of 3000 years. Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays, hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (temperature proxy). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900 years BP. The above graph summarizes data obtained from a stalagmite from a cave in Oman. Finally, we see the correlation between temperature and CO2 & solar activity: [7]. It's easy to see the sun is more determinent. On the planets, here are some solar system wide effects: Sun - "Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25% 300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases Venus - 2500% Increase in Green Glow Mars - Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and"Jupiter"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 " recent increase in storms Io - "observing same changes -" 200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus and Ionosphere 1000% Higher Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected Ganymede - 200% brighter Saturn's - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in 2004 than in 1999 Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range " 1996 " 2002 Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure. [8]. You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, on Pluto, it is moving further away from the sun despite the fact it is warming. II. The Sun Via Cosmic Rays Is Causing Global Warming Looking at the Earth's long climatic history, it is easy to see the correlation: [9] [10]Low clouds means warmer temperatures: "Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s. "[11]So more solar radiation (and galatic positioning) causes fewer cosmic rays, which cause the creation of fewer clouds, which leads to warming. This was confirmed with the Svensmark experiement: "Preliminary results show that these faux cosmic rays indeed have an effect on the atmosphere: When high energy protons stream in, production of nanometer-sized particles in the atmosphere increases by more than ten times. "[12]In addition, for the predictions made by the AGW theory and the cosmic ray/solar theory, the latter is the effects currently being experienced. [6] For example, the AGW theory predicts the fastest tropospheric warming will be in the tropics, and the cosmic ray/solar theory predicts the warming will be uniform. The surface warming is similar or greater than troposphere warming. The latter theory wins. [6]Finally, it is clear the cosmic ray/temperature correlation: [6]. "The graph below a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade. "[6]III. Oceans Are Causing Global Warming "Current research also shows that Earth's oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun. "[4]The PDO correlates extremely well with global warming, and is not caused by humans. [13] Ocean currents correlate better than CO2: [14]In fact, Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature, and 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. [18] IV. The 1500-Year Cycle The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was globally warmer than today, and in both hemispheres: "Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum. " ". .. during the Medieval Warming. .. . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts. " ". .. the central Argentinean area had more precipitation during the Medieval Warming than today. Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer due to a southward shift of the tropical rainbelts. " "The largest anomaly was a rapid warming-4 degrees C-between 350 B. C and A. D 450, reflecting a warmer climate in equatorial East Africa. " "On Signy Island, halfway between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America, there clearly shows the Roman Warming. .. , the Dark Ages [cooling]. .. , the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming-which is cooler to date than the Medieval Warming. "[15] From Medieval manuscripts, it is easy to confirm that Europe was warm during the MWP, but so was the southern hemisphere: [16]. This means it was a global event, and not a see-saw hemisphere event. "Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer [during the Medieval Warm Period] than today. "[17] [17] V. Three Equal Warmings Period Length Trend(Degrees C per decade) Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes [19] [20] Conclusion Putting this all together, "For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '. .. has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present. '"[21] There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. Sources . http://www.debate.org...;

Title: Global warming a "Human cause?" Content: My opponents first points are observations which we agree on, now to the fun part. 1. Past climate cycles My opponents argunment is cycles change in the past: it is natural now. Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans. Our climate is very sensitive to heat, something this argunment proved ( my opponents). Co2 is known to be able to trap heat and therefore increase heat in the earth, increasing temperatures. (. http://www.skepticalscience.com...) 2. Cooling of 1940-70 This is based on the argunment of look it cooled when Co2 rose. As seen in the global warming swindle. This is true, but easily refuted. Co2 is still capable of a warming effect. The reasons tempertures dropped was due to high areosols. Volcanic activity ruled over our Co2 increase. The warning stopped when we passed clean air acts that lowered aerosol amount. So the cooling was man made, and that forcing overrided co2. Meaning co2 drove the bus after that as no known natural forcing exists today. . http://www.newscientist.com... 3. Co2 They have been increasing at unnaturally high rates meaning co2 is high due to unnatural forcings, in this case it's human emissions . http://co2now.org... Conclusion: As 97% of scientists beleive we cause global warning, (. http://www.skepticalscience.com...) my opponent holds the bop as he is against the science status quo.

