Login/Sign Up




Global Warming, Mans Fault?
Science


Scientists: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming
(CNN) -- Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. go...
convinceme
Feb 06, 2007
99 votes
33 debaters
13
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

64
yes


disguise
Feb 06, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00

Actually, there are some quite reliable figures regarding the temperature fluctuaions that the Earth undergoes every few thousand years and to date, there has been no evidence to suggest that natural warming has ever occured to this kind of scale before the industrial revolution.

Much of the evidence for human global warming stem from logic. For example, if one were to set fire to a small pinch of gun powder and observe its reaction, one could predict what would happen if one set fire to a whole keg of it. An explosion, only larger in magnatude. It's the same concept with global warming. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas that increases temperatures, releasing large amounts of it will not simply have no impact on the planet. Especially since humans are destroying the largest storages of Carbon on the planet, the Rainforests of the Amazon.

Of course, don't just take my word for it. Take the words of 2,500 top scientists from 130 nations: http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-02-02T211359Z_01_L01923284_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-GLOBALWARMING-WRAP-COL.XML&src=rss

 
capitalistocrat
Feb 06, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Although Global Warming as a concept is not entirely new, I have to admit that our role in this world as a pollutor of our atmosphere plays an inevitably big role and we too are to blame.

the extent to which, however, is to this day still a controversial debate amongst many scientists as well as people like ourselves.

But we must face up to the consequences of our own actions by admitting that this is partially our fault, only then can we move forward in trying to solve this problem to the extent we are humanly able to.

 
wellwellwell
Feb 06, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
of course it's Man's fault. everything is.
just ask any Woman.

 
02andersonm
Feb 11, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Watch "an inconvinent truth, a whole movie of proff! and yes its all true.

 
capitalistocrat
Feb 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00

We have to tackle the problem from two sides here. Whether or not you agree that we play a part in global warming, you cannot deny the fact that our CO2 emissions are not the primary reason for things such as Acid Rain which also contributes in the decay of many historical and cultural buildings, as well as nature itself.

You're stating that apart from nuclear power, Hydrogen Powerplants and Windmills would be ineffective? It leads me to believe you haven't thought this through very well.

If, whatever country we are talking about, decides to adapt an approach whereby the entire country were to be powered by renewable resources, the following would happen:

1. Oil / Coal / Gas consumption would decrease enormously.

2. The money previously spent on purchasing the fossile fuels required to generate electricity can be used to build and expand on facilities that create renewable resources.

3. It would provide huge employment opportunities and economical benefit.

4. Any excess electricity that is generated could be sold to countries abroad (as is done now) but because the generation of renewable energy costs next to nothing, this electricity could be sold for 70% of the amount it would cost to generate or pucrhase this electricity otherwise.

5. Profits obtained from selling energy to foreign countries could be used to invest in re-forestation programmes to help cut down the presence of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Result: Problem Solved.
Why aren't we doing this?

1. The Oil tycoons won't be happy

2. There is no political will to get this done

3. Governments never stamp out long-term policies and never make a significant move, backing, or investment into anything new - they always take little steps, little, and slowly, which sometimes, isn't good enough.

Additionally:

1. We would combat problems of Acid rain

2. We would at least prevent the problem from getting worse.

3. A noteworthy investment into this approach would lead to a noteworthy result.

 
naminator01
Feb 13, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Although the movie itself does not cite sources, It is inevitably obvious that warming has INCREASED after the age of industrialization (1920 - Present).

How can you go around ignoring this?

 
gamingfreak199
Feb 25, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

I'm not quite sure I understand. In order to prove that humans are not responsible for global warming, you argue that we cannot predict to what degree humans have caused global warming, and that even if we were to take action to prevent global warming it wouldn't do much good. However, it seems to me that at the point you admit that reducing CO2 and other similar emissions would have an effect (however small) on reducing global warming, and agree further that humans are responsible for these emissions, you aren't actually disagreeing with the fact that humans are responsible for global warming, just telling us that it could be worse.

