Prove to me global warming is caused by man by proving the evidence I provided is flawed/incorrect
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Started: | 3/6/2008 | Category: | Science |
| Updated: | 8 months ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 815 times | Debate No: | 3111 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (133)
Votes (42)
 Pro Being able to determine an average global temperature must be accurate in order to determine if the average global temperature is warming or cooling. Researchers in this link say it is thermodynamically and mathematically impossible to put a single number on the average temperature of the earth. Furthermore there are several different ways to figure averages and depending on which method you use you will get completely different results. So from this data it is impossible to tell if the average global temperature is rising without being biased towards one method of determining average global temperature. And if you do use a method that is biased you have to leave out the fact that it is mathematically and thermodynamically impossible to figure an average global temperature even when you use that biased method. http://www.sciencedaily.com... I have searched for other sources and could find none that dispute this claim. Good luck to you in your searches. You will find lots of sites claiming average temps but from the data I have read they are more likely than not to be flawed and inaccurate representations if indeed it is impossible to figure an average global temp. What I ask for in this link is a similar link that says it is not impossible to figure average global temps using mathematics and thermodynamics and that those figures are more likely to be accurate than not. This should be very easy to prove in my opinion because a great deal of the evidence for the pro side is based on the theory that average global temps are rising. (GCM's ) General Circulation Models: They attempt to simulate or predict future climate conditions. These have been proven to be completely inaccurate and flawed at predicting climate changes in the future because the data that is initially input to generate the simulation is based on guesses and assumptions on how the climate works and scientists all agree that they are not even close to knowing how it works with any degree of accuracy. It is further stated that GCM's are unsuitable and to inaccurate for the basis of setting public policy with regard to Global warming http://www.heartland.org... http://www.worldclimatereport.com... http://www.globalwarming.org... http://www.giss.nasa.gov... There are hundreds of links that discuss GCM's and virtually all of them admit to guessing or using arbitrary numbers based on the limited knowledge that is available on how the earth's climate works. My research indicates that GCM's are virtually worthless indicators of future global conditions. !7,000 Scientists disagree that Co2 is the main cause of global warming and that we are still recovering from a small ice age and have provided an extensive report as to why they think this is so based on all available data with regard to the earth's climate. This report is extremely detailed and just as convincing as the pro side. Why is everything in this report not valid when used as evidence that would suggest global warming is not caused by man? http://www.oism.org... I want to know the truth about this subject. But for every link that says global warming is caused by man I can find one that is equally scientific if not more based on science that it isn't. I wish my opponent luck, this will be a very hard for you because the burden of proof is on you should you accept this debate. Don't take this debate if you are not going to use science to prove my links wrong and make no attempt to shift the burden of proof on me. You are trying to convince me that global warming is caused by man by man. If you can prove that the evidence that I have provided is flawed or incorrect with a reasonable degree of conclusiveness I will change my mind.  Con tootiefruteh forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro Con tootiefruteh forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro Con tootiefruteh forfeited this round. |
 |
Loading voting charts...
Show people this debate by sending them this public link:
Either way, what can you do to prove to me that global warming is a threat. So far, it seems you've hovered on the topic of whether it's caused by man or not. I know that it is indeed the debate title, but let's go a bit further. Why is it a threat?
And on a little note if you wish to cite a source on this one. I probably will not accept a news article or news report as proof. The media is as knowledgeable on global warming as I, a high school student, am at flying a plane. They have never had their story straight on global warming for a period of more than 50 years, although warming has occurred for much longer than that. They simply do not know what they are talking about, simple as that.
The small climate effects like warm period and mini-ice age are regional rather than a global across the board warming of everything.
Believer, plant decomposition doesn't have anything to do with decomposition. Plants regularly decompose and sometimes fossilize. This has nothing to do with the level of CO2. Plant fossilization is unrelated to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (fossils generally aren't in atmosphere they are in water at the start of the process). There is an effect of the CO2 clogging the pores in the ferns and becoming evident of fossils but that simply helps show how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when the plant died.
Bacteria are not going to fail to breakdown organic material because there is CO2 around. Go ahead and cite a source for this pathetically wrong claim (I bet you can't!!!).
The climate does go through certain cycles but largely it goes through changes what triggers these changes varies from change to change. However, this most recent change is fairly clearly due to increasing the CO2 levels from 300 to 385 in single lifetime. Understanding the basic physics at work, that'll cause the atmosphere to trap heat. Trapping heat should make it get significantly hotter; on the flip side it does seem to be getting significantly hotter. So we have data which says X should happen and data which says X is happening.
We are polluting the atmosphere of this planet with heat trapping gases, it is getting hotter everywhere on the planet.
Outside of a massive catastrophe CO2 levels don't shift that fast.
The temperatures did begin to warm about 5 to 10 years after the Little Ice Age. This is because global warming is a natural cycle.
Here's another interesting piece of info I've found.
Scientists have found ferns that have been entirely fossilized. After extensive research, they have found that, this is because of the overwhelming amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The plant could not decompose correctly because of it, and it was therefore fossilized.