Title: Government should address global warming as a top priority whatever the economic cost. Content: So, as we've both stated repeatedly, we agree that humans are at least in part responsible for climate change, and that it will impact the economy if measures are taken to stop it. But once again, we have to make that choice. After all, every business regulation in some way hurts the economy, but we still have business regulations. Why? Because at the end of the day, we know that sometimes, the economy isn't always first priority, and this is one of those times. And yes, we can start using renewable energies. That day is coming sooner than later. And no, for the last time, it is not a non existent problem. You should watch Al Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth." BenD, thanks for this debate. I've had fun debating with you, I'm glad I accepted this.

Title: Global Warming is Man-Made Content: The sun drives of climate change The main driver of modern climate is solar activity. The energy output of the sun, called the irradiance. has been nearly constant in modern times, so that's not the cause. It is primarily the magnetic field of the sun which drives climate, and to a lesser extent the ultraviolet component of the irradiance. The magnet component varies dramatically. Norwegian scientists in the 1990's discovered that the single measure of solar activity that best predicts climate is the length of the previous solar cycle. “The most readily apparent cycle in solar activity is the cycle in sunspot activity. These solar cycles average eleven years in length, and they have ranged in length from nine years to beyond eighteen years.“ [1] The length of the solar predicts climate change as shown in the graph [2] below: The increase in CO2 is very close to exponential, so as Pro noted, AGW theory predicts a straight line temperature rise. The graph shows clearly that is not what has happened. Climate has been behaving according to solar activity. “A paper published [in 2012] in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physicsfinds that up to 72% of the temperature increase over the last 150 years can be explained by the length of solar cycles,” [3] The length of the solar cycle does not perfectly represent the sun effects, so it's likely that a more precise model would produce a more precise result. Cosmic rays affect cloud cover The physical theory that explains the correlation is summarized by Archibald: There are two main ways that changing solar activity affects terrestrial climate. Both have their origin in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field. In the first route, a lower magnetic field strength results in less sunspot activity, which in turn mean less solar wind, which allows more galactic cosmic rays to get to Earth’s orbit. The neutron shower from galactic cosmic rays causes more cloud formation, which in turn reflects more sunlight back into space, making the Earth colder. … In the second route, the lower magnetic field strength results in a lower temperature of the Sun’s chromosphere, which in turn produces less ultraviolet light. That decreases the production of lower stratospheric ozone, and that decrease causes a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (a fluctuation in sea-level atmospheric pressure), making the Northern Hemisphere colder. This second route makes winters longer and colder without necessarily reducing peak summer temperatures. [4] If solar magnetic activity really changes cloud cover, the incident radiance on the earth should vary with the sun's magnetic activity. That has been observed just as the solar theory predicts. [5] Solar activity is measured historically by the formation of beryllium 10, which accumulates in sediments to provide a history of solar activity. “The Modern Warm Period from 1900 to 2008 is associated with a large decline in Be10 in ice cores, indicating a sustained higher level of solar activity in the twentieth century. There is also very close correlation between ice-rafted stone debris in the North Atlantic and Be10 levels over the last 10,000 years—another demonstration that solar activity controls climate.” [6] The correlation continues through to the present day. Solar activity predicts the 17+ year halt in global warming as the cycle has reached a flat peak and is starting downward. The pause in global warming is illustrated in this graph: [7]: The AGW computer models include irradiance, which is essentially constant, but the models take no account at all of the solar magnetic effects that correlate tightly with climate. AGW theorists now admit that the CO2 models cannot be tweaked to explain the pause. They are now proposing a variety of new theories to patch the failed old theory. [8] One theory is that for some reason all the warming is going into the deep oceans. Another theory is that atmospheric aerosols (i.e., soot) is reducing the size of rain drops causing clouds to be whiter and reflect more energy. There are other theories. The problem is that if there is any uncalculated factor that completely wipes out CO2 effects, that admits CO2 does not dominate climate. If uncalculated factors can be as large or larger than the CO2 effect, that admits that previous warming might have been the result of unknown factors as well. The premise of the AGW theory was that because all the other factors affecting climate were known, CO2 must have caused the warming from 1983 to 1996. Historically, solar activity drives climate with CO2 rising after there is warmingAl Gore famously showed two graphs, one of temperature over time and one of CO2 over time. The shapes of the curves were similar, showing a high correlation. Mr. Gore never overlaid the graphs. Had he done so, it would have been apparent that CO2 levels were following the warming rather by hundreds of years rather than leading it. As the oceans warm, they can dissolve less CO2, which is then released into the atmosphere. The CO2 rise is in response to the solar magnetic effects that changed cloud cover to cause the basic climate change.Over long periods of earth's history, there is no relationship between CO2 and climate.