Also, though it is true that the earth is dynamic, it seems a bit suspicious that the latest rise in temperatures - and it is quite a large one - took place just as humans began to industrialize. Since the earth has had maybe two or three cycles of heating/cooling in the past forty thousand years, what are the odds that a rise in temperatures would occur exactly at this time?

Moreover, even if we agree that the rise in global temperatures is somehow part of a natural cycle, the fact that the earth is warming itself does not in any way disprove the fact that we are warming it as well. Just because the earth warms naturally doesn't mean that no other warming can occur, and it is rather difficult to argue that gases which naturally trap warm air under them don't actually warm the planet unless you don't believe in the basic laws of physics. The argument that humans are responsible for global warming presumes nothing else than that adding more gases in the atmosphere keep mores heat inside, something that has been proven time and time again in a laboratory and really should not be very controversial.

 
klm129
Jul 15, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Ok lets put down some facts:

90% of the world's recognized Nations have signed the "Kyoto
Protocol".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

It is a world wide known fact that 172 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol out of 192 nations. (Look at the countries that did not sign)

Why would a country risk the economic stability over a "HOAX" ?
Each independent country has the resources and money to hire the world's best CLIMATOLOGISTS. These country's scientists said YES this is a serious problem and action is needed now.

Still not convinced ?
Lets see what NASA has to say about the subject:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

- Read the whole thing not just the 1st paragraph)
- With the URL "www.nasa.gov" this is no fake website.

Or choose any other credible scientific organization that you think will tell you the truth. But do not use the TV media, their bottom line is profits.



 
leehester
Sep 22, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
There is little need to argue. There is a scientific consensus. The few anti-anthropogenic global warming "experts" out there appear to me to be sell-outs and/or frauds.

After hearing the anti-anthropogenic global warming position about a zillion times from a wingnut friend of mine (I was once one myself and still count many as friends), I decided as a good philosopher, to really put it to the test. Try to really find out....

So, I searched a variety of websites for information against global warming and found a right-wing "think tank" that had a list of something like 400 top experts who supposedly had written papers proving that any warming we might be experiencing has nothing to do with humans.

I decided to write their experts, many of whom were at top universities, to see what they really thought. In each case I had to find their e-mail address myself, so it took many hours just to compile the first 40 or so --- but it was enough to convince me....

Out of the first forty, every single one agreed that global warming is happening and that humans are a cause. All but one said that humans were the main cause. All but one said that the warming represented a serious (maybe even catastrophic) problem. Several of them commented on the fact that there was a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists.

My conclusion... the think tank was lying through its teeth.

Interestingly, a few of the scientists tried to figure out how their research could have been so completely mischaracterized. In each case they figured that the compilers had used some of their 10-20 year old papers from back in the heyday of research on solar cycles. That research suggested solar cycles were responsible for many hot and cold periods in the past. But that research, though still considered good, cannot and does not account for current warming trends... trends which only anthropogenic models account for.

These and many other researchers I wrote called the use of their research by the think tank a fraud. More than one mentioned the repeated abuse of their research and one even said he had an ongoing lawsuit with an oil company over the fraudulent misrepresentation of his research.

It took me a little time and effort, but in the end it became clear to me that there is no significant doubt in the scientific community that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat.

 
sirthinkalot
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I agree with the scientists. It's just too much of a coincidence that the logic behind human induced global warming (Greenhouse effect etc) and the fact that the earth IS indeed warming up and has risen dramatically since the industrial revolution. The earth's temperature may have risen naturally but we have certainly played a large role in this.

But we shouldn't forget the irrevocable damage that cows have caused through the natural excretion of methane gases!

 
Woody
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Face it, we are the bacteria of this age. As in ages past, when CO2 emissions warmed the planet up enough, it triggered the planets natural response. Ice Age.

In the past, other organisms were responsible for the CO2 buildup. Now, we are.

Let's face it, we are pouring chemicals into the air that effect the atmosphere. Every action has a reaction.

