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

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: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: I will be arguing that global warming is not significantly impacted by human activity, and my opponent will be arguing that humans are the cause/have a big effect on global warming. Please begin your argument.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.

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: 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: 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: Global Warming Skepticism Content: I hope my opponent will be able to post during the final round. Since he has challenged none of my contentions above, I will go on and post my closing arguments. === Conclusion === That opponent has produced no evidence to show that the climate change that has occured during the past 200 years is due to any human activity. For all he knows, it could be caused by an increase in volcanic activity, a change in the output of the Sun, or a change in the earth's orbit. Likewise, he has not illustrated why it is nessecary for human beings to act to combat global warming. If global warming is not caused by humans and we act regardless, the human race will waste huge amounts of resources on an unstopable problem. Recent events such as "climategate" has shed doubt on global warming research and data from the past decade. When all of this is cobined the resolution stands: the human race should remain skeptical of global warming. I thank my opponent and everybody who took the time to read this. I would like to highlite that my opponent had terrible conduct, he forfeited a round and resorted to relentess attacks. He also has produced no arguments of his own, reaffirming the resolution.

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: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: I will be debating against (Con) the idea that 'Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming', I do not doubt that we are a huge factor in this, however I am arguing that we are not the leading cause of Global Warming, or known better recently as, Climate Change.I would like to start talking about what Climate Change is.- a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.This is the typical definition of Climate Change for the public, the use of fossil fuels and other carbon based structures that inevitably end up in the atmosphere, making a greenhouse effect and holding in more heat. My argument is, ~ Humans and natural cycles is why we have Climate Change ~Each year through our generation of electricity through coal [4], our consumption of petrol and oil and exhaust of our transportation [3], our destruction of natural filters such as plant life, phytoplankton [1] and bodies of water [2] have made our world a slightly different place that will radically change in the near future.The science behind the principle of Climate Change is what we want to know. How does Climate Change work?If we look at the moon, the temperatures vary from -170C to 100C [5], however, on Earth we have a stronger gravity, this pulls our gaseous atmosphere closer to our planet through its mass. Gravity is a force and puts pressure on everything it can affect, as a result, everything becomes heavier; this means that the centrifugal force also applies more pressure due to the rotation of the axis [6]. Since our atmosphere is a lot closer and denser then the moons atmosphere, heat is locked in.The question now is, how the atmosphere correlates to increased heat. In order for our atmosphere to absorb radiation, it must have some electrically charged particles for passing electromagnetic waves to push around. Although most of the gasses in our atmosphere don't have a negative charge, instead, they have an equal distribution between both negative and positive charges. However, there is one good part about the placement of polarity, Water (H20), Ozone (O3) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) which all have their negatively charged particles on one side allowing infrared radiation to absorb and reflect easily.[7]Carbon Dioxide (C02) and Methane (CH4) move and shake continuously allowing the same result as the previous three elements. [8]As a result, having these gasses enables more heat to be held together leading to hotter days. I will not be going into Ozone Depletion however I will be going into how the real reason we have climate change is due to our oceans.Opening statement.The human use of elements that promote the greenhouse effect on the world has created a slight discourse in the typical cycles that would otherwise naturally occur. The waters are getting hotter, rising, and expelling carbon dioxide instead of holding it in, this has occurred in the past naturally without human intervention, the natural filters are being removed and as a result, more carbon dioxide is entering our atmosphere enabling Climate Change. This is the man made climate change that will affect the patterns of temperature cycles that have been happening for the last 4.5 billion years. Mankind is affecting the part of repair or restoration within natural filters. If we look at graphs that are 542 million years ago, we can see a general pattern, we are about to go into a cold spell soon too. The next ice age is on its way. Currently I have no option to upload the graph so I will post it in the reference. I do apologise for my incredibly short argument, it’s really late, and I did not have much time to work on this. I will finish my argument, address your rebuttals and complete round 2 and 3 off successfully in the next round. Thank you.Kryptic.References:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [2]http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3]http://www.powerscorecard.org... [4]http://www.space.com... [5]http://quest.nasa.gov... [6]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [7]http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu... [8]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [9] http://theresilientearth.com... [Graphs that were unable to upload] Again, I apologise for any inconvenience. If you would like to render this arguement obsolete and start over, I would be more than happy to at a later date; this is a fun topic of discussion for me.

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 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: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: First of all I would like to apologise for themy forfeiture, as my internet connection was not available for a few days. I hope that voters disregard the forfeit. My opening statements. 1) Humanity IS the main cause of global warming.The IPCC Report of 2015 states: Its extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 wascaused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period . Anthro-pogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica.. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since 1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0""700 m) and to global mean sea level rise observed since the 1970s."One of the major contributions to global warming is caused by automobiles, a man made i.e. anthropogenic industry.Other include garbage disposal, factories, burning of leaves , bonfires etc. All of these are anthropogenic causes. 2) One could argue that global warming would take place with or without humanity , but that is not and would not have been the case. Global warming is not JUST the warming of the Earth , it is the EXCESSIVE warming of the Earth's atmosphere. 3) The following site also concludes that mankind is the main contributing factor of global warming. http://timeforchange.org... My Rebuttals 1) Con's source itself says that human activities have contributed substantially to climate change I.e. global warming. 2) I didn't know that global warming consisted of parts. Global warming, simply put is the heating up of the earth, which is mainly caused by greenhouse gases which are emitted by both anthropogenic and natural sources. But the amount is substantially more by man made sources. 3) Another reason given by Con's site is the sun's reflectivity , which can also be altered by human activities. 4) This debate is not whether this is the Little Ice Age or any other age. Its about mankind's impact on global warming. 5) Even if the role of Ice Age is as important as it is alleged, it cannot overtake the impact of civilization and development.

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: CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Content: Before I begin I would like to initially reinforce the topic of the debate: CO2 emissions are DIRECTLY responsible for climate change. As the negative, I will rebut the affirmative as to why CO2 emissions (whilst adding to the heat of the planet) are not directly responsible for the changes we are experiencing on our Earth today. The affirmative stated statistics such as- 'CO2 is the largest factor of global warming', '97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made', 'CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat'. Whilst these points may be tried and tested, they do not favour the topic when the phrase 'directly responsible' is included. From what I gather, the affirmative believes that CO2 is speeding up the process of global warming. Whilst this may be true, in between the lines of this statement we can discover that another factor is actually CAUSING the process of global warming. As the negative, I believe that the cause is the fluctuation of the Earth's orbit (which the affirmative incorrectly stated as 'stable') and the consistent rise and fall of the planet's historical temperatures. I stand by the points I raised in the first round and have now refuted the rebuttal put forward by the affirmative and regarded it as invalid. Does the affirmative have anything within it's case to state why my reason for global warming is incorrect? Do they believe that CO2 emissions are the initial cause of the Earth heating world-wide? By now, they should surely agree that CO2 emission are not directly responsible for climate change.

Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: In this debate, I ask you to reject any past assumptions regarding global warming because this resolution may be affirmative favored in that the majority of society assumes that humans are already the cause of global warming. --------------------- I will first analyze the resolution, then reaffirm the negation side of this debate, and then refute the opponents' arguments. Now let's look at the resolution word for word "The human effect on global warming is significant." I agree with the opponent on the definition of the human effect. The key word in this debate falls on the word significant. Princeton word net defines it as "important in effect or meaning". |-Burden-| The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate. |-Contention 1-| {The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor.} Now you may be confused at this point, thinking how exactly does water vapor contribute more to global warming? Well first off I need to relate to scientific analysis. The earth's rotation moves on an oscillating orbit meaning it does not move in the same elliptical shape each and every year. Therefore each year, the elliptical orbital path of the earth shifts little by little. Scientists argue that every thousands of years, the earth goes on an orbital path where the sun shines the most on the Earth. Yet the increased intensity of heat is still not the main cause of global warming. What happens is that the sun increases its intensity of light, thus increasing the evaporation rate of water particles. The increased evaporation rate causes the global warming by trapping heat on the Earth. S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming. He found that water vapors (H20) were 95% of the problem. Furthermore, CO2 was 3.502% of the cause for global warming. The same study is backed by the EIA (Energy Information Agency). My opponent has conceded that human emissions relate to increases in the CO2 level, and by showing you that CO2 gas is only 3.502 % of the cause of global warming, the human effect on global warming is insignificant. |-Contention 2-| {I will add later in the debate} Now let's look at the opponent's contentions His first contention argues that CO2 levels have been increasing and that human emissions have been increasing; therefore humans must be the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this 1)I will cross apply my first contention, showing that CO2 gas is only 3.502% of the cause of global warming, to prove that even if humans are 100% of the cause of CO2, their effect on global warming is still less than 50% (refer to burden) therefore their first contention falls. 2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other. His second contention (part I) argues that because many scientists and scientific agencies agree that humans are the main cause of global warming then it must be true (by following the majority rules ideals of a democracy) I have 3 responses to this 1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair. By weighing the issue on a mindset that many people may not believe in is unfair to those who view the opposite. I could hypothetically say that I can look at the issue on a stance that I believe in an all powerful god, instead of a democracy, and say that God made global warming happen and not humans. Therefore in this debate, we cannot look to who agrees with what or how many people believe in it and instead look to warrants, facts and validation. 2)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is actually real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation. 3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea "have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so." (quote from a scientific article) Because scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum, the amount of people who actually state that humans are the cause of global warming, thus appeasing the majority of society, is bound to be more than the scientists who are discouraged to look at the other side of the debate (where humans are not the main cause). His second contention (part II) argues that Science magazine found that the majority of scientific articles say that humans are the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this 1)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation. (repost) 2)Many of these articles and papers, found by the Science magazine, assert that humans are the main cause of the sudden increase in CO2 levels, and therefore causing global warming. I could similarly link turn this because global warming is only 3% caused by CO2. Therefore I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic. Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence. What the opponent has brought you is assumption, in regards to his first contention, and bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true. No where does he give how much of an effect humans have on global warming, nor show why humans are the main cause. What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts showing that global warming is not mainly caused by humans (thus appeasing the burden) and warrants for all my points. Therefore because I have followed the burden, and refuted all the opponents' points, you should vote for the negation in this debate.

Title: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: Resolved: That Global Warming is not significantly affected by humans I thank the opponent for the debate challenge. As the opponent has not defined any terms, the definition of the terms shall go as follows: Global Warming: Noun The unequivocal rise of the global average temperature; also attributed to the unpredictable climate in the world. [1] Significantly: Adverb In a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention. [2] Humans: Noun Mankind, homo-sapiens, Affected: Adjective Influenced or touched by an external factor. [2] Since this debate resolution is a normative resolution, the Burden of Proof is shared. For the opponent to win, he has to prove that humans have almost no responsibility in causing global warming. With this said, the introduction and the proof that global warming exists shall be shared first, as this debate cannot go on with the assumption that it exists, as assumptions are inherently detrimental. Axiom One: Global Warming Necessarily Exists Global warming is no longer a possibility, but it is indeed a necessity. There has been an increase of 0.8 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years, with 0.7 degrees Celsius of this increase happening in the last 30 years [3]. From 1880, the temperature of the world was recorded via NASA meteorological stations; this data proved vital in identifying a change in temperature. From 1980 upwards, one can see a very high increase in the mean temperature of the world; the running average of global temperature from 1980 has increased by almost 100%. This graph, compiled by NASA GISS from data provided by many sources, confirms that Global Warming necessarily exists, as can be seen via the sharp increase of the running average from 1980. Global Warming exists; there is no doubt. Then what causes Global Warming? It is us, humans, that cause Global Warming. Proposition One: Carbon Dioxide Release from Multiple Sources Global warming has been allegedly caused by an excess of Co2 release from the ocean and multiple other sources. Accordingly in 2000, 29.5% of Co2 emissions came from power stations, 20.6% from Industrial Inputs/Outputs, 11.3% from residences and 9.1% from land use/biomass. [4] In 2008, 8.37 billion tons of Co2 was released from multiple of human based sources. However, one might object; “what’s wrong with the increase in release of Co2?” Quite simply this; the sun emits ultraviolet radiation and light into the earth as energy. The earth absorbs and the re-emits some of this energy as infrared radiation back. However, greenhouse gases on the atmosphere absorb this temperature and releases it in arbitrary directions; henceforth, the earth is 33 degrees warmer than what it should have been, causing life to exist on this planet. However, this 33 degrees Celsius is the equilibrium; for it to go lower would be positive feedback, as the equilibrium could easily be restored in a short period of time, but for it to go higher would make this positive feedback and would threaten to turn our planet into a “Venus” like planet (not suitable for life). This positive feedback is more dangerous than the negative feedback, for it requires intense study of the origins of the causes. [5][6] The causes of this release are the anthropocentric human lifestyle. To support our life, we humans have taken means to extract resources from mother nation in a Machiavellian manner. Humans are egoistic, hence the development of Capitalism and the government. From the following graph, we can see a correlation; from 1980, Co2 release sprouted and so did gas production. If oil production is increasing, then clearly oil is also in demand; the burning of 4 liters of oil creates a shocking 8 kg of Co2. [7] 73 million kg of Co2 is henceforth released by the increase consumption of oil/diesel fuels; with these increases of Co2 emissions from fuel burning and usage alone, we can see that there is no reason to believe that humans are not causing this increase in Co2 emissions. This graph also shows how the Industrial Revolution, in around 1840, has caused the dramatic rise of Co2 concentration. The Industrial Revolution was the basis of all industries; it revolutionized many industries and increased outputs via machinery. However, the Industrial Revolution had its basis on coal and electricity. Apart from natural gases, coal is also a huge factor in Co2 release. The usage of anthracite coal releases 920g of Co2 per kW/h, whilst the usage of lignite coal releases 990g of Co2 per kW/h. Coal is burnt for one reason only; to supply us with the electricity that runs this computer, this website, and this world. In South Africa, for example, 74% of all Co2 emissions is caused by coal burning; it would be doubtful that if humans were present, this figure would not be present. [8] As stated via the first graph of this proposition’s defense, the correlation between oil production and Co2 released is further supported by the fact that burning fuels for human usage causes the increase in the release of Co2. Proposition Two: Deforestation This second proposition is based upon two fundamental premises. 1. Trees absorb Co2 and release oxygen 2. Forest Fires increases Co2 release The first of these two premises is based upon the fact that trees absorb Co2 and release oxygen. This process is called photosynthesis; trees, for so long, have sustained our life through this process. A single tree can absorb 21kg of Carbon Dioxide! That is enough to absorb the burning of 12 liters of oil! “Only if there were more trees” one would say. [9] The existence of trees means that excess Co2 could be processed and could possibly be eradicated in large amounts. However, deforestation has created a very sad and woeful dilemma for us; we are releasing more Co2 than eve, and yet we are cutting down the mechanisms that fate gave us to counter this Co2 release. It is estimated that 20% of all Co2 in the atmosphere right now would have been absorbed and would be non-existent if it weren’t for massive deforestation. [10] The second of these premises are based upon the mere process of global warming; the warmer the temperature, the more likelihood of fires turning from small fires to huge fires. Forest fires are one of the most feared disasters in the world. Forest fires, apart from killing a plethora of citizens, can release as much Co2 as cars do. A study was released that demonstrates that in these United States of America, 290 million tones of Co2 was released due to forest fires, which is 4-6% of the entirety of Co2 released during that year. [11] Humans, due to their anthropocentric interests, have caused forest fires to appear more often due to the reckless burning of grass, wood, and other resources can cause forest fires. There is also a considerable amount of cases where forest fires started with someone carelessly dropping a cigarette on the forest grounds. This evidence shows that humans are highly responsible for the creation of global warming; we are deferring how we absorb Co2 as well as releasing more of it. This is significant in such a manner that this issue cannot be ignored. Our planet will become Venus in the following years if this issued is not cared too. The resolution is therefore negated. Citations: [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://www.livescience.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] Wikipedia [2] Oxford Dictionary [6] http://climate.nasa.gov... [8] http://www.iea.org... [9] http://www.arborenvironmentalalliance.com... [7] http://www.eia.gov... [5] http://www.skepticalscience.com...