[8] Consensus does not determine sciencePro has the burden of proving that human activity has dominated climate. My burden is only to show that the anthropogenic theory is unproved. A scientific theory is wrong if it fails to explain or predict, and anthropogenic theory has clearly failed. I'm not obligated to prove an alternative theory, but I nonetheless shown that solar magnetic activity explains and predicts climate much better than CO2 theory. Since solar magnetic activity has dominated climate, anthropogenic causes cannot be dominant. AGW theorists admit that factors not in their computer models have been so large as to completely cancel greenhouse gas effects. for the past 17+ years.Pro stresses that it is not just that a consensus exists, but that the consensus is based on data. (Actually, the only real data is a general increase in temperature which solar theory better explains, and the rest is computer models that did not predict the hiatus.) But every scientific consensus has been supported by data that scientists at the time thought conclusive. A wrong consensus means that the data was incorrect or that it was incorrectly interpreted. The once near-unanimous consensus that the earth was the center of the universe was based upon the indisputable observation that the sky appears to rotate around the earth. The theory was found wrong only by more careful observations starting with the inconsistent behavior of the paths of planets in the sky. In the 1960s, the scientific consensus favored the Steady State Theory over the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory predicted the presence of microwave background radiation, so when the background radiation was discovered, the consensus changed rapidly. Not long ago, the learned scientific consensus was that homosexuality was a form of mental illness. Psychologists thought they had the data to prove it, but they were wrong; it is genetic. Modern scientists continue to make errors reflected in wrong consensus. A very strong scientific consensus has until the past few years supported the theory that in the human diet, saturated fat causes high serum cholesterol levels which in turn causes heart disease. It turns out the original theory was based upon falsified data. The landmark peer that "proved" the theory deliberately excluded data that falsified the theory. A couple of other bogus papers supported the theory, including one in which cholesterol was injected into vegetarian rabbits, who then quite predictably died. Studies over the past fifty years that attempted to confirm the theory instead disproved it. [9, 10] The originator of the cholesterol theory believed it, and he did a great job of selling the theory so it quickly reached consensus.. Many papers giving the “wrong” results were not allowed to be published, or the authors declined to submit them for fear of ruining their reputation. Some scientists published after they retired so that career retribution could not be inflicted. I recite the cholesterol consensus error because it's very close to the way anthropogenic global warming theory has achieved consensus. Early enthusiastic advocates sold the theory as the only possible explanation of the rapid rise of temperatures from 1983 to 1996. According to that data, not only was CO2 the cause, but climate sensitivity much have been very large, perhaps five or even ten. Now Pro's claim is that it is at least 0.7. If it is that low, then global warming is not a crisis. it's hardly worth noting. The bogus 97% consensus comes from surveying only journals that refuse to publish dissent. The Climategate scandal showed how eager AGW are to suppress dissent."In a November 15, 2005, email Mann expresses his satisfaction that Geophysical Research Letters is now firmly under the control of the climate change alarmists but laments that other publications still publish research by skeptics: “The Geophysical Research Letters leak may have been plugged up now with new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have Climate Research and Energy and Environment, and will go there if necessary.” [9]Very few papers scientific papers say anything about global warming as whole. For example, there are about 200 papers that show that the Medieval Warm Period and similar climate change existed worldwide, and that refute the bogus Hockey Stick argument for AGW. But the papers would not be counted as being in opposition to AGW. Besides, they are in the wrong journals. Virtually all the papers on solar theory -- there are hundreds -- are in specialist journals, not the surveyed climate journals. ------------------------------------------Per the terms of of the debate, I'll put the reference list in the debate comments.