That being said, there isn't much we can do about it. It isn't economically feasible at present to do anything about it. You'll never get China and India on board to forego their 100 years of rapid growth.

 
croxis
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tggdan3

What do you mean by cloud? The greenhouse gases do not create a cloud but are mixed into the atmosphere where they stayed until they are scrubbed by some active process.

The reason for the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere is from a couple major processes. One of which is life. Life is carbon based and will remove carbon from the environment. In the Carboniferous there was mass burials of life which stored the carbon as coal.

The other process started about 50 million years ago. There was mass uplifting (until the the Earth was a lot more flat then it is now). This resulted in increased weathering and a common weathering process scrubs carbon from the atmosphere.

By burning all the fossil fuels we will be restoring large amounts of carbon back into the atmosphere, resulting is atmospheric composition not seen for 50 million years. This does not just settle out and will not go away in any timespan relevant to our civilization.

 
croxis
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ananonymous

One, how many of these scientists are actual climatologists and other related subjects? How many of these individuals still hold the same view? I read the link and the information given made me even more doubtful of your claim.

 
disguise
Feb 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00

Logic DOES apply to the Earth's climate system. Obviously, there is a mechanism that ensures that the mean temperature one year will not be 125 degrees celsius and -45 degrees the next. There is a certain set of ranges in which temperature fluctuates. Human activity is changing those ranges, raising them as it were. Even if we cannot predict just how much temperatures will change, it does not mean our assesments are invalid. For example, if you didn't study for a test and you know you did poorly, you won't know EXACTLY how poorly but that doesn't mean that you still didn't screw up your test. Saying that it's impossible to predict future climate accurately is irrelivant, just because we can't say PRECICELY how much the globe will warm, doesn't mean it won't.

 
mattsiah
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
First of all, I want to say a couple of the arguments above are extremely sad. You're the kind of "bad environmentalist" I don't like very much.
An Inconvenient Truth is filled with more than a few mis-truths. a lot of that movie was just plain bad acting and he never once explains who "top scientists" are, where they are, and where they get all of their conclusive data. You can't say "top scientists" in any argument as if YOUR scientists are better than THEIR scientists, because that's just self-righteous crap.
The measure of evidence collected so far by many scientists is that we have 'something' to do with recent global warming. I can accept this.
The real argument right now is "to what extent is man responsible?"
This may not be as measurable as some scientists would claim, and it may be more measurable than other scientists claim.
For me, having 'something' to do with global warming is enough reason to make drastic changes right effing now. Err on the side of caution. Saying, "we can't measure Man's true effect on global warming" basically says to me, man is affecting global warming. Let's do what we can to reverse the trend.

 
snojoe
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
We take unimaginable amounts of oil and coal from under the ground, and spread it into the sky. That is bound to cause problems.

 
venusasaboy55
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
the truth is that the world is overpopulated by people. Many other species in nature have over used their habitat and have caused harm to the future generations of their kind. If there is any certain species to blame for global warming then it is obviously human. I've never seen any other animal drive a car or build a factory.

 
naminator01
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Please if you provide a link you would have me convinced.

 
soulpiper
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I would say that man has played a vital role in contributing to the process of global warming. Of course the fact that there are a few natural factors that also promote to this should not be denied.

If we take the contribution to global warming by these two sources as a percentage. 95% would be by human beings.

ever since the industrial revolution took place during the 18th century in Britain and the world moving towards Globalization the emission of green house gasses has increased rapidly and due to industrialization the amount of Co2 that is emitted in to the atmosphere increases. Also due to the increasing population deforestation takes place and large areas of forests are just being cleared away.
When deforestation takes place there arnt any trees to absorb CO2 and this co2 fills the atmosphere and promotes to the depletion of the ozone layer as well. when this happens the earth is able to absorb more UV rays.
So man plays an integrate part in contributing to Global warming since the environment is controlled by man.

 
gormandizer
Mar 06, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
its true what people say that if humans where to disappear the world would prosper

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
We've polluted the world and taken away alot of the worlds natural resource. every yeaar that we keep doing this the worlds temperature keeps rising. texas has been its hottest this year. its mankinds fault. point blank period.