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: Global warming is occurring and it is the fault of humans. Content: A major claim among environmentalist groups lately is that man made global warming is destroying the Earth. My opponent must show how the Earth is in fact getting warmer and how humans are the direct cause of this warming trend. I will be arguing that climate change is a natural process with very little influence from humans. First round is for setting up arguments and agreeing to terms of the debate. All other rounds are for actual debate.

Title: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: The resolution is that humans have caused the modern climate change. However, most of my opponent's arguments either deals with the existence of global warming itself, or rules out (rather invalidly) other alternatives. He does very little to actually satisfy his burden of proof that humans are causing global warming. My arguments will be predicated on one simple assumption " that the vast majority of the claimed human impact is the result of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans Have Not Caused the Modern Global Warming There are many indicators that point to CO2 emissions not being the cause of the modern global warming. First, CO2 is actually a lagging indicator compared to temperature. As it turns out, temperature may be what's causing CO2 levels to rise. "The most recent study on this concluded that the results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years. " There is also shorter correlations, but again, temperature seems to cause CO2 rise instead of the reverse. [1] This graph shows just one of the lags: [1] Second, according to the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface (because the CO2 collects in the upper troposphere first). However, this is not happening. ". .. satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor. "[2] Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere: [1] (Blue line is lower troposphere temperature) Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: "If the greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. .. Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Soloman of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. . .. report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s. "[2] To illustrate, here is a picture of the southern hemisphere sea ice anomaly, which shows that southern sea ice is actually increasing: [3] Fourth, current levels of CO2 have very little effect on temperature. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but it doesn't become linearly stronger with increasing amounts of CO2. CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. "The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths. "[1][4] This chart shows approximately the effect that each additional increment of CO2 increase has on temperature: [4] Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature. Fifth and most importantly, the predicted "hot-spot" 10 miles above the tropics that would be a signature of CO2-induced global warming is absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong. "[1] Here is the plot of predicted temperature changes due to CO2: However, here is the actual observed temperature changes: [1] The hot spot is completely missing, which is pretty much a knockout blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory. Even so, CO2 has not correlated well with the climate anyway. Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration. Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations versus temperature over the past 600 million years: [1] Note especially how high CO2 concentrations were earlier in Earth's history, reaching as high as 7000 ppmv. It was around 4500 ppmv during the very cold Ordovician era. Considering My Opponent's Arguments I was going to wait until the next round to consider his arguments, but after reading them, I thought I would discredit the majority of pro's arguments, as they aren't even worth arguing against. Arguments 1-3 are irrelevant - they don't show how human-emitted greenhouse gases have caused global warming. Argument 4 eliminates (rather invalidly) that the sun is not causing global warming " that still doesn't show that humans are causing global warming. Arguments 5 and 6 are relevant and I will consider them. Arguments 7 and 9-12 just show evidence for global warming " not anthropogenic global warming. Arguments 8, 13, and 14 will be considered. So essentially, only arguments 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 are relevant to the resolution that pro made. All the rest either only prove global warming itself or demonstrate that humans have caused the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, and so have no bearing on a debate considering anthropogenic global warming. I will consider those relevant arguments and those arguments only in the next round, along with any objections pro has to my own arguments. Sources [1]: . http://www.friendsofscience.org... [2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years [3]: . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu... [4]: . http://joannenova.com.au...

Title: Global warming is a hoax Content: Despite the fact that my opponent is the instigator and Pro for the resolution, he has requested that I start the debate. I have no problem with this as long as he acknowledges his burden of proof and presents some arguments of his own, rather than merely rebutting mine. _________ Definitions. My opponent has not provided us with any definitions and I feel that it is imperative that we at least define the key terms in the resolution if we are to have a meaningful debate. 1. Global warming. The issue of global warming can be interpreted many ways as discussed on the DDO fans Wiki page. . http://ddofans.com... Wikipedia describes global warming as "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. " When most people speak of global warming however they are generally referring to the well accepted theory "that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... I can't be sure if my opponent wishes to limit the discussion strictly to global warming or include wider examples of climate change. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Similarly I can't be sure if he's referring to the existence of global warming/climate change or the assertion that its effects are exacerbated or caused by human actions. I will assume that my opponent wishes to discuss human contribution to climate change but whichever of these ideas of global warming he refers to, I believe the word 'hoax' is an inaccurate description. 2. Hoax. There is much less room for misinterpretation with this term. Although some hoaxes may be playful and others more malicious, implicit within every reliable definition of the word is the notion of intentional deceit. . http://www.google.co.uk... ________ I do believe that the planet is getting warmer and that the climate is changing. I also believe it is quite probable that the primary cause of this is human and that human actions are affecting it. However these beliefs are quite irrelevant to the debate at hand. My opponent is claiming that the scientists who believe this (and they are very much in the majority) are not merely mistaken, not merely incorrect and not even merely deluded but that they are wilfully misleading the public and the government with this information. I see no basis, suggestion or motive for the level of conspiracy that this would entail. According to the 2007 UN report "Evidence is now ‘unequivocal' that humans are causing global warming" . http://www.un.org... Even the US government has accepted the truth back in 2002 . http://news.bbc.co.uk... and it is also acknowledged by NASA. . http://www.nasa.gov... The denial of climate change and its human causes is essentially the propaganda of big businesses who don't want to risk compromising their profits for the sake of something as insignificant as sustaining the planet for future generations. It is no secret that major political parties are funded by these companies, yet according to my opponent, it is the mainstream scientists rather than the skeptics with a political agenda that represent the conspiracy. The scientific consensus on global warming is clear. "the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" . http://www.sciencemag.org... "a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. " . http://logicalscience.com... I have no idea what my opponent means by "believ[ing] in carbon footprints" but it doesn't seem to affect the resolution. A carbon footprint is simply a term for the amount of carbon pollution caused by an individual, a company or a nation. It is an abstract concept rather than a tangible object but I don't see how one could "disbelieve" it without also disbelieving in the existence of carbon itself. I will now hand over to Pro for his arguments on how and why "global warming is a hoax". Thanks. Con.

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: developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries Content: The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

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

Title: Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity Content: You have a good argument, and it is truly disgusting what humans are doing to this Earth, BUT they are not the cause of global warming, as I will argue. My opponent spends most of his argument explaining the process of global warming, which I find unnecessary, but at least now all the voters know exactly what's going on. Now, my opponent mentions the greenhouse gases (CO2 in this case) and that with humans, their concentration increases, therefore causing global warming. While humans do, in fact, increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (as my opponent proved), this does not significantly impact the process of global warming. http://upload.wikimedia.org... (I request that the voters take a look at this as well) These graphs clearly show that even hundreds of thousands of years ago, when humans were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperatures regularly cycled. They peaked about every 100,000 years before dropping back to a minimum. This correlation shows that even without the effect of humans, global warming is a natural process that occurs about every 100,000 years before subsiding once again. It is evident that humans do not significantly affect the process of global warming and it is only a big deal right now because we are reaching a peak (as shown on the graphs). I await my opponent's response.

Title: Global Warming Content: I must say that global warming is true but it is not humanitys fault. There is evidence that the Earth has gone through multiple dramatic climate changes with both extream heat and cold through out its existance and what is happening now is simply the Earth following the pattern.

Title: Humanity will fail on the environment Content: With regards to global warming, ocean acidification, deforestation, and a few other environmental issues, I say that humanity will NOT change its behavior in time. I want an opponent arguing that humans will take appropriate action to save the environment. First round is for acceptance only. Also, If you believe that global warming does not exist, is not caused by humans, or is not a bad thing, please do not accept this debate;. Same goes with other environmental issues. I don't want to argue about whether or not we are destroying the planet but whether we will fix it.

Title: Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity. Content: *Exists and significantly contributes to overall global warming. RulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only. Round 2- Constructive Arguments only. Round 3- Free choice. Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points. Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points. Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared. For the sake of this debate, Pro must argue that Mankinds interference with nature is a significant cause of the general upward trend of average global temperatures. Pro must also argue that this general upward trend will have effects that are seriously detrimental to humankind. Con must argue that Human-Action does not significantly contribute to the general upward trend of average global temperature. Con must also argue that this general trend will not have seriously detrimental effects to humankind. No arguments of semantics are acceptable. No arguments that question the premise of the debate are acceptable. DefinitionsGlobal Warming- The general upward trend of Global Average temperatures. Man-Made Global Warming- a force that contributes to general global warming that is caused by the greenhouse effect, and other forms of human interference with nature. Greenhouse effect- An effect that results from CO2 and CH4 pollution (there are also other chemicals that contribute, these are called greenhouse gases). Causes heat to be trapped in the earths environment. Serious Threat- Anything that could potentially kill a large number of people, wipe out a species of animal, or ruin any sizeable economy constitutes a serious threat for this debate. Significant Cause- anything that has a noticeable impact on the overall force.

Title: Global warming a "Human cause?" Content: "Climate changes based on the forces that cause it, the current forcing is humans."-My opponent -answer:no. Climate change is both natural and human. It can in no way,shape, or form be just humans because the Earth has natural cycles, which is what both Global warming and Cooling are; cycles. The climate is ALWAYS changing not yearly, not weekly, but every second of the day. -The link provided was a mere match up in opposition to what I stated, it included nothing to support the claims, like where the received data is from. I could state anything statistically but SHOULD be able to provide where the statistic or model/piece of data came from. Especially, since scientists have been "caught" much too recently messing with data in order to prove global warming is a Human-made cause strictly. http://www.paulmacrae.com... this link on its first page when opened shows where data came from and out it was altered or misinterpreted, it also included analysis on alarmist theories. 2. Cooling of 1940-70 "Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding." and yet you are using the aerosol issue to (attempt to) definitively explain the cooling of the 40s-70s? *shakes head* This has never been scientifically backed up. It was mere experimentation. My opponent also neglects to answer why then were their ice ages? Whaaaa? Climate change? Yes. but wait.. there were no humans to cause it with their excess amount of c02? CORRECT. My contender has not refuted anything and has yet to come up with a legitmate argument as to why we are the reason if their were far greater changes without the high c02 levels back millions of years ago! 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. Back to this website again...sigh -This statistic is negated due to the fact that that cannot possibly be measured!

Title: Global Warming Was NOT Caused By Humans Content: it is acknowledged by the global warming theory that man is accelerating the process of the warming of the earth and that it is not ONLY due to human activity so pretty much, by what you are saying in your statement, you agree with the global warming theory so is this a debate?

Title: Climate Change is man caused Content: Thank you. I do not think it is only human-caused that title is put there, because I wouldn't want to put such titles as, "Climate change is sorta man caused". What I am arguing is humans do have a fairly large affect on the rate it is going at. Now for my reliance on NASA for my source, well I used it specifically because it is more well known than than the other sources I found and if you want them then tell if so in your statement and I will happily send you some of them. A scholarly article written by Thomas R. Karl (a climatologist that is the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration"s National Climatic Data Center.) states, "The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition." Now another source I used which granted is from the EPA (but I didn't want to use NASA for my only source) states that the temperature is rose at 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit last century, however it also states small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Also 2014 was the hottest year on record according to multiple sources (listed bellow) and the 21st century is officially up to date the hottest century. I wish my opponent luck Sources Karl, T. R. "Modern Global Climate Change." Science 15.1 (2003): 1719-723. Print. "Basics." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.epa.gov...; Hottest Year/century on record sources: "21st Century 'hottest' on Record as Global Warming Continues - UN." UN News Center. UN, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.un.org...;. "2014 Was Officially the Hottest Year on Record." Time. Time. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://time.com...;. "2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record." Scientific American Global RSS. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Title: Global Warming is likely impacted by humans. Content: Thank you for that last round. 1. While a rise in global temperature is undeniable, I disagree that the greenhouse effect is the cause. I repeat my original point that the recent warming of the Earth has to do with solar cycles and that a 2013 study proved that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century [2], and the recent rise in global temperature are within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years [2]. Additionally, to address your point concerning the declining Arctic sea, it's true that it was slowly descending, but since 2012, Arctic ice has gone up by 50% [4]. Even the increase between 2012 and 2013 was visibly significant [5]. This increase is equally as important as the decrease. I again repeat my original point concerning receding glaciers. They have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes [2], and the recently receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to atmospheric circulation changes, which is the “large scale movement of air” [3]. 2. My opponent has argued that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is due to human activities.However this is not entirely true. David Henderson went through everything that Cook et all claimed and found that only 64 out of the 11,944 scientists that were examined claimed explicitly that global warming was a cause of humans. This number brings the 97% down to 1.6% [1, 2]. Here is Henderson’s list providing all the numbers: While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that human activities have caused global warming, there are still many scientists who disagree.In 2010, a report by Climate Depot claimed that over 1,000 scientists (many of which were form UN IPCC scientists) disagreed that humans are “primarily responsible for global climate change” [2].Again, in 2014, 15 scientists declared that the US National Climate Assessment’s declaration of human caused climate change to be “NOT true” [2]. Conclusion:It remains that many scientists agree that global warming exists only as a solar cycle and is not caused by human activities. Thank you for reading! Sources:1. http://econlog.econlib.org...2. http://climatechange.procon.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://townhall.com...5. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...

Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: (Paraphrased from http://www.debate.org...) I'm not sure how well I worded the debate resolution, so I will explain further. This is a scientific debate about whether humans are driving global warming and whether it is a problem. Not all evidence has to be inherently scientific, but all evidence should give reasons to believe that the human effect on global warming is significant (PRO) or insignificant (CON). Definitions Human effect: Effect caused by unnatural human actions; this includes sources such as factories and power plants but excludes sources such as natural respiration. Global warming: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric and oceanic temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. (dictionary.com) CO2: Carbon dioxide. AGW: Anthropogenic global warming; global warming caused by human activities. ======================== Contention 1: Basic Scientific Argument ======================== (I have purposely left out some information; I cannot fill all the holes in 8000 characters, and will therefore only fill the holes that my opponent pokes at.) The sun radiates electromagnetic waves onto the earth. They pass through the atmosphere, but are absorbed by the ground. When molecules on the ground absorb the electromagnetic radiation, they then re-emit it as infrared radiation. Infrared has a longer wavelength, so some atmospheric gases, called greenhouse gases ï¿½€" namely water vapor, CO2, and methane (CH4) ï¿½€" absorb it and turn it into thermal energy (a.k.a. heat). This traps heat, causing the earth's temperature to increase. Because of the greenhouse effect, the more greenhouse gases there are, the hotter it gets. This effect isn't much like a greenhouse, but I will nonetheless use the term. For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels remained in the 180 to 300 ppm (parts per million) range [1]. But as of 2007, CO2 levels were at 390 ppm [2]. The environment was relatively stable for hundreds of thousands of years, so why the sudden change? Human emissions can only be responsible. Humans have been emitting CO2 in vast quantities since the mid-70's: our cars emit it, our factories emit it, even our homes emit it. ======================== Contention 2: Scientific Consensus ======================== It is important to remember that science is not a democracy. But if nearly all scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. And nearly all scientists support AGW. I: Scientific Societies Many scientific societies have advocated for AGW. At this time, it is important to remember that scientific societies are not advocacy groups. But these societies found AGW so important that they felt they had to endorse it. The national scientific societies of 21 countries have endorsed AGW: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Caribbean, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South, Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States [3]. The following societies have also endorsed AGW: Network of African Science Academies, National Research Council, European Science Foundation, World Meteorological Organization, Federation of American Scientists, American Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science [4]. This is far from a complete list, but is meant to give an idea of how many scientists support AGW. This list represents hundreds of thousands of scientists. II: Peer-Reviewed Papers Perhaps more important than the endorsement of scientific societies is peer-reviewed papers. In 2004, Science magazine conducted a search for scientific papers on the topic of global warming [5]. They searched through all papers with the keywords "climate change", for a total of 928 scientific articles. Here is a quote from [5]: {quote} The 928 papers were divided into six categories... Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of AGW. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. {/quote} *** I thank my soon-to-be opponent and look forward to a fun debate. *** References [1] http://www.newscientist.com...... [2] http://www.newscientist.com...... [3] http://logicalscience.com...... [4] http://www.aaas.org...... [5] http://www.sciencemag.org......

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: 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 Exists Content: == INTRODUCTION == Con sent me this debate challenge, though apparently had no intention of defending his position. Technically I don't have to say anything at all in this round considering Con is the instigator of this debate, and thus has the burden of proof. I have nothing to respond to, meaning I can/should leave this round blank. However since Con decided not to say anything at all, I guess I'll provide a few opening statements. == OPENING ARGUMENTS == Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Since it has been scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, then the definition of what global warming is has already been affirmed. Most people acknowledge that global warming DOES exist (and is occurring); the main conflict is whether or not humans are responsible for it. While there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. In other words, it is undeniable that human activity has contributed negatively to the environment, meaning "Global Warming" again exists. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. This is undeniable. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. Another fact. These gases persist in the atmosphere for years; one must only know simple science to understand The Greenhouse Effect and how this issue impacts the earth's heating and cooling [1]. Our endeavors have led us to produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat emission. Simultaneously, we have implemented continuous deforestation... meaning we rid of the trees and plant life that help balance out our carbon emissions... so obviously there is going to be an impact. I'll leave it at that for now. == SOURCES == [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Title: There is no anthropomorphic global warming Content: "There is no anthropomorphic global warming Global warming has occurred in the past hundred years. This warming occurred mostly in the first half of the 20th century, counter to the period when there was more co2. Correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures are higher than co2 and temperature." As Pro there is still a burden of proof on your behalf outside of simple refutation. "Global warming is caused by human activity." "No it isn't." Doesn't really cut it. No: 4 : to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement http://www.merriam-webster.com... Anthropomorphic: 1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes. 2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am assuming the error is on your part in saying that global warming is 'not human like' as opposed to 'not being human caused'. If I am mistaken round two will be interesting. :) ================================================================================ "This warming occurred mostly in the first half of the 20th century" "The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. Overall land and sea surface temperatures for the world were second highest in 129 years of record keeping, trailing only 2002..." (NOAA's National Climatic Data Center: 2008). Our influence on Earth's climate did not begin a few decades or centuries ago, but 8000 years before; with the birth of agriculture (see anthropocene). In a study at the University of Virginia, ancient human activities have shown to have affected the climate. Key discrepancies in levels of greenhouse gases revealed by ice cores show that during the previous three periods between ice ages, levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the air fell in lock-step with decreases in summer sunshine caused by cyclical changes in Earth's orbit. However after the most recent ice age, which peaked around 12,000 years ago, both gases broke the set pattern. Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide began to increase 8000 years ago, followed by methane 5000 years ago, even though summer sunshine has been decreasing. "Both gases followed the expected trend for a while but then went up instead of down." After removing possible natural causes for the greenhouse gas increases, it is probable that early farmers who cleared forests in Europe, India and China accounted for the surge of carbon dioxide, while rice paddies and burgeoning herds of livestock produced the extra methane. Over time this activity laced the atmosphere with about 40 parts per million of carbon dioxide and 250 parts per billion of methane, enough to produce nearly 0.8 ï¿½C of warming before 1700, around the dawn of industrialisation. Which just about equals the warming humans are thought to have caused since then. http://www.newscientist.com... http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca... "Correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures are higher than co2 and temperature." For as long as I have been alive, global trend of temperatures has risen. This is a strong correlation. :P The sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been brightening since. For most of this time, Earth has been warmer than today, (faint sun paradox). The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases which trap more of the sun's heat. Solar fluctuations and other factors such as dust ejected by volcanoes - and average global temperatures may well have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, leveling off during the mid-century cooling. However there is no positive correlation at all between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu... The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of inter-glacials can only be explained by rising temperatures (i.e. temperature and CO2 levels are reciprocal), the full measure of temperature increases can only be explained by inclusion of the human influenced rise in CO2 levels.

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: Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans Content: Dude i understand the resolution. Warming is a continious action. Global warming is therefore a continuing action. "almost all Atmospheric global warming is not caused by humans."The resolution your really asking "Almost all of the atmospheric global heat change is not caused by humans." Global warming is ongoing and therefore constantly changing and you agree with me here. "Do not be confused though. I agree that the 0.85 degrees Celsius change was caused by human industrialization. I also agree that it occurred over a relatively short period of time, and that this is alarming. I also agree that unless immediate action is taken, the consequences may be severe." You should have had the resolution that: "almost all of the atmospheric heat is not caused by humans." This thereby dodges the continuity of global warming itself. The key thing to remember when voting for this debate is should we take warming as a constantly changing state, or take data from two points; one without an atmosphere and then with one with an atmosphere and call that "warming" when actually just measuring the temperature the difference of something aside from what global warming really is, a continous change. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, i have better evidence

Title: A debate on a topic that I am not mentioning in the topic line. Content: My opponent stated: Alright, to kill the suspense, the topic is "Global Warming is caused by mankind's actions." I negate of course. Since PRO has the burden, I'll let him go first. ----------- Technically, you still have the burden, since you instigated the debate. But, lets play your game. The topic is "Global Warming is caused by mankind's actions." note the topic is not: Global Warming is solely caused by mankind's actions. Therefore, I state: As the UN climate committee continues to finalize language in the last installment of a four-part study on global warming to be released Saturday, its draft says there no longer is any doubt mankind is causing global warming and that it is a developing human disaster that needs to be dealt with. SOURCE: http://www.nj.com... Need more? Global warming is made worse by man-made pollution and the scale of the problem is unprecedented in at least 20,000 years, according to a draft report by the world's leading climate scientists. The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth's climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity. A draft copy of the report by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are at the highest for at least 650,000 years. It predicts that global average temperatures this century will rise by between 2C and 4.5C as a result of the doubling of carbon dioxide levels caused by man-made emissions. These temperatures could increase by a further 1.5C as a result of "positive feedbacks" in the climate resulting from the melting of sea ice, thawing permafrost and the acidification of the oceans. The draft report will become the fourth assessment by the IPCC since it was established in 1988 and was meant to be confidential until the final version is ready for publication next year. However, a copy of the report has been made available by a US government committee and can be found on the internet by anyone who makes an e-mail request for a password to access the area on its website. The US Climate Change Science Programme, which yesterday released its own report saying climate change was being affected by man-made pollution, said it wanted as many experts and stakeholders as possible to comment on the draft IPCC report. The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, however, did not learn of the decision to, in effect, publish the report until it was posted online, according to the journal Nature. The IPCC assessment is written by scores of scientists - who can draw on the expertise of hundreds more researchers - to produce the most definitive and authoritative assessment of climate change and its impacts. Global warming sceptics will get little comfort from the confident language in the draft report, which dismisses suggestions that climate change is an entirely natural rather than man-made phenomenon. "There is widespread evidence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans," it says. "It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 years. "And it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more warming than has been observed during this period, with some warming offset by cooling from natural and other anthropogenic factors." Since its last report in 2001, the IPCC's working group says it has amassed convincing evidence showing that climate change is already happening. It also finds that climate change is set to continue for decades and perhaps centuries to come even if man-made emissions can be curbed. "2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years on record. Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years (2001-2005)," the report says. Satellite data since 1978 shows that the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about 2.7 per cent each decade, with even larger losses of about 7.4 per cent during the warmer summer months. "The smallest extent of summer sea ice was observed in 2005. Average Arctic temperatures have been rising since the 1960s and 2005 was the warmest Arctic year," the draft IPCC report says. "An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate, including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation," it says. Melting glaciers and polar ice sheets could cause sea levels to rise by up to 43cm by 2100, and the rise for the next two centuries is predicted to be nearly double that figure. Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have probably already caused the increase in sea levels observed over the past century, says the report. "Anthropogenic forcing, resulting from thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier and ice sheet melt, is likely the largest contributor to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century," the report says. "Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to recent decreases in Arctic sea ice extent. There is evidence of a decreasing trend in global snow cover and widespread retreat of glaciers consistent with warming and evidence that this melting has also contributed to sea-level rise," it adds. Evidence of climate change * Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade since 1978 and by 7.4 per cent each decade during the summer months. * Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years, with 2005 and 1998 being the two warmest years on record. * Global average sea levels rose at a rate of about 2mm a year between 1961-2003, and by an average of more than 3mm a year between 1993-2003. * Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than they have formed over the past 40 years. * Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50 years. SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org... --------------------------- I have sufficiently proven that mankind's actions are causing global warming. I'm not sure that there is any rebuttal, but I am willing to see any points my opponent wishes to make.

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: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: "The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate." I disagree with this conclusion. Importance in effect or meaning does not imply that it is 50% or more of the cause. Something can be under 50% of the cause and still be a driving force. If a cause is important, it means that the outcome would have been noticeably different had that cause not existed. "The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor." My opponent claims that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. I do not think this is so (and my opponent cites no source). If 3.502% is a correct figure, there should be some relevant results when I Google search "3.502%", but I did so and got no relevant results. But that's not the main point I want to make. My point is this: though water vapor is prominent, CO2 is where the real problem arises from. Though water vapor is more prominent, the increase in CO2 triggers a positive feedback effect [2]. Temperature increase leads to increased levels of water vapor. And the greenhouse effect increases temperature. So when CO2 levels are rapidly and unnaturally increased, temperature increases. Water vapor levels increase, and temperature increases further. The relatively large recent increases in CO2 have led to a positive feedback effect, magnifying the severity of the warming. "S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming." I looked on Friedenreich's website and could not find this chart. Could my opponent provide a link to it? ***** "2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other." For several hundred thousand years before the 20th century, CO2 was in the 180 to 300 ppm range. But in 2007, CO2 levels reached 390 ppm. What could be responsible for this incredibly unlikely increase? The only variable in recent decades is human emissions. "1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair." In what way is a democratic scale biased? "2)Scientists are not always right." This is correct. But they are right more often than anyone else. If so many scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. Sure, scientists have been wrong before, but when choosing who to trust, the safe bet is to side with the scientists. Should I instead trust the deceitful pseudoscientific producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle? Additionally, it is not just that the scientists are more likely than not to be correct. It is that these scientific societies have advocated for global warming. They have reputations to uphold. If they turn out to be wrong, it will put a dent in their reputations. They would only advocate a view if they were very sure of its validity. "3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea "have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so." (quote from a scientific article)" This is not from a scientific article. I searched for the quote on Google Scholar, and did not find the quote [3]. In fact, the quote is from a blog [4]. And it's not even a scientist's blog; it's a PASTOR'S blog. This is simply not a very credible source. By claiming that it was from a scientific article, my opponent has blatantly deceived his audience. I ask the judges to please give me the conduct vote, due to my opponent's deceitful intent. In response to the actual statement, it is not very accurate. Plenty of people listen to global warming skeptics. The Great Global Warming Swindle was widely popular and was aired on national television. Many websites such as junkscience.com openly disagree with global warming. Plenty of other people (such as my opponent) debate publicly on the issue of global warming, without worrying about their reputations. Others have televised debates on global warming (for example, [5]). "scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum" A scientist who provides evidence for a controversial viewpoint will receive a great deal of attention, and will likely receive more grant money to investigate the new and controversial findings. Additionally, every oil company (actually, every company whose business relies on releasing greenhouse gases) would jump at the chance to support any scientist with findings that deny AGW. "I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic." The articles do not say that humans are increasing CO2 levels. They "explicitly or implicitly accept[] the consensus view" that the human effect on global warming is significant. "Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence." -I gave a relevant explanation of the greenhouse effect. -I explained why my opponent's contention about water vapor is irrelevant. -I gave facts and sources. -My opponent claims that I provided no facts or important evidence, but my opponent has cited literally zero sources. For all I know, he completely made up all of his facts, and I know for a fact that he lied about one thing. "bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true." -Belief of the general population is very frequently wrong. Belief of the scientific population is much more accurate. -It is not that it must be true; it is only more likely to be true, since scientists know what they are doing more than I or my opponent do. "What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts" The only fact that my opponent has provided is that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. I challenge my opponent to find the scientific paper proving this. I look forward to my opponent's response. ***** [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://scholar.google.com...'t%20so.&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws [4] http://royalfarris.wordpress.com... [5] http://www.ewire.com...

Title: Global Warming is Man-Made Content: ==Clarification== I will be arguing that mankind IS the cause of global warming, my opponent will be arguing that mankind is NOT the main driver of modern climate change. My opponent, therefore, is arguing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is incorrect. This is pretty straightforward. Abbreviations which might be used: AGW -- Anthropogenic global warming CR -- cosmic ray[s] TSI -- Total solar irradiation MWP -- Medieval Warm Period SSN -- Sun spot number PDO -- Pacific Decadal Oscillation LIA -- Little ice age ==Definitions== Global warming: The average increase in temperatures since the late 19th century. Man-Made: The literal definition is fairly obvious. In terms of this debate, man-made factors to climate change would be the emission of greenhouse gasses. Or, as the IPCC would describe man-made forcing, "changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols)" [1]. Definitions are pretty common knowledge. Please, no trolling. ==Rules== 1. As stated above, no trolling 2. All arguments should be visible in the debate. However, sources can be posted on an external link. 3. A forfeit is a concession. If you PM me before you forfeit with a legitimate reason, I will discard this rule and ask voters to vote a tie. 4. The structure, rules, or definitions cannot be changed after you accept the debate (no semantics). However, if you wish to change the rules, or something else, for clarity, ask in the comments. 5. BOP is split evenly! ==Structure== R1: Acceptance R2: Present case. NO REBUTTALS R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and conclusion --> I have made this debate impossible to accept. I will directly challenge the person who is willing to accept this debate. Good luck! 1. http://www.grida.no...