Title: global climate change is human caused Content: For the record- I believe in Global Warming (not all theories, but the basic premise of most). What I don't believe in is feeding the conservative view of global warming with lackluster arguments in favor like "humans are causing the rise in global temperatures" which can be easily debated against. I will debate against my opponents simple statements with simple statements of my own, as well as a rebuttal. "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature" -This is impossible. Yes, humans give off heat, but unless you can prove that our collective body temperatures are somehow raising global temperatures, then this statement cannot be true. " Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming." -The natural cycle of global warming cannot be stopped. For thousands of years the Earth has had a warming period in which the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise, and weather patterns are drastically affected which in result cause global cooling- the Earth's natural protection mechanism which brings about periodic ice ages. Because of the dynamic between our atmospherical makeup, our proximity to the sun, and other factors like the moon's effect on tides- global warming cannot be stopped.

Title: Global warming Content: The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world's oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible. As the Pro side of this resolution I would like to define global warming as, "Increased levels of gases such as carbon dioxide that trap heat in the earth's lower atmosphere potentially causing global warming" (www. ifdn. com/teacher/glossary. htm) "-she would like to say I have given no proof but nether has she she neglects to say that global warming is a theory and has not been proven scientifictly but on my side i have history not lose assumption. " You are correct you have given no proof, no sources, no research, no anything that I can accept is true on your behalf. Every argument I have gotten I cannot accept merely because it was written, in poor condition and their is no proof, unless you are a new scientist that I have no heard of, I find every argument of yours is wrong. I would like to define proof as a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it. (wordnet. princeton. edu/perl/webwn) I neglect to say that global warming is a theory? The whole point of this debate is for the Pro to prove that global warming is real, and not a theory. Why would I contradict myself? Do you find everything I am posting to be lose assumptions? Maybe you should scroll up to my sources. "-over the last ten million years the world has been around 4 billion of those years have had living life on her contanents and with that said 67% of the time the world has hade living life on it the planet had little to no ice on it. 65 million years in the past a astroid hit the planet this set of the trend of heating and cooling that we are experancing 2 day. There has been 4 Major ice ages since then. along ith many other little ice ages. and off course with the end of a ice age u have a warming period. " "As early as the nineteenth century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to global warming on much shorter time scales than the natural, cyclic fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to rise, and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat. This led some to become concerned about global cooling, and, in turn, newspaper headlines proclaimed an imminent ice age. Climate skeptics often point to that period as evidence that climate scientists are not to be trusted – warnings of global cooling back then, warnings of global warming now. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified; international programs have been organized. We now have detailed, global data sets from satellites and ever-more sophisticated instruments. Computer models, incorporating more and more data and capable of recreating past trends, can more precisely predict future scenarios. As a result, our understanding of the climate system is immeasurably stronger than in the 1970s. The National Academy of Sciences, which admitted we did not know enough to "pose the key questions" in 1975, now says: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures . .. to rise. " (NAS, 2001) "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. . .. We urge all nations . .. to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change. " (NAS [pdf], 2005)" (. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu...) Once again, I apologize for the confusion that has been caused in the first and second rounds. I strongly urge for a vote in affirmation of the resolution.

Title: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is causing Global Warming Content: Accepted. Opening Argument: 'Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect'--warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.''Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as 'forcing' climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as 'feedbacks.'The gasses that contribute to this are: •Water Vapor (H2O)•Nitrous Oxide (N2O)•Methane (CH4)•Carbon Dioxide (CO2)[.1.] https://climate.nasa.gov...'The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased dramatically, from a pre-industrial era (AD 1000 – 1750) concentration of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to today's 400 ppm.'So, it's pretty obvious (particularly through the overuse of carbon dioxide) that humans have considerable responsibility to bare for global warming. [2.] http://www.ucsusa.org...As one would expect, there is no research to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is causing global warming--or indeed that more pirates on planet earth would be the answer. Another contention I will add is that pirates commit crime; so Pro is essentially arguing that more crime be committed. The infamous pirate, Ned Lowe (1600's-1700's) provides an example of how violent pirates have historically been: 'An English criminal who took to sea, Ned Lowe was not the most successful pirate in his day (though he did well enough), but was perhaps the most feared due to his excessive cruelty and love of torture. This did not extend only to his enemies; he was reported to have set fire to an unwanted ship, with the cook on board, for amusement, saying that the cook was a greasy fellow'. He was, however, most famous for his treatment of enemy captains. He once cut an enemy’s lips off because he threw treasure into the sea. Lowe then proceeded to cook, and make him eat his lips before massacring the entire crew. Cruel, but seemingly effective.'Modern pirates, are not that much better. [3.] http://tvtropes.org...While there isn't any evidence to suggest that pirates help our planet (As Pro is arguing), there is in fact evidence to show that they damage it: 'According to experts, one of the most serious dangers associated with modern piracy is the risk of an environmental disaster. When pirates capture merchant ships, they often tie up the crew and leave the ship unmanned—and possibly still moving at full speed. Some fear that if a ship were captured and left unmanned in a narrower channel such as a strait, there is a high probability that it could crash, with the contents of the ship (often oil) being spilled into the ocean. Such a disaster nearly occurred in 1999, when the French tanker Chaumont was ambushed by pirates in the Strait of Malacca (between Malaysia and Indonesia.' [4.] http://listverse.com...Pirates are Bad for HealthIt goes without saying that any person who is captured by a pirate, if they survive, are going to suffer health consequences in the form of stress, anxiety and most likely PTSD; meaning that in all probability, they will require aftercare (emotional support, etc.) after their ordeal. And in the U.S, it costs to become ill. [5.] https://thinkprogress.org...No Evidence for the Existence of a Flying Spagetti MonsterAnother issue with Pros case is the fact that there's just no evidence that a flying Spagetti Monster even exists. Actually, the religion (Pastafarianism) that worships the Flying Spagetti Monster has been deemed 'not real', thus meaning that even in the doctrinal sense it is considered illegitimate. [6.] https://www.rt.com...