 
+ Add Argument

35
no


unlabled00
Feb 06, 2007
10 convinced
Rebuttal
The Earth is dynamic, it changes over time. It has been warming for over 40,000 years, since the Little Ice Age and continues to warm today.

Fact is, the planet we call Earth is subject to warming that advances in a non-linear, chaotic manner. Scientists have yet to prove how much global warming has been caused by humans, and how much has naturally occured since our existence. Without important figures such as that, how will we really know what is responsible for global warming?

Heres a small hint, the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide in order to combat global warming. Even WITH the USA on board (which it isnt), it would only be able to reduce the rise in temperature by 0.04 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

 
unlabled00
Feb 06, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: disguise

Once again, global climate is a non-linear chaotic system. Logic does not work with it. And seeing as studies as to how much the earth will warm in a century differ by up to 4000% difference, it is hard to tell the exact magnitude of man's effect.

The earth reached a peak in warmth before the industrial revolution even began, which means that human involvement can not be solely attributed to the drastic climb during the revolution.

 
unlabled00
Feb 11, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 02andersonm Show

Read State of Fear...

Both sides have Hollywood presentations "proving" their points.

Back in the 1960s there were books that talked about the wonders of electro-magnetic energy and how it helps your body...

In the 1970's/80's/Erin-Brockovich-movie there were books/movies on how dangerous and cancer-causing they were, and that people really shouldn't live under power lines.

Bringing this myth-over-fact full cycle, now everyone can't get enough of their electromagnetic swag: bracelets, neclaces, even bed mats!

Don't think just because "everything is real" its ACTUALLY real. The fact that the science behind global warming is not repeatable means its not science. Its more of a religion.

 
unlabled00
Feb 25, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gamingfreak199 Show

I'm afraid you're mis-reading my statments.

CO2 emissions only occur for 2% of man's total affect on global climate... the only reason politicians and political activists push for CO2 regulation and reduction is because its an easier target than the other 98% (ie. land use and urbanization)

The thing is, human effects on global warming are small anyway... and 'global warming' as it is known today, and as most people see it today, is man's affect on the global climate.

I'm saying our effect is not at the extent that popular belief thinks it is... and that the warming of the earth is PRIMARILY due to the natural cycle.

The debate topic is "Global Warming: Man's Fault" and on that note, no... it is not man's fault. We are merely a drop in the bucket, and I can only wait to see what will happen when we experience the next drop in climate.

As for your secnd to last paragraph... the average global climate spiked in the 1700's. The odds of an increase during the industrial era are the same as them occuring pre-industrialization.

 
guyar
Nov 01, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: capitalistocrat Show

Look ,we can always do better with carbon emmisions ect. but you know one series of sun spot activity is more than the industrial output of the world...

 
unlabled00
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: capitalistocrat

A noble proposition, however research has proven that there is no way to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions by humans to the extent we emit them in this day and age. There is no adequate power source that could do this, the closest being nuclear power. Wind power and hydropower are plausible, however the number of windmills and hydropower plants and the resources that would go into building them would prove overall inefficient.

As my previous argument states, our big role is quite small compared to the ways of Mother Nature.

Of course some of the global warming is our fault, however efforts to stop global warming will be as feeble as trying to stop the tide from coming in.

 
rogue
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Global warming is a natural part of the earth cycle hence why we have had 3 ice ages already and as man was not around in these times how could it be our fault?

I will say that we have CONTRIBITED to Global warming but it is not souley our fault

 
egyptianactivist
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
global warming is not mans fault, nor is it the earths fault, it is no ones fault. It is destined to happen. Everything beautiful eventually starts to deteriorate. Young grow old, wrinkle and die, this is life. No matter how many plastic surgeries you attend, eventually your face will crack.