Title: Humanity is the main cause of global warming. Content: I never said that Mankind is the sole cause of global warming. I'm saying they are the main cause of global warming. According to the chart provided by Con in the previous argument, we are supposed going through a clod period. Then how come that 14 of the 15 hottest years are in the 21st century? This is shown in Wiki page of Global Warming. Therefore I respectfully say that the site might be wrong. Its true , there have been cold periods every year. But I think those are called winters. Another reason. Global Warming is primarily caused by emission of GHGs, or Greenhouse gases. The primary sources of GHGs are factories and automobiles . Which are human sources. The only major contributor from the natural side are trees which only emit CO2 during the night. Whereas human sources include, CO, CO2, nitrous oxide, methane and other synthetic chemicals emitted is vapour form by humans. And with the tree population declining, and not many volcanoes in the past 10 years, the GHG emission by nature are not that significant as mankind. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... And contrary to common perception there has not been any cool period, the average surface temperature of the planet has been constantly increasing. The concentration of CO2 has been up about 20% from 650,000 years ago. Con has failed to rebut the argument of radioactive forcing which was in one of my sources. Just because its contribution cannot be quantified, doesn't mean it is not the major contributor. http://www3.epa.gov... In the above site, research has indicated that natural causes do not explain the recent climate changes . ( Ever since the Industrial Revolution). The site also gives the natural causes of climate change. 1)Variations in the sun's energy reaching Earth 2)Changes in the reflectivity of Earth"s atmosphere and surface 3)Changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth"s atmosphere 1)Its true that there have been changes in the Sun's energy reaching the Earth but none big enough to cause such a change in surface temperature ALONE. 2) The constant GHG emissions have damaged our ozone layer and are causing UV rays to enter the atmosphere which is also increase the temperature of the planet. Again . A human source. 3) The changes in the GreenHouse effect, is that we humans have been constantly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere in our quest for development and comfort. A human source. 4) There have been no volcanic eruptions, atleast not big enough for the atmosphere to change and for the aerosol count to become so high. Therefore one can conclude that a human source is now behind almost every natural cause that MAY have caused this spike in temperature. Therefore Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming.

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: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: Note: [x, y] indicates source y from round x. For instance, [1, 4] is aaas.org. "the affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of GW." My burden, as I stated in round 2, is only to prove that the human effect on GW is significant: important in effect or meaning. Something does not have to be the majority effect in order to be important. ======== "1)Actually 3* temperature increase is due to all green house gas emissions in total. From CO2 only it is a 0.095 degree increase, not even one degree." I don't know where this number came from; probably from my opponent's discreditable source. According to [3, 1], human CO2 accounts for about 3% to 8% of the greenhouse effect. The temperature increase directly from human CO2 is about 1 to 2 degrees, but the article claims that this is "not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitiv[i]ty" because it ignores the feedback effect. Though much more difficult to calculate, the feedback effect is a very prominent effect of human CO2 emissions. "2)(...)Because my opponent has the burden to prove that CO2 from humans is the largest contributor to global warming, and because CO2 is still only 3-4% compared to water vapor being 95%, my opponent still does not fulfill the burden." 1. I do not have that burden of proof. See above. 2. Water vapor is not 95%, but is actually more like 36-66% (66-85% with clouds). It is still the most important, but CO2 is also prominent, with 9% to 26% effect [2]. Since right now it's just my word against my opponent's, I will point out my source. This data is from a scientific paper by Ramanathan and Coakley. Ramanathan is a publishing scientist [3] (and I can't find a bio on Coakley). My opponent's data I presume is from that site which I hope I succeeded in discrediting. Not only is CO2 more prominent than my opponent claims, but its prominence is exaggerated by the feedback effect. When CO2 causes just a little bit of warming, this increases water vapor levels, increasing temperature further. While not the original cause, water vapor acts as an amplifier for the effect of CO2. ======== "The article is considering the amount of CO2 stored in the ocean which is more than the CO2 from humans." The article [2, 2] is considering CO2 in general. Only for part of the last paragraph does it discuss ocean CO2 in particular. Since we could argue about the article all day and I can't quote the whole thing, I recommend that the judges read it. ======== "No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming." That's what I meant. CO2 is 9 to 26% of global warming, before feedback. And CO2 increased by 30%, almost entirely due to human activities [4]. "2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule." 4.703% conflicts with my opponent's estimate "CO2 is still only 3-4%", since 4.703% is outside of that range. Additionally, my opponent's level of precision is incredible -- and I mean "incredible" by the word's original denotation. ======== "Yes, I agree human emissions are the cause of part of the CO2 increase, yet even if humans were 100% of the increase, because CO2 contribution to global warming is so small, it is still insignificant." -One could multiply 30% (CO2 increase) by 9 to 26% (effect of CO2 on GW), which gives 3 to 8%. Therefore, humans are contributing 3 to 8% to greenhouse gases (before feedback, remember), which is hardly insignificant. It is enough to have a serious effect on the climate. -Two words: Feedback effect. ======== "1)You have conceded to the fact that CO2 emissions are around 4%." -I misunderstood what was being measured. It is still worth noting that most CO2 emitted by nature is re-absorbed, but humans are emitting CO2 too fast for nature's sinks to absorb it. So even if nature emits more CO2 than humans, it is humans who are responsible for the increase in CO2. -(2) and (3) have been rebutted at least once already. ======== 1) I am using studies as evidence. If many scientists think something, it is more likely to be true. 2) There is disagreement in society about GW. There is consensus among scientists. ======== "They actually found a substantial amount of data." Please link this data. "since 2001, the air temperature did not rise at all while CO2 emissions were on the rise." -Seven years is too short-term to draw any real conclusions. -Temperature rose and fell many times [5]. ======== "4)" I don't see anything on the graph saying who it was made by. Though this graph may be from a peer reviewed source, we cannot know. We do, on the other hand, know that my data is from a peer-reviewed source. ======== "1)If you just say that you win because more scientists believe in my side is not debate. That is an opinion poll." This is a fair point. I do not suggest that I should win outright; I suggest that my side should be weighted more heavily, since it has the support of the scientific community. ======== "1) My opponent does not give counter evidence to my evidence that water vapor is the main cause of GW not humans." -CO2 is 9 to 26%, not 5%. -CO2 is a climate forcer, while water vapor is a result of feedback. "2) My first contention, that water vapor is 95% of GW, flows through as there is no counter evidence against it." I provided a counter-claim (water vapor with clouds is 66 to 85%); data is from a peer-reviewed paper [2]. "3) Therefore my opponent does not fulfill the burden." Significance does not imply majority. When a cause is insignificant, it does not mean that it contributes to less than half of the effect. It means that without it, the effect would not be noticeably different. "6) He has conceded that CO2 is around 4% of GW." No I have not. CO2 is 9 to 26% of GW. When I said that CO2 is around 4% of GW, I had gotten mixed up by the different factors inherent in GW. I admit that that was a false statement. ======== [1] http://www.edf.org... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu... [4] http://www.realclimate.org... [5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

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: 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: Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped! Content: You just admitted that humans DO cause climate change, you said 3 main ways humans DO cause climate change INDIRECTLY, but they still do CAUSE IT! I am going to add to your argument in favor of the idea of climate change being caused by humans! By the way, your making this to easy, challenge me next argument. Humans do add to climate change by cutting grass to often, as you said, due to there being less plants to transform extra carbon dioxide into oxygen. Humans do cause climate change by choosing to live far from work, as you said. It takes longer to get to work, using more fuel, creating more harmful exhaust in the atmosphere. Humans do cause climate change by having jets use jet fuel instead of alternative methods, which do make flights slightly longer, but in most circumstances that isn't much of a problem. Humans also cause climate change by not planting trees in cities, which reduces a cities carbon footprint. Now that I am done refining your arguments for me (just had to do a little bit of editing) I will start to rebut what little there is to rebut. You said "HUMANS are incapable of causing climate change, Its everything we preference that causes problems." You said we are incapable of causing climate change, but my only problem is that, in the same exact statement and in the same exact argument you said 3 different ways we DO cause climate change, maybe a better way to put it is 3 ways we cause climate change by NOT doing! I am going to add to your arguments for my side now, now that we both agree climate change is real, let's not talk that argument as that is much longer, let's focus on if it's caused by us and if it's a problem (unless you agree that it is, please tell me if you do as it will save me a lot of time) and if we should take steps to fix it (again if you agree that we should try to fix it, please tell me in your next argument or somewhere). We cause climate change by growing to much livestock, cows for example, release more methane (a gas 84 times worse than carbon dioxide for the atmosphere) than all the cars in the world combined. If you add in other livestock, like sheep, chickens, pigs, the release of methane is equal to almost triple all the exhaust from the cars in the world. We also have 13 "super" cargo boats, ya know those large ones that carry around those large colored shipping containers. Of course there are more than 13, but there are 13 of a certain model, a huge one. Well each one of these boats releases almost enough exhaust into the atmosphere in a year as all the cars on the planet. Meaning after you add together the yearly exhaust from all these boats, it equals almost 10 times all the exhaust from all the cars in the world. If we just use more efficient boats, or find another travel method, we could prevent this exhaust from entering the atmosphere. We are reducing the ozone layer which protects the earth from x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet rays, and from the green house gas effect through the use of many different types of chemicals for example sunscreen and hairspray, this is obviously caused by us. We can fight climate change by switching to renewable energy sources, which would save us from running out of natural gas and oil in the future and also prevent climate change. As you see there are many things we do to create climate change and we could stop all of these things to combat climate change. We are the problem and we are fixable.

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: Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans Content: *cracks knuckles* Cool. So this is my first debate. If I do something wrong, please tell me. I have to admit that at the start of this debate, I was neutral on the issue and selected the most radical opinion I could think of that can be actually defended (intelligently). Now how do I start off...? *** It is my position that Global Warming is occurring. I believe that is caused by the natural cycle that is climate change, and not by CO2 emissions created by humanity. There is no clear warming trend that shows human interference in climate. Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. It can be a change in the average weather or a change in the distribution of weather events around an average (for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth (1). The Earth's climate has always changed throughout history due to natural cycles. For example, the Medieval warm period and the subsequent little ice age were caused by climate change (2). Like then, The Earth is currently peaking in an inter-glacial warming period, before it will inevitably enter another ice age. It is natural to expect warming during this period, and not caused by human interference in the climate. Warming trends show no consistent increase in temperature. In the last century, much of the warming occurred between 1910 and 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. In fact, most of the warming that has occurred in the last century occurred in between 1910 and 1940- when C02 emissions by humans were low. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s (this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC). (3)" This trend shows that greenhouse gasses did not have anything to do with the current warming we are facing. An easy to observe temperature record of the world can be found here (4): http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources: (1): http://en.wikipedia.org... (2): http://en.wikipedia.org... (3): http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com... (4): http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING Content: I do agree with you that we are partially responsible for global warming. we are accelerating it, yet not CAUSING it. Why did you challenge me to this debate? i really don't even understand you're arguement. :[ sorry!

Title: global climate change is human caused Content: Even though my opponent forfeited her last round (for obvious reasons), I will reiterate my rebuttals to her opening statement and premise of this argument: "global climate change is human caused" -I presented scientific arguments from liberal as well as conservative sources disproving this premise. My opponent (who, as Pro, has the burden of proof) never presented one argument in favor of this premise. My opponent contradicted this statement with the following "Climate change may result from: • Natural factors..." "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature" -Again, I presented scientific arguments contrary to this statement, even though my opponent never presented any scientific arguments in favor of this statement. I suggested it was impossible for humans to "cause" global climate change, which occurs and has occured without the presence of humans on this planet (according to scientific evidence from both liberal and conservative sources). "which if not stopped will result in global warming." -I presented arguments denouncing this statement. Global warming cannot be, and should not be stopped. If the Earth did not have a natural mechanism to warm it's climate, life on Earth would be impossible. My opponent conceded this with the statement "Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped." presented in Round 2. Not only did my opponent not present any scientific arguments in favor of her premise, she contradicted statements she intended to support her premise.

Title: Climate Change is man caused Content: Thank you for clarifying on that. I think you were hoping to win the debate just on that title, which in itself speaks indefinitely. I have to clarify some things, because I don"t think we have a debate here. First, the title is plain wrong. Climate change happens regardless of human activity. It "can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations." (the same EPA source as my opponent). The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, it was around 15 million years ago. During that time, species still thrived. Second, burning fossil fuels is the most cost-effective, and the least damaging. Yes, I said least damaging. I won"t get into how because that is not the subject of our debate. Here are just a few: [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... Long gone is the time when most scientists scratched their heads about ice caps melting. Yes, 2014 is the hottest year. Yes, climate change is happening. But at the same time, we are putting planks for a global cooling, in a sense. As of right now, I can safely say we are utilizing more renewable energy than at any other time in our existence. As for my opponents sources, I don"t see any of them mentioning that. I"m sorry, but the subject of your sources (yubanet, epa, time, scientific american) either state what global warming is, or are in redundant in stating "2014 is the hottest year". None of them are the subject of human activity causing global warming. If you still insist of debating the topic, I would be glad to, although as I"ve mentioned, there really is no debate.

Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real Content: This resolution is based on a discussion that originated in the comment section of another debate: . http://www.debate.org... == Definitions == Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): Global Warming influenced by human activities. Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality. == Rules == Pro and Con will both refrain from attacking the sources of scientific information in order to keep this debate focused on relevant arguments, evidence, and logical consistency, rather than accusations of corruption. Furthermore, Pro's BOP will intend to prove the scientific validity of AGW, and to a lesser extent, Con will have to provide counter-evidence to such claims. And it begins! == Global Warming Is Real == 1. The Greenhouse Effect is a process in which Earth's atmosphere traps the sun's energy, which keeps surface temperatures relatively warm. Basic physics demonstrate that increases in Greenhouse Gases will trap increased amounts of energy, thus causing temperatures to rise. As humanity burns fossil fuels, and CO2 is released into Earth's atmosphere, energy from the sun is trapped, and it can be logically expected to initiate rises in surface temperatures. . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... 2. As expected, the Industrial Revolution began a process in which fossil fuels were burned to extract energy, which has significantly increased the amount of CO2 found in Earth's atmosphere. Before industrialization, Earth's atmosphere retained approximately 280 Carbon parts per million (ppm), which by 1958 had risen to 315 ppm, and is now nearly 400 ppm. As a result, global temperatures have also risen significantly, which implicates these human actions. . http://www.jpl.nasa.gov... . http://www.ourplanet.org.uk... 3. Natural phenomena cannot be responsible for the current warming anomaly. For instance, solar output has remained constant since the 1750's. Volcanism releases sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, which reflects solar energy back out into space, cooling the Troposphere. Although Earth's axial shifts might explain a climb in surface temperatures, the CO2 anomaly implicates human actions. There simply isn't any natural phenomena that can adequately explain the recent jump in temperature AND CO2, which leaves only human activities to blame. . http://climate.nasa.gov... . http://www.koshland-science-museum.org... . http://www.seed.slb.com... 4. Feedback loops are going to cause exponential increases in CO2, which will force surface temperatures to rapidly rise as well. As human activities warm the Earth, arctic ice melts and exposes increased amounts of ocean that absorb rather than reflect solar energy. As more energy is absorbed, the Earth is further warmed, which triggers a process that feeds itself. This is known as a positive feedback loop, for it exponentially amplifies Earth's warming trends. There are also sinks that absorb CO2 -- oceans and trees -- but human deforestation and the decreased absorption rates of oceans are substantially weakening this process. Oceans and forests have absorbed at least 48% of atmospheric CO2 release since the 19th century, which has essentially slowed AGW. However, these two lifelines are being exhausted, causing warming patterns to rise exponentially. Because of this phenomenon, there is no chance that CO2 levels will go down, which rules out the possibility of regularly occurring temperature fluctuation taking place in the future. . http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com... . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... . http://nrs.fs.fed.us... . http://www.sciencedaily.com... == Conclusion == There have been minimal sources of natural warming phenomena, which leaves the burning of fossil fuels as the sole culprit. Shortly after the Industrial Revolution took off, CO2 levels skyrocketed, with surface temperatures following close behind. Due to such compelling evidence, a strong scientific consensus has been formulated, which contends that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and happening. There are also good indicators that surface temperatures will continue to rise at an exponential pace, which further implicates human activities. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thanks again to Con, and good luck with your response.