Title: Global Warming Content: The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth " in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases " including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide " to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today " higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth"s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100. What this means to humanity is that, unless some serious changes are made, the global climate will continue to shift so drastically that the world will not be the same as we know it in a century, or less. http://nationalacademies.org... The Natural Resources Defense Counsel, the primary community authority on global climate change clearly states that climate change is the single biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our time. The Earth's atmosphere is overloaded with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, which threatens large-scale disruptions in climate with disastrous consequences. What this means is that humans must act now to spur the adoption of cleaner energy sources at home and abroad, rather than trying to convince ourselves that global climate change is a hoax and letting the problem get worse before we address it. http://www.nrdc.org...

Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: The CON must prove humans do not play a significant role in global warming. I recommend a experienced debater that opposes global warming to debate with me. EDIT: Per Ron-Paul's request, the resolution is changed and the voting period is now 1 month. My Starting Arguments: Yes, the Earth is warming. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 "C (1.4 "F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[1] Is it caused mainly by humans? Humans have increased the amount of Co2, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increase the Earth's temperature. "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle."[2] Plus, global warming could cause ice cap melting. Dan Miller said that the ice caps can be gone by 2020. (From video) http://www.youtube.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Global Warming is primarily caused by humans Content: Pro wants us to believe that we are the only reason the world can become warmer. Pro wants to directed complete control over idea, and resolvable solution. An equation using a fixed outcome has only one solution. This is basic math principle and is what needs to be disproved in pro"s argument. Pro is not lying, I am not lying, and the only reason some-one needs a lie in this debate is to fix the equation, to fix an outcome, only humanity. By doing this the forced answer becomes fixed as the only problem. We all hate word problems, we all know how complicated they are, not all of us can use word problems like Science, when left inside the fixed bias equation they can be used to create the answer wanted. "Climate manipulation", if science had been sure the Title of this debate would be Climate manipulation. It is being done here by witness account, is it being done by only by nature for the plants course, or is mankind now a play for human course. "All the Titles of this topic are focusing public attention on the event and not an investigation into cause." That is not a natural course of non-biased understanding. The rest of this is added to simply to clear misdirection of a fix equation. Reading is not required but welcome. Volcanoes are one large vent you may see on the surface it is not the complete system. It is only a very small part of a much larger network of vents, lava, and "gases." The deeper underground we explore hotter it gets, ground traps Co2, and cook out of crude oil before humans can ever touch it. Volcanoes are simple just a part of a process of circulation which gives us gauge globally of how rapidly it can move, then be released at one times. (Note the earth also has ways to naturally scrub Co2 out of our air, the earth surface proportionately is covered of this scrubber two to every one unit. "Earth is a dust magnet." And space is nothing but a dirty vacuum filled with dust. Science knows this is fact. Space dust has been used in models to show what has formed many plants including earth. If Dust cannot accumulate mass there would be no plants at all. Pro, Con may simply not be ready to exclude Co2 emissions entirely yet. There are a number of ways in which mankind can benefit by rising Co2 levels. Concern is a word a person might use, it provokes a look into expressions such as Intentional or unintentional, long term short term. We are products of our understanding. When understanding is fixed our understandings become fixed. Not all solutions that are given to the public fix result in positive outcome. This is not a problem which will benefit humanity with a fixed outcome.

Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: Firstly. I have not quantified anything in the heading of the debate. I've said 'main cause'. Not 'more than fifty percent' or somethinglike that. Main means a major portion. Since when did 'substantially' get used for a small portion? And it is also not my possible (to my knowledge) to quantify the impact of natural causes on climate change as it is unpredictable and can change any time. Con has also left out my point that human activities can alter the natural conditions of the earth, therefore any change in temperature due to natural causes could have a human factor behind it. As explained in the following. http://co2now.org... Secondly, I never said natural causes play an insignificant role. I said they play an important role but not as important as human causes. In con's reference chart, the temperature has been constantly oscillating between hot and cold, but if you check recent years there have been almost two constant hot periods and the cold period is almost invisible ( in the graph I mean) meaning it is very short. And then in the graph itself it clear that the hot periods have been on the rise since the Age of Induatrialization. And after 2015, the cold period is based on assumptions and predictions, and as I have already made clear that nature cannot always be predicted. Thirdly Global Warming is a reality. Just because there have hotter periods before, doesn't mean it is not happening. The following site also explains that the global warming hiatus in recent times is not true. And that climate only causes short term changes in the climate of the earth, but human activity causes long term changes. http://www.bbc.com... Fourthly scientists will not quanitfy and agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, as it is their community that are primary responsible (in humans). But I will not defame them as some ARE trying their best to prove it. Fifthly , again I refer to the chart provided by Con, the hot periods have gradually developed over a period of time, but in recent years its almost at a right angle. Which means there have been sharp and quick increase in the heat all over the globe.

Title: Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth. Content: Thank you, medv4380. http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... ==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 provided 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. Note that this is all over the world, so accusations of choosing a specific area for evidence cannot be valid. 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] This can be further proven by checking Mercury's temperature compared to Venus' temperature, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus. [8] "Venus has a very dense atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulfuric acid, while Mercury has a very thin atmosphere with various gases, but very little carbon dioxide." [8] Again this information is major evidence of the existence of man-made global warming. ==Contention 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels== It is widely agreed that melting ice from the Arctic and Antarctic and sea level rise is a sign of increasing temperatures. If I can prove that ice is definitely decreasing and that sea levels are definitely rising, then I win this contention. Here is a chart showing definite decrease in Arctic ice [9]: Here is another chart showing rising sea levels [10]: Also, recent reports state that the Arctic is losing ice three times as fast as the Antarctic is gaining ice [11][12]. "Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean." Thus, I affirm this contention. ==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. ==Sources== [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............;[8] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu......[9] http://www.forbes.com......[10] http://www.nasa.gov......[11] http://www.nasa.gov......[12] https://www.youtube.com......

Title: Global Warming is all hysteria and a liberal hoax. Content: CO2 was just named a greenhouse gas in a 2006 court case, which to me was a very sketchy hearing. (Besides the fact that Al Gore was making back room deals to get this law passed.) My bad, I meant methane not propane. And it is a fact. "A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs. The world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Unfortunately, the environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is a serious miscalculation. CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. It�s true that human activity produces vastly more CO2 than all other greenhouse gases put together. However, this does not mean it is responsible for most of the earth�s warming. Many other greenhouse gases trap heat far more powerfully than CO2, some of them tens of thousands of times more powerfully. Methane is another gas that warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide. By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the major source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture. Cattle wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of methane." http://www.greendiary.com... A new report from FAO says livestock production contributes to the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Using a methodology that considers the entire commodity chain, it estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. However, the report says, the livestock sector's potential contribution to solving environmental problems is equally large, and major improvements could be achieved at reasonable cost. http://www.futurepundit.com... Ya Al Gore is a great source of knowledge and credibility on global warming, especially with the fact that his "An Inconvenient Truth" has been largely debunked. A few last words from the great Tom Deweese: "DeWeese calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world, bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment," he observes. "Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth." DeWeese describes the relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged over the past couple of decades. "The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists," he contends. "School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction." DeWeese warns that the Climate Change Protocol is "a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels." He insists that "it doesn't matter" if the final version is somewhat modified. "Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation," DeWeese predicts. "To meet such drastically reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs." Couldn't be more true. All liberals want is more control and more power.

