Round 2. parrhesia V NephraTari: Global Warming

The topic for this debate is "Global warming is a real problem."

parrhesia will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
NephraTari will argue against this proposition.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debater posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image may be included in each post. No more than 5 references can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

Thanks Kano and goodluck NephraTari!

Over the past few decades there has been vast monitoring of the worlds temperatures and a great many of those locales which have had their temperatures recorded have been seen to have increased mean temperatures. Averaged with the locations which showed little to no change in temperature over the years a startling trend was seen, thus recent fears over global warming were born, and coupled with visible effects seen in the environment, global warming is a real problem, and a real concern for most citizens.

The earth has warmed approximately 1 degree fahreinheit in the past century, glaciers are retreating on a global scale and sea-level has also risen. Combining this with the fact that through laboratory testing carbon dioxide has been proven to trap heat and that the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide and methane, have been consistently rising, the two have been linked, with excessive greenhouse gases being blamed for warming of the earth and the effects that have been seen on the earth recently.

Global warming is caused by so-called "greenhouse gases", and occurs through the 'greenhouse effect." The gases to blame for this phenomenon include methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's, which also are to blame for ozone depletion). There are also natural causes for release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere such as volcanic activity as well as sunspot activity (solar flares), as well as deforestation, which removes natural carbon sinks, thus allowing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere rather than it being able to be absorbed by trees and plants so that it can be oxidized. For the most part, the release of such gases into the atmosphere in such copius amounts lies on the shoulders of humans, thus global warming is generally seen as caused by man, and unless man greatly reduces use of coal, gasoline in cars, and deforestation across the planet, earth will see even more detrimental effects in the future.

The Greenhouse effect that is blamed for global warming is necessary for the earth to maintain a livable temperature, but with excess greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere the green house effect causes global warming. These necessary greenhouse gases trap some of the outgoing energy that earth recieves from the sun, and it retains heat, much like how a greenhouse functions. When there are excess gases present in the atmosphere less and less energy can leave the atmosphere once it is reflected by the earth and is trapped, causing warming. Over time this excess gas which is trapped in the atmosphere causing warming creates visible effects on earth and its climate.

There have been several ecological changes in recent years that have been attributed to global warming. These include

1. Thawing of permafrost
2. Lengthening of the growing season in middle and high latitudes
3. Poleward and upward shift of plant and animal ranges
4. Decline of some plant and animal species
5. Earlier flowering of trees
6. Earlier emergence of insects
7. Earlier egg-laying in birds

All of these observations can be taken as proof of a warming earth, particularly the thawing of permafrost, poleward and upward shift of animal and plant ranges (due to a need for cooler temperatures) and lengthening of the growing season. There are many more examples of the profound effects global warming is having on our planet, and could potentially have, as well as further evidence of the chemical release into the atmosphere that is causing the warming of our planet, and all will be brought to light in this debate.


www.ucsusa.org...

I would like to start once again by thanking Kano and the judges for this opportunity to expand my views.. and to wish my opponent parrhesia luck.

Since the beginning of time man has been predicting his own downfall and attempting to give it a name. As each millennium or even century has turned people have feared that it was the end times.. Global Warming is the latest myth in the long line of apocalyptic predictions.

Over the course of this debate I intend to prove not only that global warming is not a problem, but that it is in fact not even real.

While there are some elements of this topic that do exist the phenomenon as a whole does not.

Global warming is a typical response to mans need to give a name and a blame to everything that bothers him.

People manipulate facts to make things appear the way they want them to in order to support their claims..

Example..

Global warming alarmists point to surface-based temperature measurements showing 1997 was the warmest year on record. But U.S. government satellites and weather balloons rank 1997 as the seventh coolest year since satellite measurements began in 1978. Which record is more reliable?

Satellite data agree almost exactly with those recorded by weather balloons, even though the latter use an entirely different technology. While the satellite record extends back only to 1979, weather balloon data go back 38 years to 1960. Neither set of data shows a warming trend since 1979. Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Global warming is just a distortion of facts.

Source: Accuracy in media

"I intend to prove not only that global warming is not a problem, but that it is in fact not even real."

Perhaps you'd best rethink that statement, as regardless of what you may say, the earth is in fact warming. Look at rising sea-levels, look at retreating glaciers, look at the massive amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxide in the atmosphere, all of which have been proven to trap heat in the lower levels of the atmosphere thus driving up mean temperatures across the globe. Look at collected temperature data!
How do you explain this?

The fact that you say you intend to prove that warming is not even real makes me quite curious about how you will explain the events that have transpired globally and events that have happened in the past.
In the past 20 years it is estimated that the earth's surface temperature has risen by 0.5� to 0.7� degrees Fahrenheit, which is at least half of the amount that earth's temperature has risen in the last 100 years! What's going on here?!

While there have been some disparities between temperatures collected from the surface and those collected by weather balloons in the mid to high-troposphere and the stratosphere

(ie. little warming seen in the high-troposphere and stratosphere), that does not discount the premise that Earth is warming at a seemingly alarming rate in the past 20 years.

A reason for this disparity could be attriubuted to where measurments are taken and greenhouse gases themselves. For example,

The satellite's measuring instrument was a radiometer that actually measured microwave emissions from the stratosphere, not the upper troposphere. The greenhouse gases from the well-mixed troposphere don't get into the stratosphere very easily. In fact, they act as a sort of lid, so that while the troposphere warms up, the higher levels of the stratosphere can remain cool.