Title: Man Made Climate Change Is Fake Content: First I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity for this debate, I would like to start by making a few observations: 1) I am arguing that the human race has had a measurable impact on global warming. I acknowledge that natural climate change does happen. I will debate that humans are contributing to recent global warming. 2) My opponent says that quoting a consensus is not science. However, it has to be seen that a scientific study by real scientists is going to be more reliable than some kind of theory or home conducted experiment. Before we begin I would just like to ask for evidence behind the claims in point 3 just for reference. I will begin by analyzing my opponents case and then move on to my own. My opponents 1st point states that there is no hard proof that CO2 from humans is the most important part to causing global warming. Even if it's not the MOST important part, if humans have any impact than we are changing the climate from what is natural. I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest. 2: My opponent argues that the computer models don't work. Even if this is true, there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact. Also, computer models are just a way of prediction and we can't expect them to be 100% correct. 3: My opponent argued that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. My opponent argues that water vapor has a stronger green house effect. Even if this is true, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is actually a cause for more humid atmosphere making it worse. So even if you believe my opponent that it is actually the water vapor that is the more disastrous greenhouse gas, this problem stems from CO2 also, which stems from humans. http://www.nasa.gov... Basically my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact which is not a scientific claim and there is an undoubted correlation between CO2 and warming. 4: In response to my opponents claim that their is less CO2 now than ever before, according to Freedman at climate central, "CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years." http://www.climatecentral.org... Also, from NASA. "atmospheric carbon dioxide does naturally fluctuate, but it's never been has high as it is today" http://globalclimate.ucr.edu... (i would recommend looking at this graph for the link provided! 5: Your statement about the temperature increasing for the past 20,000 years is true, however that was when the last severe cold stage in the climate happened. So naturally the climate is on its way to being warmer. Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural. As for the political arguments. That is probably all true, but does not prove that humans don't have to do with global warming. Now for my case: 1: Humans are altering the climate. My evidence comes in 3 stages. 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change. Some may still remain skeptical in believing that there are things that may not be CO2 causing global warming. While other causes like volcanic eruptions, or the tilt of the earth have had causes thousands of year ago. We are seeing trends in the the atmoshphere that point to CO2 being the cause as opposed to thermal energy. Check out the video here. https://www.skepticalscience.com...

Title: Global Warming is Happening! Content: My opponent's position is the following: "Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing...catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling; global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more." He goes on to assert (not present) data to justify this view.My opponent also adds:"We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth"s history with even lower, colder temperatures." He continues to boldly claim that the Earth's surface temperature is cooling - not warming.To discredit the world's foremost authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is made up of 195 member nations and evaluates scientific data to determine the extent and ramifications of climate change [1], my opponent states this: "The IPCC violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its projections of little use to policymakers." In other words the IPCC is not to be trusted!Without presenting any data (except links to the Heartland Instititute, which describes itself as a "free-market promoting" organization skeptical of global climate change [2]), my opponent boldly claims that the Earth's surface is currently cooling (not warming).This despite graphic data by the IPCC showing that most of the Earth's surface experienced an increase in temperature between 0.2 and 1.0 degree celsius between 1970 and 2004 (some places experienced a greater temperature increase, few places saw a temperature decrease): North America in particular has seen a dramatic increase in temperature (about 1 degree celsius) between 1955 to 2005, as depicted here (with some locations observing a more severe increase): To affirm the IPCC's data on the global temperature trend, data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) shows that with comparison to the base year 1945 (taken as the surface temperature average), temperatures have been increasing since 1910, and have been increasing more rapidly over the last 3 decades [3]. This data "agrees with other global temperature records provided by the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Metereological Agency and the Met Office Hadley Center" [4].Since the base year 1945, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.56 degrees celsius; since 1910, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 1.02 degress celsius [5]. Despite my opponent's claims that temperatures are now plummeting (since the "late 1990s") NASA shows that 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record, with the years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 only being hotter - and the hottest years being 2010, 2005, 2007 (in that order) [6]. Data shows no reversal in the Earth's average temperature change, toward the 1945 base year average. My opponent may want to slyly argue that 1998 saw hotter temperatures than six years in the first decade of the 2000s, but 1998 was an outlier (and the hottest of the previous century), but four very recent years were hotter!Con (my opponent) asserts that the Earth's surface is now cooling, but data I presented in ROUND 1 shows that the effects of global warming are not halting. Satellite data shows that 2012 had the lowest quantity of Artic Sea Ice on record - a shocking 3.62 million square kilometers, or less than 50% of the quantity recorded in 1980 [7]!NASA's Grace satellites "show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002" [8]. Nope, the Earth's still getting hotter and Antartica is still losing mass. Huge chunks of it in fact.Data from NASA missions Jason-1, Jason-2/OSTM shows oceanic sea levels rising on average 3.16 mm per year 9from 1993 to 20130; this is nearly twice the oceanic sea level increase from 1870 to 2000 [9].In spite of my opponent's declarations, global surface temperatures are increasing and have not halted in this trend over the last decade. The effects of global warming continue to be felt and show no sign of stopping. Sea levels are rising, coastal land is disappearing, polar sea ice is vanishing, land ice is melting.And the greenhouse gas with the most radiative impact in the atmosphere - CO2 - continues to be churned out at crippling levels [10]. Year after year the concentration only increases and the Earth warms [11]. [1] http://ipcc.ch...[2] http://heartland.org...[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] http://climate.nasa.gov...[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...

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: Stratospheric Sulfate Aersols or geoengineering should be used in 2016 to combat global warming Content: Hello! I have always been a science enthusiast so I assume a stance on this topic with ease. The question of whether or not humans have a direct affect on Earth's climate is age-old, but new science has put forth irrefutable evidence that we do have an effect on our climate, however large the scale. We must be especially careful in researching climate change prevention as a government, but if we can assure that we can safely combat global warming through geoengineering without major repercussions, then there is no reason not to do so. Some feel as though global warming is the inevitable, natural course of the Earth's existence, while others believe that our industrial habits have an adverse effect on the temperature of the Earth. For this debate, we should assume the latter. I look forward to a good debate.

Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial Content: I was expecting Pro to make an argument for Resolution B in his opening statement, since he bears the burden of proof. Since he has not done so, I will present a brief prima facie case against the Resolution. I disclaim that by doing so, I in no way assume the burden of proof with regard to the resolution; Pro bears the responsibility to refute my case and to present a case in favor of the resolution.For purposes of this debate, it is stipulated that global warming is taking place. The instant question is, are humans a significant contributing factor?A) Carbon dioxide has three isotopes: 12C, 13C and 14C. These account for, respectively, 99%, 1%, and 1 trillionth of the CO2 in the atmosphere (14C being radioactive).Plants prefer 12C over 13C. The 13C:12C ratio in plants is about 2% lower than in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels, which largely consist of ancient plants, thus results in a decrease in atmospheric 13C:12C ratio, which is exactly what we have been observing since the Industrial Revolution.[1]The only known source of carbon outgassing with such a low 13C:12C ratio is volcanic activity, and human activities release about 130 times the CO2 as volcanic activity every year.[2]B) The ratio of 14C:12C, as measured in tree ring data, steadily decreased from the Industrial Revolution until after World War II, during which the amount of 14C in the air was steady (after WW2, nuclear testing increased the 14C in the air). This is clear evidence that 12C increased during this period which coincided with industrialization.[3]By how much has it increased? From 1751 until 2006, humans have emitted an estimated 329,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's 329 billion. Moreover, about half of those emissions come from the last three decades.[4]C) Apart from fossil fuel burning, common sense dictates another source of increased CO2: since before 1800, land clearance has resulted in dramatically fewer plants in the world, which in turn results in less carbon absorbsion, which means more CO2 in the atmosphere. This image (http://bit.ly...) shows the estimated anthropogenic carbon sources from both land clearance and fossil fuel burning since about 1750.In light of A, B and C, there is no plausible explanation for the sharp amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere other than human activities. So, how do we know that CO2 is a significant cause of the observed global warming?D) Satellites have been observing the amount of Earth's heat escaping into space, particularly at the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs heat. That amount has decreased.[1] Surface measurements observe heat at those same wavelengths spreading downward to the surface.[5]E) A CO2-caused greenhouse effect would have certain consequences: for instance, that the planet would be warming faster during the night than during the day, that the stratosphere and ionosphere would be cooling, and that the tropopause (the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere) would be rising. All of these effects are presently being observed.[6][7][8][9]Although this debate does allow a separate pages for sources, there is sufficient room in this statement to list my sources below:[1] IPCC, "Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change," Solomon, S. et al., eds. (Cambridge University Press, 2007).[2] United States Geological Survey "Volcanic gases and their effects." Retrieved April 19, 2010 from USGS Web site: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...[3] Ruddiman, W.F., Earth's Climate: Past and Future, 2nd. ed.. (W. H. Freeman & Co, 2008).[4] Boden, T.A., et al, "Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel co2 emissions." Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy (2009).[5] Wang, K. et al, "Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008," Journal of Geophysical Research 114 (2009).[6] Alexander, L.V., et al, "Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitationJ. Geophys. Res., 2006, 111, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.[7] Jones, G.S, et al, "Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis," Geophysical Research Letters 30, 1228, 4 pp. (2003)[8] Santer, B.D., et al, "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes," Science 301 (2003), pp. 479-483.[9] Lastovicka, J., et al, "Global Change in the Upper Atmophere," Science 314 (2006), pp. 1253-1254.

Title: The developed world has the responsibility to help others Content: The IPCC says that it is “extremely likely” that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise.[1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much.[2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions. [1] Harvey, Fiona, ‘IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'’, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-report-un-secretary-general [2] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical

Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: "human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all." 3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3ï¿½ C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts. "1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified." No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect. And since humans are responsible for roughly a 30% increase in CO2 levels, it follows that humans are responsible for global warming. "Rather it states that the CO2 'might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms' " The article uses that as an explanation for why CO2 rises after an ice age, not as an alternative to AGW. The whole paragraph states "So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]" "CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%" It's more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase. "My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions." What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase. "1)...water vapor" Irrelevant, since I meant CO2. "Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming." Human contributions are around 30%. They are not miniscule unless we rely on [4] for our data, which we shouldn't for reasons I elaborate upon below. It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%. This is because over the past hundreds of millions of years, nature has become very good at re-absorbing any CO2 that it emits. Sure, the balance isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. This is evidenced by the continuity between 180 and 300 ppm over the last hundred thousand years. "He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true." My opponent is right in that that figure is incorrect. It's more like 80% for scientists at large, and 97% for publishing climatologists, according to a study done that included over 10,000 scientists [5]. Besides this study and the other study I referenced, I have named 31 scientific societies advocating AGW while my opponent has named only one (the JSER), and that one has under 2000 members (compared to AAAS with 120,000 members). It's even disputable whether that one is even a scientific society, since they present no original research [6]. It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies. "The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming." My opponent has not cited a source for this study. My source for this isn't particularly good, but I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever [6]. "Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through." The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source. "1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false." a. Scientists may have been wrong, but they were still more likely to be right than anyone else. At the time, the data pointed to certain laws of physics, and physicists supported those laws. b. I do not think that string theory has proven the laws of physics false. The same logic in my opponent's point can be applied, though, to the theory or relativity or to some other revolutionary theory. "2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming." While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies. "1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls." Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2]. "2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT." a. The Energy Department of Japan is much smaller than the majority of the societies on my list. b. MIT is not a scientific society, but a university. While still more credible than some, MIT is not as credible as a scientific society. c. I have not only provided a list of scientific societies, but I have provided two credible studies and their sources. While my opponent has provided a study, he has not quoted it or provided a link to it. "Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate." It's all right; I misread articles all the time. I withdraw my statement requesting to be given the conduct vote. [1] http://www.realclimate.org... [2] http://www.atmo.arizona.edu... [3] http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com... [4] http://www.geocraft.com... [5] http://tigger.uic.edu... [6] http://greenfyre.wordpress.com...

Title: Man made global warming does not occur Content: My argument Is that man does not contribute in any significant way to global warming. This is not a debate as to whether or not global warming is happening today, it is a debate as to whether man contributes to the warming of the earth in a significant way. First round will be stating of position only. Actual debate starts in second round. Total of four rounds (three with actual debate).

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: As Con, I will argue that mankind is indeed providing the main cause of global warming. I eagerly await my opponent's argument.

Title: Global Warming is Happening! Content: My opponent failed to respond to my arguments in ROUND 2. Though I was expecting a lively debate, I totally understand his position. It's difficult to argue with a variety of scientific evidence - collected and evaluated by renown global institutions - that point to the same conclusion: global warming is happening, and it is gradually alterning life on this planet.In ROUNDS 1 and 2 I presented evidence, collected by various atmospheric-, geographic-, and oceanic-researching institutions, that demonstrates the Earth's surface temperatures are increasing, that ocean sea levels are rising, that land and sea ice are disappearing. Now I will show the human connection to global warming. I will demonstrate that, since the boom of the industrial revolution, humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide - a heat-trapping green house gas - in the atmosphere, to levels never reached before on Earth in the last 400,000 years! I will also show that, historically, whenever CO2 levels have risen in the Earth's atmosphere, it has typically been accompanied with a global warming spell - and that this link between warming and elevated CO2 levels is the current model used by climatologists to explain many prehistoric warming ages.Let's begin.Scientists 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 [1]. Presently scientists have no other plausible model to explain how the atmosphere was able to maintain warmth while the Earth froze [2]. 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 [3] [4]. The increasing concentration of CO2 is considered the chief reason why the atmosphere warmed so rapidly during PETM [5] [6]. Ice core analysis also attributes the end of the last ice age to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels[7].That carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas is sound; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world [8]. Its contribution to prehistoric global warming has long been understood, even before the concept of man-made global warming entered the imagination [9].But with the boom of the industrial revolution, which continues to expand into and dominate new countries on a yearly basis, human-induced global warming - through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation - has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations. Never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high. As I reported in ROUND 1, ice core analysis shows that in the last half-million years the peak concentration of CO2 was almost 300 parts per million - and that was 300,000 years ago [10]. Today the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is 396 parts per million! Nearly 33% higher than it has ever been in the last half-million years [11]!Nine in 10 scientists agree that human activity is responsible for today's global warming trend [12].Some 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 [13]. In fact, the USGS takes the position that erupting volcanoes typically emit gases that are more likely to lead to global cooling[14]! The USGS asserts that CO2 emission by human activity dwarfs the output of CO2 by all volcanoes worldwide [15].[1] [2] http://news.softpedia.com...[3] [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] [6] http://smithsonianscience.org...[7] http://www.livescience.com...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] [11] http://climate.nasa.gov...[12] see Round 1[13] [14] [15] http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...