Title: Humans are responsible for global warming Content: I agree that carbon emissions have been rising before modern technology, but humans are the cause of it rising at such a rate as it is now. At this moment the best us (humans) can do to limit global warming we would still be at a two degree world temperature rise. This doesn't sound like much, but this large of a change can cause reefs to die (as they are already) and the ocean (water level) to rise and "swallow" coastal cities such as Florida, New York City, and parts of New Jersey. And this isn't just because of the CO2 emissions, but due to methane produced by beef cows that are used in so many foods, hamburgers, steaks, roast beef, etc.

Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: Thanks to Ron-Paul for the response. CO2 Correlation The sunspots actually rose after the temperature in 1960, according to the chart from [A]. If my opponent's claim is right, then global warming causes sunspots to rise, which is not the case. The chart from [A] shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, in the short term without apparent lag. Sun "Sun - Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%" Again, my sun argument still stands. Predictions say that Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78. Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare. [B] The sun is not in a period of high activity. "Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious." I have proven this wrong with [A]. Cosmic Rays The most recent IPCC studies disputed the mechanism. The 2007 IPCC reports, however, strongly attribute a major role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ongoing global warming, but as "different climate changes in the past had different causes" a driving role of carbon dioxide in the geological past is neither focus of the IPCC nor purported. [C] PDO/AMO The 10-year correlation record of CO2 is on there, but the 10 year correlation record of PDO/AMO is not on there, therefore this does not prove that CO2 has less influence. "There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. " The PDO/AMO does not have a 10 year chart to compare with CO2, the sun is refuted in earlier rounds. The sunspots are lagging behind the temperature. IPCC disputes the cosmic rays and instead attribute the warming to CO2. Position in galaxy (Only a chart given by opponent) Per Ron-Paul's request, this is the full quote: (formatting changed for character count, no changes in content, words taken out in R3 are marked) " To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. [[To achieve this radical restructuring of human society, global warming proponents demand that we give virtually unlimited power to government to control what we eat, how we travel, and how our industries operate, with no dissent or resistance permitted.]] Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. As one environmental activist puts it, Everything modern has to go!" -ISIL Medieval Warm Period "I will keep coming with more. There is a clear correlation." There is no correlation if you give nothing to compare. The data before 1600 was scarce [D], which means that the temperatures can be colder or warmer than now, but the chart at [E] shows that the MWP is colder than the temperature at 2004. The Sun Back in 2008, the solar cycle plunged into the deepest minimum in nearly a century. Sunspots all but vanished, solar flares subsided, and the sun was eerily quiet. As 2011 unfolds, sunspots have returned and they are crackling with activity. On February 15th and again on March 9th, Earth orbiting satellites detected a pair of "X-class" solar flares--the most powerful kind of x-ray flare. The last such eruption occurred back in December 2006. [F] As you can see, the solar activity was unstable. Then we should see many huge dips and rises in the chart at http://ossfoundation.us... , but the sun spots dipped down in 2000, while the temperature still rose with the CO2 with little to none delays on the CO2 part. CO2 correlates more than sun spots on [A]. And [A] is a short term graph from 1860 to 2000, so the CO2 should be delayed like crazy, right? Nope, that is not the case. In Conclusion, my opponent's claims have been refuted. [A]http://ossfoundation.us... [B]http://science.nasa.gov... [C]http://en.wikipedia.org... [D]http://en.wikipedia.org... [E]http://upload.wikimedia.org... [F]http://science.nasa.gov...

Title: The environmental impact of industrialization is the primary cause of earth's current warming trend. Content: "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. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets." (http://www.canadafreepress.com...) I agree with this speaker's theory. The only reasons that are credible for the current rise in Earth's CO2 Levels are that global warming and the ice ages are natural phases of the Earth. Humans are not causing it. They didn't a long time ago and they aren't now.

