Debate Comments

If you look at the end of that graph, pro, you'll notice that CO2 levels take a huge slide downward, and the temperature takes a huge spike upward, which totally disproves your argument.

Also, your logic is flawed, because con just presented that murder rates are rising with temperatures. So he could argue that murders cause global warming.

your welcome pluto :)

i understood your point, you were saying that because the temperature and CO2 are correlated, an increase in CO2 would cause a increase in temperature. while this is scientifically true, you never said that. you only showed correlation, but not causation, assuming that people would take that as proof of causation. the problem with that is correlation doesn't equal causation.

First of all, thanks sweetbags.

Second, to both of you, look at CON's second contention. 'Current temperatures are not abnormal.' I was rebutting CON's point with my point about temperatures. Then I argued that, since CO2 is going up, so are temperatures. I think that whole contention was misunderstood.

as per the mini-debate happening below me.
CO2 is one of four major greenhouse gasses, the others being methane, H2O and nitrogen. right now, nitrogen and methane aren't released on a big enough scale to affect the climate very much, and the amount of H2O in the water-cycle is (for the most part) fixed. the same cannot be said for CO2, it is one of the most released gasses on earth (as it is a by-product of burning fossil fuels), and the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle is (so long as we burn fossil fuels) increasing. this newly released (it was previously in the ground as crude oil, and has been absent from the carbon cycle since the dinasoar age) CO2 has nowhere to go , so it just hangs in the atmosphere (and will continue to do so, at least for the next several hundred years). this is bad, for as long as it is in the atmosphere it reflects heat back to down to earth (hence the term "greenhouse gas"). thereby causing the warming trend we are now seeing.

if you have further questions about the science behind global warming, this guy taught me alot, and puts the science of it in a way everyone can understand. there are three sites with the vids:

youtube (not in order): http://youtube.com/...
just the vids (in order): http://wonderingmind42.com/...
an education group (hosts the vids) : http://manpollo.org/...

one tip to both, provide a link not just to whatever website you got your quotes/stats from, but to the page/article in question. some judges (i'm not among them) prefer to go and check your sources, make it easy for them. also, don't just say "go to this page and you'll see why i'm right". quote the source, say why your right. make it easy for judges to judge (and not all judges go to your links, including me).
pro, your opponent specifically stated that global warming is happening, theres no need to waste time making that point.
con, not being a scientist doesn't make you wrong, cite some sources that back you up. prove your rightness with evidence, not conjecture.
pro, while the graph may show an increase in temp since the industrial revolution, it is up to YOU to explain why that proves a correlation. just saying one exists is not enough.
con, you have logic, now add some evidence to back it up. your trying to build a house from the top-down, but you need to build it from the ground-up.
RFD:
pro1, CON wins. pro, while he showed correlation, he never showed causation. and correlation doesn't equal causation.
pro's second point is irrelevant, the debate topic is about why global warming is happening, not that it is.
pro3, PRO wins. con never showed any evidence as to why this is wrong, so he looses. science can only be beaten by science, conjecture wont work.
con1, CON wins, despite the incorrectness of this point, pro never showed a causation between CO2 and increased temperature.
con2, PRO wins. this point is rebutted by pro, and pro3 was utterly disproves this point.

the two points that both sides won were basically the same. but the point pro won disproves cons case, but the same cannot be said for the point con won. therefore i vote PRO.
feel free to ask any questions you have about my judging, or if you think there was a flaw in my logic. i'm happy to answer your questions and clear up any concerns.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas can be shown by simple experiment.
That more CO2 results in more warming is just as easily shown.
There are other more potent greenhouse gases (eg methane and NO2) people are thankfully working on reducing these too.
CO2 has another nasty side-effect that gets very little attention:
acidification of the oceans.
CO2 forms carbonic acid in water. Ultimately this will dissolve the calcified parts of plankton. This is likely to lead to the death of much of life in the oceans.

Oh, proof that murder rates have been roughly consistent with temps. On the short term, statistics show more murders in the summer, because its warmer. On the long term there have been more people with higher temps (more food, less disease [in some places]) When there are more people there are more murders.
QED

Answer to Derek Gunn
1. Read the debate, it is Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc to say that because people happen to have industry we caused global warming.
2. Current actions are directed towards CO2 reduction. If CO2 doesn't cause the problem this isn't solving the problem.

Your temp. records show the other years as hotter. WTF?

Two things I've always meant to ask Global Warming deniers:

1) if the fastest recorded rate of global warming and highest recorded global temperature averages aren't man-made... then what has caused them? Is there a viable alternative explanation?

2) Even if the current situation wasn't man-made, shouldn't our response be the same?

sado, i havent read this debate yet (i usually read the comments first), and LR4 is ahead 2-0.
not the first time someones predicted wrong (im notorious for it, just ask my PF partner).