Title: Global warming a "Human cause?" Content: Debate will start off with me stating my position (In short) then the PRO will put in his/her position in short. The position should be like a quick thesis statement. My position in SHORT: Global warming is a natural process with little to no influence from Humans.

Title: Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity. Content: Outline:Most of Pro's case is focused on CO2. I will prove that CO2 as no threatening potential, even when combined with our other emissions. In order to win, Pro must prove that CO2 is a major threat, as that is the core of his argument.Rebuttal I: CO2 Global Warming PotentialPro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things."Assuming the increase in the other gases ppm were the same proportionately, we would be responsible for an increase of nearly 0.20°F. This leaves 1.33°F left that human's are not responsible for."Men's emissions simply don't account for the number needed to assume the whole of Global Warming is man-made. Methane and Nitrous, as a whole, doesn't match up to CO2 emissions alone. Making up a combined 1.31% of all Global Warming, humans making up 0.113% total (1). As for F gases, they are so few that they, with all their potential, only make up less than 0.072% of all Global Warming Potential. They are all combined to form the Misc section. We see the total GWP of Misc, Methane, Nitrious, and CO2 in a visual display. Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World. I've already discussed this, and will display the chart again.GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECTWater Vapor ------ 95.000% -- 0.001%Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%Methane ----------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%Nitrous oxide ------ 0.950% ---- 0.047%Misc ----------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%Total ----------------- 100% ------- 0.278% 1) http://www.geocraft.com...Rebuttal II: Deforestation and Indirect Emissions.I understand this argument well. I've debated it before. CO2 emissions from Deforestation is calculated into the amount listed above. Making up a pretty percent of our total emissions. Deforestation, however, isn't an issue. US forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago.(2) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting. The world replants almost every tree removed, with the UN (apart from the US) replanting 1.7 billion trees (3) and the US replanting 1.5 billion trees a year (4), the world isn't far behind it's deforestation rate. At a total replanting rate of 3.2 billion trees a year + plus ever tree planted by lumber companies. Many lumber company replants trees they cut down to ensure they always have a supply. Forests are not disappearing at close to the rate most people assume they are. It would take over 150 years for the forests in the world to be cut in half, based off US/UN replanting alone. With Lumber Companies replacement programs and all other private replantings, as well has natural Forest Growth, we may never see it at the current rate of deforestation.As for CO2 emitted by Deforestation, it's outwieghed by the amount of CO2 consumed over the lifespan of all the trees we replant. Cutting down a tree and turning it into lumber releases 1,200 lb of CO2. Ever tree we replant consumes 12,000 lb throughout it's life. This adds up, as in one year we will release 2.3 Gigatonnes cutting down trees, but the trees replanted that same year will consume 19 Gigatonnes in their lifes. A mighty profit. After the 88 years it would take to cut down every tree that is alive at this moment, we will have emitted 237.6 Gigatonnes, but the trees we replanted would have consumed a grand 661.17 Gigatonnes by then, after calculating the total consumption of CO2 every year. The first year's trees would consume 6.7 Gigatonnes by then, the next years would consume 6.67 Gigatonnes, and so on. As for ocean pollution, this is true that Ocean Pollution is a bad situation, but Pro hasn't proven that it's enough of a threat to make the Resolution true. CO2 and all it's emittions simply aren't strong enough to support Pro's case and prove the Resolution.CO2, at it's GWP, has far to go before it's a major issue. Until then, Human's aren't leaving around nearly a large enough amount to hurt the environment. Total World Emissions, including humans, only accounts for slightly above 3% of the total Green House Effect. It and every other gas Pro mentioned makes up in total 5%. If you only look at the Man-Made gases, it's only 0.555% of total effect. We know CO2 isn't that bad in the scheme of things because of how CO2 levels were around 7000 PPM in the Cambrian Period, and yet the temperature was only 10ºc higher, showing the CO2 doesn't have nearly the effect Global Warming Alarmists are predicting. Pro's own rebuttal only makes this more clear, as we will see.2) http://forestry.about.com...3) http://www.un.org...4) http://forestry.about.com...Rebuttal III: Global Warming Cycle.Yes, CO2 is 400 PPM now, which is pretty high compared to recent cycles, temperatures are still lower than any other warming period. This is prove supporting my case. This Global Warming Period has the highest CO2 PPM (and I never said we weren't responsible for the increase in CO2, as we are, just that CO2 isn't a huge threat) and yet it is the coldest warming period to date. This is clear evidence that CO2 isn't a threat.I already knew the charts were 50 years out of date, I was hoping Pro would notice, as the charts only proof that while CO2 rises during the warming periods, it doesn't cause the warming, otherwise we would be in the hottest warming period in the last 400,000 years. Looking at the charts again, we see that, at 400 ppm, CO2 is high, but we know Global Temperatures is 1.53°F higher than 1900 at this very moment, which makes it the coldest period. Looking at the charts, we see that the coldest warming period is about 2.2°c warming than the 1950 record, while today isn't even a forth that. "As you can see, CO2 emissions are actually much much higher than they have ever been in natural history - 100 PPMs higher than ever." -ProThis is ignorant of my arguments about how high CO2 was in the Mesozoic and Cambrian Eras. Despite the high amount of CO2, which only looks high compared to recent history, both the Cambrian and current temperatures are well under what people claim they should be. We are colder now than any other warming period in recent history, despite high CO2, because CO2 isn't that big of an issue.As for Pro's R2 points, they are mostly an Argument From Authority, from a group of people who are paid to question how humans effect Global Warming, not how Nature might also effect it.Conclusion:CO2 and all the Gases humans release do not have the power needed to prove Man-Made Global Warming is a threat. As far as numbers and data go, The mass of Global Warming we see is natural, and would happen with or without human involvememt. As said in my R2 case, CO2 has been rising since 9000 years ago, and despite high amounts of it, we still have the coldest Warming Peroid in the last 400,000 years.

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: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: PrefaceI am and have been a rather staunch supporter of the position that global warming is primarily anthropogenic. The question of the existence of man-made global warming is particularly serious in today's time, and is a highly controversial topic that I have, unfortunately, only debated once. Since I'm relatively free, with no debates going on, I think I shall go on with this debate. You must have completed 1 debate or more in order to accept. There is a minimum required Elo score of 1,500 to vote on this debate. Full TopicMankind is probably the main cause of global warming in current times.TermsThese are the resolutional definitions, all influenced from the Oxford Dictionary of English, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Wikipedia. Mankind - the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.Probably - is likely to take place or be true.Main - chief in size, extent, or importance.Cause - the producer of an effect; a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result. Global Warming - the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.Below are the abbreviations that will likely be used in this debate, and are relevant to this discussion. AGW - anthropogenic global warmingCR - cosmic ray(s) TSI - total solar irradiationMWP - Medieval Warm PeriodRWP - Roman Warm PeriodSSN - sun-spot numberPDO - pacific decadal oscillationLIA - little ice ageRules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be within the debate or in an external link. 3. No new arguments in the final round (including new positive arguments, new rebuttals not presented before, and new defenses).4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions.8. No deconstructional semantics (e.g. "cause" means origin, so the beginning of Earth's warming millions of years ago, etc.) 9. The BOP is shared. 10. The first round is for acceptance only. 11. The second round is for arguments only, with no rebuttals; the third round is only for rebuttals, without defending one's own case; the final round is only for defense, with no rebuttals. 12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's case, Con's caseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's caseR4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallizeThanks......again to whomever accepts, and to voters and readers.

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Please read everything below before accepting. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. BoP is shared. DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. "[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. "[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. "[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...

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: 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: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: Please read everything below before accepting. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. BoP is shared. DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. "[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. "[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. "[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: are humans the cause of global warming? (pro=yes con=no) Content: i think that yes humans are a part of global warming. we pollute with trash and cars and yes i know that we are striving to fix this i'm not saying we are not. i'm just simply stating that i believe humans are the cause of global warming

Title: Humans are the main cause of global warming Content: 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?The above is as wrong as: "anti-warmists say that humans use CO2 to make patties"I drilling move contenent! This debate is not about geography. CO2 does not move continents, plus I never told you that. This is a strawman fallacy, which is misrepresenting your opponent's case.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.This is an irrelevent argument. Attacking someone's sources or the person making the claim insted of their arguments is called an Ad Hominem fallacy. [1] Plus, how does the organization working for conservation mean that the source is wrong? That is anther fallacy, called correlation is not causation. The company working for energy conservation has nothing to do with its validity, until you prove it otherwise.B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size.Just because it is a rough idea does not make it wrong.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans Content: My opponent entirely misunderstands my argument. To summarize, I am saying that the maximum possible increase in temperature caused by humans is 0.85 degrees Celsius, and that as the atmosphere as a whole increases temperature by 25 degrees, humans can only be responsible for a negligible 3.4% of total atmospheric global warming.Let me clear up a few points for my opponent:One: I do not deny that humans have caused some temperature increases.Two: I do not deny that atmospheric global warming is caused by carbon dioxide.Three: I do not deny that global warming has negative effects on the environment.Now the question arises: do any of the previous statements prove the resolution false? Of course not.The resolution does not state that humans cause no global warming at all, it states that almost all is not caused by humans. The important thing here is to keep perspective. Yes, humans have caused the temperature to rise at an alarming rate. Yes, it is caused by human industrialization. Does the amount of increase caused by humans compare to the total amount caused by the atmosphere alone? No. Let me say this clearly, because this is the most important point.The Earth's atmosphere causes a temperature increase of 25 degrees Celsius. Of those 25 degrees, humans are responsible for only 0.85, or 3.4%.I hope this clears up most of the confusion. Let's examine some of my opponent's more specific mistakes."since 1880, the temperaturs has increased by 1.4 celsius"You mean Farenheit, actually. "according to their website, they endorse the idea that climate change in our modern age is caused by humans. This turns your evidence in my favor."Genetic fallacy. The source of information is not related to its usage in an argument. "Also, your argument that venus is hot because it has an atmosphere is true, but did you know that the atmosphere of venus is entirely made of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?"Yes I did. Did you know that NONE of those greenhouse gases were put there by humans?"Mercury on the other hand has no atmosphere yet is cold as a rock."Assuming that most rocks are hot enough to melt lead, of course. [1]"to counter your claim that the sun is increasing it's radiance:"Straw man. When did I ever say that?"Don't you see? We're changing our atmosphere."Yes, but not enough so that it accounts for a large portion of atmospheric global warming.SOURCES:[1]http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...;

Title: Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger Content: I. Natural Factors Point to Little or No Change In The Climate I. A. The SunThe sun is the main driver of the global climate. The level of activity from the sun correlates with the average global temperature. The sun is currently decreasing in activity, meaning that the warming of the 1970s-1990s will soon be erased. "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. "[1] The sun can account for most of the warming experienced over the past century, and correlates well with the rising and falling of temperatures when compared to 20th century temperatures: [2]I. A.1. Solar Flux PredictionsSolar activity has been declining for a little over a decade and will continue to do so for at least the foreseeable future. "'Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,' says Hathaway, 'That's how it has been since the late 19th century. ' In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. 'We've never seen speeds so low. '"[19] This means that solar activity has been declining recently. The next solar cycle, number 25, is projected to be one of the lowest in centuries. [19] "Storms from the sun are expected to build to a peak in 2013 or so, but after that, the long-range indicators are pointing to an extended period of low activity — or even hibernation. "[3] In fact, we are already beginning to experience this lowered solar activity. [5][6]This graph illustrates the recent decline in solar activity. Note the downward trend in solar activity overtime: [4]With solar activity leveling off, temperatures will go back down to normal. In addition, there will be fewer hazardous rays coming from the sun and fewer solar storms, meaning fewer disruptions to the satellite systems we rely on so heavily. I. A.2. Cosmic Ray FluxWith decreased solar activity, there is increased cosmic ray penetration of the Earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays are inversely proportional to solar activity and proportional to cloud cover; and greater cloud cover means cooler temperatures. [19][10][11] I. A.3. Ocean Currents Ocean currents are the main internal drivers of the global climate. They have an R-squared correlation of 0.83, which is pretty significant (the highest score is 1). [7] Here is a chart showing ocean current's correlation to temperatures: [7] The sun is the main driver of ocean current temperatures, "This [solar activity] is the single most important cause [of ocean currents and their temperatures]. The Sun provides the bulk of the energy which drives the circulation of water in the oceans, either directly or indirectly (through winds). The uneven distribution of solar energy across the globe (highest at the equator, decreasing towards the poles) produces an uneven heating of water in the ocean. "[20] When plotted together, solar activity and ocean current activity correlate well (notice the decline in solar activity after WWII, and the subsequent fall in ocean current activity around the same time). [2][7][8]Ocean currents, because of the sun's cooling and because of its natural three-decade cycles of warm and cool, ocean currents are projected to cool down further than today and to continue that pattern for at least another few decades. "Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. "[9] Here is a graph showing ocean current's temperatures since 1900: [8]Note how all three currents are experiencing decreasing temperature trends, which, due to their current short duration, should continue for at least two more decades, and then another few decades to get back (possibly) to a peak. With decreased solar activity causing lower ocean current temperatures, the Earth will cool somewhat over at least the next few decades, albeit it shouldn't be that much. The climate will stay around normal. I. B. The 1500-Year CycleThere exists a 1500-year climatic cycle of peak-trough-peak (or vice versa) temperature cycles. "Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials. "[12]Here is an illustration of this cycle: [13] This warm trend is projected to continue for around a few more centuries, and then the cycle will flip into a cold pattern. [12] This warm period will help counterbalance some of the effects of a diminishing sun. As solar activity does its ups and downs, the counterbalance between the Earth and the Sun will help keep Earth's climate systems in check. The various natural factors contributed by solar activity and the Earth's 1500-year cycle point to an insignificant change in the Earth's climate. Temperatures should not be much higher or lower than they usually are on average over the next few centuries. While the sun is cooling, the Earth will continue to heat the planet somewhat until solar activity returns and we have another temperature rise. It's a rise-and-fall situation. II. Positive Effects of the Current Interglacial and Warm PeriodA moderately warm period is better than a cold period. If the temperature is not too warm, a warm climate can have positive effects on both the Earth as a whole and on everyone. II. A. Health EffectsIn moderation, warm temperatures are better for the body than cold temperatures. People cannot get enough heat, infections are rampant, and hospital admissions will rise in the cold. From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves [coincidentally when the Earth was heating up]. [14][12] In Germany, heat waves were found to reduce overall mortality rates slightly, while cold spells led to a significant increase in deaths. [15][12] In addition, warmer weather decreases incidences of strokes, respiratory diseases, and the flu. [12]In general, life expectancies are higher in warmer climates, and there are fewer incidences of disease and other health problems. A warm period would be beneficial to human health. II. B. Economic BenefitsSome of the major industrial sectors, particularly agriculture, tend to work better in a warmer environment than they do in a cooler environment. "The book [The Impact of Climate Change] finds that a moderate warming will have a positive economic impact on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants to capture and store energy, there may be a fertilizing effect as levels of the gas rise. This, combined with longer growing seasons, fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, could benefit some economic sectors. "[16][17]CO2 increases, a byproduct of temperature increases ([12]), naturally help to stimulate plant growth as well, further helping agriculture. "For a 300 ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration above the planet's current base level of slightly less than 400 ppm, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by something on the order of 30%, while the productivity of its woody plants rises by something on the order of 50%. "[18][21]This further helps humans by increasing food yields, lowering rates of starvation and hunger. Conclusion There should be an insignificant change in the climate over the next couple of centuries as the sun continues its cycles and the Earth is in a moderately warm period. In the short term, the major factors in the climate show a decrease in temperature, but the long term shows a stabilization of temperatures to a reasonably warm level. This increases humans' life expectancies and increases crop yields, reducing the incidence of hunger, thereby further aiding in the increases in life expectancies. There is no rational reason to worry about the climate going off the deep end in the near future. On the contrary, our current climatic state seems to be helping us. Sources. http://tny.cz...