Nevertheless, thats not to say we shouldnt try to preserve things as much as we can, especially the environment. Now things we cannot control like the sun, the earth, and the seasons, are out of our reach. Leave it to fate, and pray that we dont get flooded from the ever-melting poles of the north and south.

Pollution might cause the ozon elayer to grow, and more sun rays to enter the earths atmosphere, so in that sense, we can say that pollution might lead to global warming, but one should never assume just because something is related to another thing, that its the cause of that thing. Just because something is correlated, doesn't mean there is a cause and effect relationship between these two things. broaden your mind and think, outside the box. Global warming is like an earthquake that destroys a carefully constructer skyscraper: although the tall building is designed to withstand earthquakes with state of the art technology, if the earthquake is strong enough, it will demolish the building, no matter how much protection it has.

 
unlabled00
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: capitalistocrat

You speak of this as if it could be done with the lift of a hand.

Unemployment would still be caused during this shift in energy sources, which would put strain on the welfare systems of the nations involved.

Most countries lack the resources (ie. land space, flowing rivers) to create sufficient energy to power all of their major cities, let alone an entire nation.

The world's problems are not as easy to solve as you seem to think they are... if they were as easy as you seem to think we'd have a eutopian society. The progressive measures you outline so neatly would have a small chance of working out according to plan.

When the developed world is ready to take a step towards different fuel supplies, they will do so. No one forced people to stop using horses and buggies once cars took over, the same will happen in the future with the new sources of energy.

But once again lets not forget, humans are not THE cause of global warming... this is what the opposite side of the debate is saying. Humans contribute, but are not the sole cause of global warming (if global warming exists that is... : ] )

 
tggdan3
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The only way man can contribute to global warming includes burning fossil fuels to create a cloud over the earth. That cloud will eventually subside once fossil fuels stop burning.

The world contains a limited amount of fossil fuels- thus they cannot burn indefinately.

Thus, if mankind is responsible for global warming, it will be only a temporary effect, which will gradually go away once we run out of fossil fuels.

 
unlabled00
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Woody

Ice Ages occur approximately once every 20,000 years... they aren't the nature's responce to problems.

 
ananonymous
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Everyone is quick to site the opinions of the 2,500 scientists who claim that man is responsible for Global Warming, but no one bothers to mention the 19,700 scientists who stated that there is no definite evidence that Global Warming is caused by man. It's called the Oregon Petition, read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition


 
unlabled00
Feb 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: croxis

I ask you to answer the same question, only this time tell me how many scientists agree with your side of the argument and what field are they in?

 
unlabled00
Feb 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: disguise

Once again you are applying linear theory to a non-linear concept.

Let us go back to the 1970's. Back in the age of Ford there was a catastrophe at hand. Scientific research had shown that the world was slipping into global cooling, and many leading scientific figures were on board.

UC Davis' Kenneth Watt back on Earth Day, 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

Similar comments were made by organizations and companies such as International Wildlife, Science Digest, the Christian Science Monitor, and Newsweek.

If someone back in the 1970's was to say that the earth would definitely warm in the coming 30 years, it would be considered outrageous. As outrageous as it may be for us to state that global warming is over rated. To quote Mark Twain, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

Man can not be the sole cause for the 'soaring' climate change we are experiencing (cities around the world find their average temperatures dropping). The sun's effect on the earth is at an all time high for the last millenia. This undoubtedly must have SOME affect on the climate of the earth.