Title: Environmental Protection Content: Thank you for your argument. As you said, water is being polluted. Yes. We also have animal and plant life at an extreme risk. The concern with overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of land. It has to do with what humans have done to the Earth. Humans have exploited Earth's resources, destroyed natural areas, caused the extinction of half of wildlife, have polluted water, the air, caused extreme climate change, and there are many more. There is hope to turn this around, and that is environmental protection laws. Now for climate change, as you did: Global temperatures have rised at a rate naturally impossible. Normally, global temperatures cool. The Earth formed from molten asteroids. Millions of years ago, there were humid jungles at the poles, which are usually the coldest regions of the planet. Sea levels were also higher millions of years ago. Temperatures have rised globally in all areas, cold or already hot. Their is scientific evidence showing we're responsible. As for weather, Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change. Nevertheless, weather does not mean "climate change is not harmful". When it comes to glaciers, they naturally do expand. However, man made climate change is melting them. Several scientific studies show that in 20-40 years, all Ice in Antarctica will likely melt. I do not disagree with you on the CO2 point and I know it is beneficial. However, it is not the only gas being emitted. Methane is an extremely effective greenhouse gas and large amounts of it are being emitted. Scientists have also discovered several toxic gases like Phosgene in the atmosphere of Earth. So far we have cut down half of forests on Earth. Keep in mind trees produce vital oxygen that we need to breath. If you want me to be honest, the modern environmental movement is stupid, yes, specifically when it comes to CO2. But these are just my opinion. 97% of climatologists believe in climate change and not just because of CO2 emissions. I tried to keep my argument as short as possible.

Title: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: Main point - Every major science academy in the west supports it, 97%-98% of scientist support it. 1. 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. This increase in CO2 was a substantial contributor to the 1"F to 1.4"F warming over the 20th century. 2. Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. 3. Human produced greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere causing climate change because the earth's forests, oceans, and other "carbon sinks" cannot adequately absorb them all. As of 2009, these carbon sinks were only absorbing about 50% of human-produced CO2. The other 50% is accumulating in the atmosphere. 4. Human greenhouse gas emissions, not changes in the sun's radiation, are causing global climate change. Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979 - 2009, show the sun's energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase. While warming is occurring in the troposphere (lower atmosphere), the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. If the sun was driving the temperature change there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. 5. Computer models show that increased levels of human produced greenhouse gases will cause global warming and other climate changes. Although these climate models are uncertain about how much future warming will occur and how it will affect the climate, they all agree that, to some degree, these changes will happen. The reality of climate change is not contradicted by this uncertainty. 6. Although the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases may seem small to some people, their warming potential is amplified by the water vapor positive feedback loop , allowing them to cause significant warming and climate change. As greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, it can double the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. 7. Human greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, and climate models consistently show that this warming causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones. The fact that 1975-1989 had 171 category 4 and 5 hurricanes while 1990-2004 had 269 [51] of them (a 57% increase) validates these climate models and the reality of human-induced climate change. 8. Human-produced CO2 is changing the climate of the world's oceans. As excess CO2 is absorbed, oceanic acidity levels increase. Oceans have absorbed 48% of the total CO2 released by human activities and acidity levels are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use. 9. An 8" rise in the ocean level has occured (1961-2003) due to human-induced global warming. Global sea levels rose an average of 1.8 mm (.07 in) per year between 1961 and 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm (.1 in) per year from 1993 to 2003. [3] This sea level rise is the result of warming waters and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and polar ice sheets. From 1870-2004, a "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occured, an important confirmation of climate change models. 10. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the earth's hydrologic climate. Rainfall is increasing in many areas due to increased evaporation stemming from global warming. Higher temperatures are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western US (1950-1999) were human-induced. 11. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the rate of glacial melt and altering the local climate of many regions. Since 1850, records show a "strong increase" in the rate of glacial retreat. From 1961-2004 glaciers retreated about .5mm per year in sea level equivalent. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, since 1980, glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness (measured in average mass balance in water equivalent). 12. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and soot (black carbon) produced from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is reducing the size of the Arctic ice cap. A smaller ice cap reflects less of the sun's energy away from the earth. This energy is absorbed instead, causing air and water temperatures to rise. From 1953"2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. Climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat through the 21st century further disrupting the global climate. [15] 13. Many organizations believe that human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change. These groups include: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the InterAcademy Council, the Network of African Science Academies, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Royal Society (UK national academy of science), the US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 14. Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 "climate change denial front groups."