Title: Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community Content: I thank my opposition for accepting this incredibly difficult topic, the debate now belongs to the voters and I will provide no additional sources. Guide to Voting:I will not advise voters on conduct, spelling or grammar. Original argument: this debate challenge was designed to discuss whether the scientific community believes in global warming. I offered a 20-to-1 advantage to my opposition, and by that standard, as my source summary states below, I tally 182 scientists that acknowledge global warming and 9 scientific organizations that state that it is anthropogenic, not counting the roughly 2 dozen authors of the dozen sources listed by Con that acknowledge or prove climate change, nor the unnamed 97% that NASA claims agree that climate change is anthropogenic [32]. Con's tally ranks at somewhere between 7 and generously 2 dozen (depending who counts), or the unnamed 32,000 (97%), if voters choose to trust minnesotansforglobalwarming. com. Voters must choose whether to calculate the winner of this criteria by scientist or scientific organization, and what soundness of sources to accept from each side. Peripheral arguments: Con's round 1 shifted this debate to the far more complicated questions of whether global warming is anthropogenic and whether climate scientists are "alarmists. " This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their decisons on these arguments, I look forward to their commentary. Summary of Sources by Pro:Of my 66 sources, 35-57 (a count of 23) listed Con's round 2 sources to simplify the references. Of the 43 that were originally mine, sources 1-3 and 5-25 referenced 27 scientific studies authored by 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real, many of which acknowledge the human role in climate change, and none of which exclude it. Sources 4, 58-59 and 61-66 referenced scientific organizations who publicly acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. Sources 26-31 and 60 referenced logical fallacies that I believed Con employed to make his arguments more persuasive. Summary of Sources by Con:Of his 72 links pasted throughout these five rounds, I count 28 scientifically accredited sources. Of those 28, I count 7 that deny anthropogenic climate change, and 12 that acknowledge or conclude its existence. This does not include the "Solar Radiation" sources he provides in the comments section, most of which affirm climate change to be real. The specifics of my counts are provided in the chart below, listed in the order in which they were pasted. Con's Round 1 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement heartland. org 1 N Y National Interagency Fire Center Organization Established Off Topic Daily Mail 1 (David Rose) N N Washington Post Jason Samenow N Y NPR 1 (Zac Unger) N Y Forbes 1 (Larry Bell) N N Mitosyfraudes. org 1 (Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner) Geodynamics N Newscientist. com 1 (Michael Le Page) N Y The Guardian 1 (Damian Carrington) N Neither The Telegraph 1 (Christopher Booker) N N Brutally Honest N/A N N NewsBusters 1 (Noel Sheppard) N N Market Wired N/A N cfact. org 1 (Marita Noon) N N American Thinker (2007) 1 (D. Bruce Merrifield) Y (Physical Chemistry, Ph. D. ) “While it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the "forcing agent" for global warming, the subject surely needs more study. ” Whatsupwiththat 1 (David Middleton) N N CO2science. org 1 (Christie Shumway) 4th-grade science project N/A Nature 4 Y (Department of Agriculture; Harvard Planetary Sciences) Y blogs. nature. com Oliver Morton N N/A Journal of Geophysical Research 10+ Y (Forecasting Research and Development; University of Reading; University of Leeds) Y Nature 2 Y (Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen) Y Nature 1 (Olivier Boucher) Y (American Geophysical Union) Y minnesotansforglobalwarming. com Elmer N N Con's Round 2 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement badscience. net 1 (Ben Goldacre) Y (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) Off topic (discusses MMR and autism) businessinsider. com 1 (Dina Spector) N Off topic (discusses religious predictions) Nature 1 (Daniel R. Taub) Y (Biology Department, Southwestern University) Y (CO2 is the independent variable, climate change is acknowledged in introduction) climatecentral. org 1 (Tim Radford) N Neither theresilientearth. com 1 (Doug L. Hoffman) N N Daily Caller 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N wattsupwiththat. com 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N icecap. us 1 (Frank Lansner) No record N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Joannenova. com 1 (JoNova) N N Shrouded in Doubt (blog) 2 (blogger and R. Dale Guthrie) N (blogger) Y (Guthrie, University of Chicago) N & Y (blogger assigns improper headline to Guthrie’s work) Wikipedia Holocene Climate Optimum N/A N Off topic European Space Agency Organization Y (European Space Agency) Off topic (ozone hole) skepticalscience. com 1 (John Cook) Y (University of Queensland) Y Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis 1 (Zhang, J. ) Y (University of Washington) Y (ice is declining) polarbearscience. com 1 (Dr. Susan J. Crockford) Y (University of British Columbia) Off topic (discusses Polar Bear population) Daily Mail 1 (Caroline Graham) N N The Hockey Schtick (blog) 1 (HocheySchtick1) N N sciencedaily. com reference to Nature Article 11 Y (Centre for Oceanic Research) Off topic (Oceans absorb CO2, reduces oceanic ph) Nature 10 Y (Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, University of California, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, Rutgers University, University of Maine) Y (The observed reductions in ocean productivity during the recent post-1999 warming period provide insight on how future climate change can alter marine food webs) OceanWorld. tamu. edu organization . . . i think so Off topic (feed iron to plankton to increase productivity) wattsupwiththat. com 1 (Bob Tisdale) N N judithcurry. com 1 (Judith Curry) N N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Con's Round 3 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N wattsupwiththat. com 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N c3headlines. typepad. com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines. typepad. com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines. typepad. com N/A Y No interpretations given Con's Round 4 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N New York Times (blog) 1 (Andrew C. Revkin) N Neither (discusses whether scientists should have political opinions) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) Joannenova. com 1 (Joanne Nova) N N wattsupwiththat 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N MSNBC 2 (Ian Johnston, James Lovelock) Y (London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine) N The Telegraph 1 (Fritz Vahrenholt) N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N The Globe and Mail 2 (Neil Reynolds, Robert Laughlin) N & Y (Stanford University Physics) N Climate Depot 2 (Judith Curry, Marc Morano) N N Climate Depot 2 (Richard Lindzen, Marc Morano) Y, N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N poleshift. ning. com (blog) 1 N N truthisreason. com (blog) 1 N N . http://goo.gl...

Title: Human induced global warming exists Content: So, not saying this is the deciding factor, but PRO does not respond to my definition of my role in BOP. Therefore, all I have to do is prove his arguments false. I'm arguing that my opponent has no definite proof to say that global warming is human induced. Here's what he says: CO2 levels are rising, due in part to humans. Temperatures are rising. Humans are causing global warming. There are a lot of holes in this argument. First, my opponent never responds to the THREE examples of Correlation is not Causation that I give. Therefore, one must prove every step of the way why A leads to B leads to C, etc. Second, my opponent doesn't respond to my question asking him why temperatures have risen this sharply before with about the same time distance between each sharp rise. Therefore, he is in effect also ignoring my half of the debate, just like he has claimed that I have ignored his half of the debate. Let me get this clear. I do not argue with the legitimacy of his stats. My sole concern with his case is that he needs to prove it links. He has shown me no differences with his global warming argument than with the three Correlation is not Causation examples that I give. He needs to do that. Therefore, vote CON emphasize proof and reasoning. If one does vote PRO, they must be completely disregarding the fact that with the same margin of time and same increase, temperatures have risen this much before (which PRO does not respond to) and are agreeing that firefighters, no matter how heroic they may seem to the public eye, actually cause more damage in terms of fires than they prevent. Voters: If you are voting, do not be blindsided by any studies that you have heard on the news. Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link. Thank you.

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: You asked to accept this.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: The human effect on global warming is significant. Content: He begins by saying that a significant cause does not need to be 50% or more to be important or significant. He validates this by saying "If a cause is important, it means that the outcome would have been noticeably different had that cause not existed" Yet I can similarly refute this by saying that human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all. This brings me on to the next point where the opponent asks to see the evidence. The evidence is here: http://www.geocraft.com... (the graph is near the bottom, also this is not the actually scientific article, this is a site hosting the graph) And also, I made a minor misquoting of the evidence, CO2 is 3.618% of the cause not 3.502% I apologize for the inconvenience yet the percentage is still incredibly small. Now my opponent then states that CO2 essentially acts as an amplifier for the global warming effects making the effects even worse. He warrants this with an article from realclimate.org. His validation is wrong for 2 reasons 1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified. Rather it states that the CO2 "might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms" Therefore the article my opponent uses directly counters his own side. The reason for this is that my opponent has the burden to prove that humans are the greatest cause of global warming. The article not only states that the changing patterns of sun shine may be a cause of GW, yet the CO2 rise is mostly due to the CO2 stored in the oceans, not humans. 2)His article assumes that there will be a significant amplification of the effects of global warming due to CO2 from the abundance of trapped CO2 in the ocean. However if he uses the same reasoning in the article to apply it to the CO2 from humans as opposed to the CO2 in the ocean, it will still not be true. The reason is that because CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%, the amplification of the effects is similarly going to be incredibly small. No where in the opponents' first two articles does it state that humans are the main cause of increases in CO2. My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions. I have 2 responses to this. 1)Human emissions are not the only variable. In the Alps, scientists have conducted research and they found that the level of water vapor increased by 4% corresponding to an increase in one degree of temperature. Therefore water vapor is another variable and there has been shown a link between vapor and warming. 2)Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming. My opponent then questions why using a democratic scale is biased. The reason is that simply saying that many scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans does not mean that it is true. What's more important is that my opponent is painting the wrong picture for you. He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true. I could similarly show you that many institutions and agencies also believe that global warming is caused by other factors not humans. MIT, JSER (backed by Japan's leading scientists), Professor Lance Endersbee, Prinicipal Research Scientist, Spencer of the University of Alabama… and the list goes on. What you see is that there are scientists on both sides arguing whether humans are or are not the cause. Therefore if there are scientists and agencies that are arguing that humans may not be the cause of global warming, we can't just assume that these scientists are wrong and these scientists are right and we must instead look to the facts behind why it is so instead of seeing the stances of different scientists. Also in response to the quote from the blog, sorry I did a cursory reading of the article and thought that the excerpt from an MIT article was actually part of the real article, so I thought it was scientific. Yet I will drop this quote in this debate. And now my opponent brings up the point of the consensus view of global warming caused by humans in these scientific articles. Yet again, there are also articles stating the opposite. The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming. Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through. He also brings up the point that consensus among scientists is more accurate than consensus among the general population however: 1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false. 2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming. Now you should vote for the negation for 3 reasons 1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls. 2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT. Therefore if he cannot show why we must agree with only those scientists, and not some others, then his second contention falls. 3)I have brought up the relevant evidence proving my points while my opponent lacks counter evidence. Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate.