I refer you to the UN IPCC's Third Assessment Report from 2001. After numerous portions stating the impossibility of predicting global warming due to man's incapability to monitor his own behavior (ie. population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity), it moves on to state “The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. ” The UN IPCC states that long term prediction is not possible (ie. a century or more). Why? Because as I've mentioned so many times before, the earth's climate system is non-linear and chaotic. As such, no level of linear analysis or comparisons could hold to it properly.

 
wellwellwell
Feb 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
ain't no way.
if humans could do it they would.
if humans can't, they try.
some things, we ain't got.

 
nbcrusader
Feb 12, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
It's man's fault that we allow political arguments to usurp scientific debate about our changing climate.

 
masseyis
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No it's not our fault, but what's the point in discussing fault. I think a lot of effort and money will need to be spent divining blame before there is any political impetus to research change.
While it may not be our fault, there is every chance of being the straw that broke the camels back. If the earth's carbon cycles are pushing towards a warming phase, why help by pushing with it? Our impact may be small by comparison to the natural processes of the earth, but it must be a contributor.

It is rediculous to say that just because global warming isn't entirely man's fault, we should go ahead and pollute away. We should do everything in our power not to contribute further.

 
pacothelovemonkey
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Don't let the liberals fool you!

 
pacothelovemonkey
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: disguise Show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period


 
pacothelovemonkey
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 02andersonm Show

Al Gore is a liar.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts

 
unlabled00
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: naminator01 Show

How about the fact that the earth hit an all time high in the 1700's....

Can you blame the age of industrialization for that?

 
unlabled00
Feb 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: venusasaboy55 Show

Its not the existence of animals that causes warming. You cant figure out the cause of global warming based on the population OR intelligence levels of animals either.

 
cloudburst2000
Mar 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think man has probably sped the process up a bit, but in the end, the earth works on a cycle. There is a warming trend that eventually leads to an ice age. If you look at all the graphs of the previous ice ages and when they fell, it is fairly obvious that we are approaching the time when we are due for another ice age. It's how the earth works. The weather on the earth has never stayed static. It's always in flux. Humans might have sped up the process a little but we didn't create it.

 
ex0pepper
Jul 30, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 02andersonm Show

"Watch "an inconvinent truth, a whole movie of proff! and yes
its all true."


its propaganda

 
ex0pepper
Jul 30, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: wellwellwell Show

Buh-bum-bshh!

 
goldenforce
May 06, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The sun is at its max shine releasing more than 100 tons of gas a day, cows produce methane 7 percent of the reasons why global warming is not our fault. most places where there is icecaps has a volcano or is near the ring of fire which melts the icecaps down which makes it 60% not our fault!

 
crazyconservative
Aug 08, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.

Some interesting facts.
1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. During this time frame, the glaciers have been melting at a fairly consistent rate. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/index.html

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates. The original picture of 2 bears on a floating ice block was a complete scam. The photographer explained that the bears were in no danger and close to shore. The picture was lifted from a public PC by another passenger and sent around the world.

8. Many glaciers are expanding. Even Antarctica is growing on 98% of is land mass. Only 2% is melting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577399/Christopher-Booker%27s-Notebook.html


9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over/page-2.html

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778860618203531.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/02/21/noaa-global-warming-not-causing-more-destructive-hurricanes...
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0





 
kjames
May 07, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: capitalistocrat Show

global warming isn't intierly our fault... the world has been through similar through similar issues before and the world evolved.

besides if global warming were such a big problem then the world leaders would do somehting about it...(the world leaders are not the car companies either)



 
soccerstar17
Nov 23, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Global warming isn't real. Yes we have poluted the earth and what not, but Earth has its times of heating and cooling. it's just part of a cycle

 
mwscstudent
Dec 01, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: capitalistocrat Show

Angel. Yes, we must face up which the consequences. And it's our actions made the global Warming faster. But it's not Mans Fault. Global Warming is a natural thing, it's the way our world is designed, look at the Earth's sister planet, Venus, Man doesn't exist on Venus but it's still affected by global warming. Earth and Venus are similar in size, locations and more. Just look at Venus, Global Warming will happen, even without mankinds. It's the nature, what was meant to be, we as human we can't change the way the nature is, so how it can be mans fault?!

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

biology Cancer children climate change cool creation Creationism Darwin evolution Frankie fun gay genetic genetics Global Warming god Government health innovation life mars medicine Physics Politics religion research science society space technology theory universe warming