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: September Beginners Tournament: Man and Global Warming Content: I affirm and thank 101 for this debate. == My case ==C1) Existence of a scientific consensus on climate changeThe scientific opinion on climate change is clear that mankind is probably the main cause of global warming. In fact, a survey has concluded that there are no scientifically relevant studies that provide a direct rebuttal to the idea that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [1] The IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all agree that the evidence for human-caused global warming dominating climate change is overwhelming and clear. [1] "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position." [2] A study by Doran (2009) found that 82% of climate scientists with a master degree or Ph.D agreed that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [3] NASA agrees, and notes that "most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position . . . Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." [4] A report written by 28 scientists representing 13 governmental agencies has stated, "The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases." [5] C2) Human-induced increases in carbon dioxideAll scientists agree that carbon dioxide traps heat. That carbon dioxide traps heat is basic physics. Excess carbon dioxide traps heat. Harries, et al. (2001) finds "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect" at the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide and methane trap heat. [6] The debate on carbon dioxide comes down to "climate sensitivity," defined as the increase in global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. All serious skeptical scientists and supporters of global warming agree that -- in a default state -- the climate sensitivity is likely 1.1 degrees Celsius. [7] The argument is about feedbacks. What are feedbacks? Feedbacks are mechanisms -- such as clouds and volcanic activity -- that amplify or dampen the effect that carbon dioxide has on temperature. The mechanisms that amplify the effect are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are called negative feedbacks. [8] I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate. Many studies agree. "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." [9] This is demonstrated in the below graph: In simpler explanation, a feedback amplifies the effect of a forcing -- in this case, carbon dioxide. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is the "dominant" method in the literature, one can conclude that the average climate sensitivity is four degrees Celsius. [9] It is empirically demonstrable that climate sensitivity is at least three degrees Celsius. CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to 400 ppm -- a 40% increase. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. And temperature levels have increased precisely to this amount. [10] Below is a graph that showcases how much sensitivity different studies have found. [13] The following picture demonstrates the evidence that shows a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees Celsius. It is well-known that CO2 levels are increasing. The below graph shows a direct rise in CO2 levels. [11] Much of CO2 increase is human-induced. "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." [12] C3) Paleoclimatology suggests that mankind causes global warmingMultiple paleoclimate records suggest that CO2 has a direct effect on climate change. According to many studies, after the beginning of the Cenozoic Era 65.5 million years ago, carbon dioxide has been the dominant climate forcing. [14] The sun increased slightly over that time period, whereas temperatures cooled. CO2, however, fell steadily through that time period. An ideal example of this is the Vostok ice cores. "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." [15] The below graph documents the correlation between increase in CO2 concentration and rise in temperature over 700,000 years. In fact, 2014 was the warmest year since 1400, suggesting that increased human activity drives climate change. Therefore, I conclude that human emissions increase temperatures, and, thus, mankind is the main cause of global warming. == Sources ==[1]: http://www.sciencemag.org...[2]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3]: http://tigger.uic.edu...[4]: http://climate.nasa.gov...[5]: http://downloads.globalchange.gov...[6]: http://skepticalscience.net...[7]: https://mises.org...[8]: Roy Spencer, "The Great Global Warming Blunder," p. 54[9]: http://www.giss.nasa.gov...[10]: https://www2.ucar.edu...[11]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[12]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[13]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[14]: http://www.columbia.edu...[15]: http://cdiac.ornl.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: That Humans Are Causing Climate Change Content: First off the arguments are not irrelevant. Second I would like to say that the fourth round will be a closing statement and no new points shall be brought up, sorry I forgot to say this in round one. Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically that humans influence climate change, not that they're the cause. Now for round three I will also be using graphs and videos to present my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... - Videos #t=416 #t=22 http://www.wunderground.com... - Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action 1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile 2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal 3.Academia de Ciencias de la Rep"blica Dominicana 4.Academia de Ciencias F"sicas, Matem"ticas y Naturales de Venezuela 5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico 7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia 8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru 9.Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 10.Acad"mie des Sciences France 11.Academies of Arts Humanities and Sciences of Canada 12.Academy of Athens 13.Academy of Science of Mozambique 14.Academy of Science of South Africa 15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) 16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia 17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova 18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran 20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt 21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand 22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy 23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science 24.African Academy of Sciences 25.Albanian Academy of Sciences 26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute 27.American Academy of Pediatrics 28.American Anthropological Association 29.American Association for the Advancement of Science 30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) 31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians 32.American Astronomical Society 33.American Chemical Society 34.American College of Preventive Medicine 35.American Fisheries Society 36.American Geophysical Union 37.American Institute of Biological Sciences 38.American Institute of Physics 39.American Meteorological Society 40.American Physical Society 41.American Public Health Association 42.American Quaternary Association 43.American Society for Microbiology 44.American Society of Agronomy 45.American Society of Civil Engineers 46.American Society of Plant Biologists 47.American Statistical Association 48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers 49.Australian Academy of Science 50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology 51.Australian Coral Reef Society 52.Australian Institute of Marine Science 53.Australian Institute of Physics 54.Australian Marine Sciences Association 55.Australian Medical Association 56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences 58.Botanical Society of America 59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences 60.British Antarctic Survey 61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 62.California Academy of Sciences 63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences 64.Canadian Association of Physicists 65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences 66.Canadian Geophysical Union 67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 68.Canadian Society of Soil Science 69.Canadian Society of Zoologists 70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views 71.Center for International Forestry Research 72.Chinese Academy of Sciences 73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences 74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia) 75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences 77.Crop Science Society of America 78.Cuban Academy of Sciences 79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters 80.Ecological Society of America 81.Ecological Society of Australia 82.Environmental Protection Agency 83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts 84.European Federation of Geologists 85.European Geosciences Union 86.European Physical Society 87.European Science Foundation 88.Federation of American Scientists 89.French Academy of Sciences 90.Geological Society of America 91.Geological Society of Australia 92.Geological Society of London 93.Georgian Academy of Sciences 94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences 96.Indian National Science Academy 97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences 98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology 100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand 101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK 102.InterAcademy Council 103.International Alliance of Research Universities 104.International Arctic Science Committee 105.International Association for Great Lakes Research 106.International Council for Science 107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences 108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society 109.International Union for Quaternary Research 110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics 112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences 113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences 115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology 116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts 117.l'Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 118.Latin American Academy of Sciences 119.Latvian Academy of Sciences 120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences 122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology 123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts 124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina 125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic 127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka 128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America 129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers 131.National Association of State Foresters 132.National Center for Atmospheric Research 133.National Council of Engineers Australia 134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand 135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 136.National Research Council 137.National Science Foundation 138.Natural England 139.Natural Environment Research Council UK 140.Natural Science Collections Alliance 141.Network of African Science Academies 142.New York Academy of Sciences 143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences 144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences 145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters 146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey 147.Organization of Biological Field Stations 148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences 149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology 150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change 151.Polish Academy of Sciences 152.Romanian Academy 153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium 154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain 155.Royal Astronomical Society UK 156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 157.Royal Irish Academy 158.Royal Meteorological Society UK 159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research 161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan 162.Royal Society of Canada 163.Royal Society of Chemistry UK 164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom 165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 166.Russian Academy of Sciences 167.Science and Technology Australia 168.Science Council of Japan 169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics 171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography 172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts 173.Slovak Academy of Sciences 174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts 175.Society for Ecological Restoration International 176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 177.Society of American Foresters 178.Society of Biology UK 179.Society of Systematic Biologists 180.Soil Science Society of America 181.Sudan Academy of Sciences 182.Sudanese National Academy of Science 183.Tanzania Academy of Sciences 184.The Wildlife Society International 185.Turkish Academy of Sciences 186.Uganda National Academy of Sciences 187.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities 188.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 189.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 190.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 191.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 192.World Federation of Public Health Associations 193.World Forestry Congress 194.World Health Organization 195.World Meteorological Organization 196.Zambia Academy of Sciences 197.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences And military's and etc... Cant list every organization or I'd run out of room. - Graphs http://www.procon.org... http://www.procon.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.desmogblog.com... http://catefaehrmann.org... - Conclusion Ever since the Industrial Age earths temperature has been rising at an alarming rate, and we should be aware. Also You brought up CO2 in almost every paragraph. As the UN climate summit approaches, we must remember that over 50% of climate change is caused by gases and pollutants other than CO2. Like black carbon, CFC's, and etc.

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: we needn't make big changes in our life style to stop global warming Content: I believe that the public doesn't have to make big changes in lifestyle to stop global warming. These include turning the thermostat down below 72 degrees, paying a lot more money for electric cars, and paying a lot more money for electricity. In this debate, I will be arguing that either a) humans are not responsible for global warming or b) there are other ways to prevent global warming that do not interfere with our lifestyles. I would like to inform my opponent that I do think that we should make changes to our lifestyles, but not to prevent global warming.

Title: Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies Content: My opponent has admitted CO2 is not the chief cause in global warming, but that it has an effect. I have never denied CO2 has some effect, however I denied that it had a large one. My opponent has not negated this contention, and with it unrefuted it stands that the CO2 effect (and therefore the anthropogenic effect) is negligible, and taking a stand with green technologies would be a waste of money and effort. My opponent has also dropped my PDO argument, conceding that the natural factors cause at least ¾ of the current warming. This only leaves ¼ of the current warming for any man-made forcing, and as stated the sun correlates better with climate. Accepting the fact that sun spot length correlates extremely well with climate, and other forgings such as cosmic rays and our position in the galaxy hint we should be warming, it leaves a small percentage of the current warming for man-made causes [1]. With this in mind, and global warming mainly a natural cycle, my opponent has failed to meet the BOP and prove global warming is man made and should be stopped. 1. Global warming is real and is a threat My opponent has admitted that global warming does not exist. To be honest, I am confused by this statement. Is my opponent assuming global warming has stopped, or that it is mainly in the northern hemisphere? Regardless, it seems as though he has conceded that a global phenomena of global warming exists. I only partially agree. There was global warming in the 20th century, but the rate of warming has slowed and no warming has occurred since 1995 [1]. My opponent then continues saying he thinks warming will continue. This seems like a contradiction from his first point here. No matter, he has conceded multiple times the warming has stopped. So it seems illogical that it will keep increasing if it has already backtracked. My opponent finished by saying our data is biased. Yes, it is. The question, however, is whose bias is correct. I have given, in my opinion, a more compelling case that my bias is correct and my side on the correct side of history. Therefore, biased data is irrelevant, but whose bias is correct is relevant. And I hope the voters, and others reading, can see my bias is correct. My opponent has also dropped (and therefore conceded) that global warming does not cause hurricanes. I have provided many peer reviewed studies denying this effect, proving global warming is not a threat. My opponent has also conceded my point that global warming helps the human race (see round 1 and two). So even if warming is man-made (it is not) then why should we stop a beneficial force? 2. Global warming is anthropogenic My opponent starts with a NASA favorite: records breaking CO2 levels. However, when you look at the ice record, CO2 levels are at an all time low [1]. Interestingly, if we move the data back in time we see CO2 was breaking record in 1750 with 284 ppm, before human emissions where significant. From 1750 – 1875, CO2 rose 10 times faster ten anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It took humans 100 years to catch up with CO2 emissions (new emissions, not the total. We are less then 5% of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere). The CO2 growth rate, although fast, is not “out of control” [2]. I would like to reiterate my sensitivity argument. Doubling CO2 would only increase temperatures by one degree Celsius. We have warmed .6 degrees Celsius (less using satellite data). We have only increased co2 35%. Therefore, CO2 likely had little effect on the current warming. Now to my opponents data: -- The first data set was irrelevant, it was before the date --The other data was far before the respected time period --Only your last data applied The last data Wikipedia cherry picked as I stated Pearson 2000 documented the carbon ppm 60 million years ago. It said ppm was actually 500 ppm, we agree, but “the oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the "large and predictable effect" of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed. ” Meaning carbon dropped but temperature rose. And the drop was substantial, showing co2 is not a strong climate driver [4]. My argument was that the spike near that time increased ppm to 3000, while temperature fell. The argument has been misinterpreted. We actually agree on the carbon count, but my opponent misses the point that there is no correlation between carbon and temperature. I tried to post this in round one; it didn't work. It is the same point (so I am not bringing up anything new here), it merely makes it visual. CO2 and Global Temp. ? No correlation! And my opponent only speculates on the age of my data. If you read the source (round two, source 7) you see they used ice core data and tree ring proxies, still used in the climate debate and is a widely accepted proxy today. 3. Fighting the problem “We are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy. ” – My opponent My opponent invests his whole argument in faith that it will improve. Although passive solar houses might be a good idea (for those off the grid), my opponents point will always fail: the sun isn’t always shining, the wind not always flowing, the water not always flowing, but the pumps will keep on drilling and the nuclear plants will keep on burning. Fossil fuels should last 200 years, nuclear another 100. These estimates keep growing because we keep discovering new oil every day, not to mention some sea exploration would likely add the oil count by hundreds of years. We really don’t seem to be running out of oil because we keep finding more. Either way, green energy is not a constant or reliable energy source. Fossil fuels and nuclear power is. Take that how you wish; facts vs the faith of my opponent. Conclusion: --Global warming is not man-made, stopping it would be pointless --Global warming is not harmful, and it is beneficial, why should we stop a good force? --Green energy is impractical --My opponent dropped (and therefore concedes as the truth) the: PDO, warming stopped, extinctions are not happening, the harm of global warming, droughts, and the fact that sea levels are not rising Reading the debate (I hope) and my conclusion, I believe the voters should see it logical to vote for CON. 1. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B. C. : Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 2. . http://wattsupwiththat.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.co2science.org...

Title: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: This is going to be one debate in a project I have devised to decide on the global warming issue once and for all - I will take the pro side in one debate, the con side in another debate, and make my decision from there.Part II - Take the side for anthropogenic global warming. Now I will defend the side I usually attack.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Climate change is real and caused by humans Content: First of all, let me apologize for not making it clear what I meant by "climate change." Global warming is actually an outdated term when it comes to climate change, and most scientists and climate activists prefer to now call it "climate change." Although overall temperatures are gradually getting higher, many people try to argue against the existence of climate change by referencing years when temperatures have been lower than normal. This winter has been a perfect example of this. Therefore, when I speak of "climate change" I am talking about the overall shift in global temperature, weather patterns, and other climate factors that we are already seeing today. Sorry for not making that clear. Because the evidence for actual climate change is unequivocal, with 97% of global scientists supporting it, I will not take most of this argument to show the evidence. The big thing we're debating is whether or not it is caused by humans. To start with evidence that climate change is happening, let me just list a few. First of all, ocean levels have been rising for the past century, with a total rise of about 6.7 inches (which may not sound like much, but globally has large implications, especially if it continues.) In addition, the rate of rising has doubled in the last decade compared with the last century, showing that temperatures are rising, and rising fast. Second, temperatures have been rising since 1880, and the most warming has happened since the 1970s, with the twenty hottest years having been since then. Third, the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly over the past several decades. Fourth, since 1950, the number of record high temperatures has been increasing, while the number of record low temperatures has been decreasing. Fifth, since the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 30 percent! I will stop listing evidence here, so I can move on to why climate change is caused by humans, but I would end by reminding Con, as I said before, the 97 PERCENT OF ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS THEORY. Does that not mean anything? Now for some rebuttals against why Con said before. First of all to respond to what you said about how much CO2 humans release into the atmosphere compared to the amount released by the rest of the planet. It sounds like your saying that we have released 0.00022 percent of all CO2 ever released by the earth's mantle. This number doesn't have much relevance, and I will use a different one to respond. Humans currently release about 30 GT (giga-tons) of carbon each year, while the earth emits about 780 GT a year. While this may seem to show that humans aren't the problem, it actually shows that we are. Before we began emitting so much CO2, the system was in balance, with the earth and ocean absorbing the 780 GT that it emitted. This kept the CO2 level in the atmosphere between 180 and 280 parts per million for 800,000 years. With the added human carbon emission, the CO2 level is at 400 parts per million and still rising. For another rebuttal, I would respond to what you say about how significant climactic changes have happened throughout geologic time. This is true, but this does not make the climate change happening right now any less relevant. These changes in climate you speak of are called "Milankovitch cycles", which have to do with the periodic oscillation of the earth's tilt, the precession of the tilt, and changes in earth's elliptical orbit. During each of these warming cycles, CO2 and temperature levels have risen and fallen TOGETHER. Also, the whole sun theory you mention at the end of your argument was supported not by "a large body of scientific research", but by one man, Wei-Hock Soon, who got $1.2 million funding from fossil-fuel companies. I will end with this: climate change is an extremely important and urgent topic that needs to be addressed by the world. People like you (and I mean no offense) need to stop arguing, using the tiniest facts to try and disprove something that is so unanimously agreed upon by scientists worldwide. If you don't believe in science, then that is a whole different matter, but if you do, I cannot fathom why you don't understand this. If we don't have a habitable world to live and be healthy on, how can we solve all our other problems?

Title: Wind turbines represent a threat to the local wildlife habitat Content: Experience teaches us that the natural environment responds to changes in human activity and rebalances itself. By contrast a shift in the entire climate, driven by human activity, would have devastating implications for all species. We know that migration routes can change over time and that, for example, bat colonies can move. However, a shift in climatic process would destroy migration patterns[i] and cause untold damage to wildlife populations. Dealing with the effects of climate change is not just a responsibility that humanity needs to take on for itself but for all species on the planet. The tiny impact of individual wind farms on local populations is as nothing compared to the catastrophic implications of a significant and mostly unpredictable shift in the climate of the globe. [i] Alasdair Fotheringham. “Is this the end of migration?” The independent. 18 April 2010.

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: Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming Content: We've decided to redo this debate since Lannan was unable to finish it earlier.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...