Paradox resolved. The upper troposphere is indeed heating up, just as the lower troposphere � the region we live in � is showing higher temperature readings every decade.

Global greenhouse warming is real.

However, I must say that it's undeniable that the earth is indeed going through global warming, though I say the cause is arguable. Regardless of whether this warming is caused by mans release of gases that trap heat into the atmosphere, or it's due to natural causes, such as sunspot activity, volcanos, or disruption of other natural carbon sinks, such as the ocean,
global warming, especially perma-frost retreating in the artic does pose a threat to humans.

Earlier this year the Pentagon released a report detailing the potential effects of warming and melting in the artic, causing freshwater runoff into the Atlantic Ocean. The retreating of the perma-frost would create runoff from the melting ice, but the majority would come from increased precipitation, disrupting the North Atlantic current, and potentially wreaking havoc on Western Europe and North America.

Since saltwater is heavier and denser than freshwater, the excess amounts of freshwater that would go into the Atlantic due to warming and increased precipitation would make the surface layers more buoyant. This would be problematic due to the fact that surface water needs to sink in order for the "Great Ocean Conveyor" to function. When this is functional sunken water
flows south to the equator along the ocean floor, while from the tropics warm surface waters flow to the north. As there is melting and increased precipitation in the Artic North Atlantic surface waters could cease sinking, in effect slowing or stopping this essential circulation of water.

It is a real threat because it is happening. The Earth IS warming. Perma-frost is retreating, it's melting and according to a NASA climate scientist the perma-frost has been retreating since satellite record taking began in 1979 at an average of 9% per decade, with more recent data saying 14% per decade, suggesting acceleration of the decline. With melting,
more of the ocean surface is exposed, which allows for more evaporation, thus leading to more precipitation. To top it all off, with dead vegetation trapped beneath the perma-frost being exposed, it's allowed to release its carbon into the atmosphere, thus adding more greenhouse gases into the equation.

Further evidence of global warming is readily availible and will be presented. The earth is warming and it is real; we are just beginning to be able to see the effects of this warming, though. What is arguable about the phenomenon is its cause - is it caused by man or is it natural, or is it natural, but the process is being sped up by man? One thing that is certain is that there are negative effects already being observed and they are causing real problems.



www.wired.com

www.independant-media.tv

www.firstscience.com

stratosphere photo

"I intend to prove not only that global warming is not a problem, but that it is in fact not even real."

Perhaps you'd best rethink that statement, as regardless of what you may say, the earth is in fact warming.

I am standing firm by that statement.. the idea that the earth is warming is a myth.

Myth: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.] Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries - a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Scientist do NOT agree that the earth is warming any more than normal.

Parrhesia wrote:
It is a real threat because it is happening. The Earth IS warming. Perma-frost is retreating, it's melting and according to a NASA climate scientist the perma-frost has been retreating since satellite record taking began in 1979 at an average of 9% per decade, with more recent data saying 14% per decade, suggesting acceleration of the decline.

Although the sea level may be rising this is not out of the ordinary.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.

The science behind your statistics is flawed.

Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the death of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how oceangoing ships make measurements.

Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88 C over the past fifty years.

As you can see not only are the measurements inaccurate but it is clear that the artic is fine as well.
Global warming claims are little more than sensationalized data that is represented in a deceiving manner to get a reaction from the public.

Sources
National Center for Policy Analysis
CEI Environmental Studies Program

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.

This has already been mentioned and explained in my previous post. It would be helpful, however, if it was known which parts of the atmosphere that the satellite data is taken from. (Come on, prove my point for me)

With regard to your pie graph with the supposed results of a gallup poll, those numbers have been largely refuted, with the misconstruing of the numbers of the poll being attriubted to Rush Limbaugh and George Will. The real numbers from the poll are as follows: 66 percent of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with only 10 percent disagreeing and the rest undecided.

As for the arctic cooling:

During fall, the trends show a significant warming of 2C/decade over the coasts of Greenland, near Iceland, and in Siberia but a cooling of 1C/decade over the Beaufort Sea and Alaska during fall.

During winter, the trends show a significant warming of up to 2C/decade in eastern Greenland and Europe and 2C/decade over Eurasia, extending north over the Laptev Sea; however, a cooling trend of 2C/decade is shown over the Beaufort Sea and eastern Siberia extending into Alaska.

During spring, a significant warming trend of 2C/decade can be seen over most of the Arctic.
_______

Comiso's (2003) study of the Arctic found that temperatures tend to very by the season and even by region. The study did come to the conclusion that warming does seem to be the general trend across the arctic.

While there may indeed be cooling occuring in the artic, warming has been seen to be the general trend. If cooling were the general trend would this be happening? Included are side by side photos of seaice in 1979 and 2003. (1979 = bottom, 2003 = top) Look at the difference.





Finally, this year a major increase in arctic warming has been detected by German scientists.

Temperatures recorded this year in the upper 500 meters (1,625 feet) of sea in the Fram Strait -- the gap between Greenland and the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen -- were up to 0.6 C (1.08 F) higher than in 2003, they said in a press release received here.

With regard to this statement:

Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.

Regardless of whether the melting is slower than the average rate of an 18,000 year period (!), and the increased slowing, it is still happening, and only aggravated by the warming that the arctic is undergoing. It IS a real problem.

A few points are worth remembering. First, in quite recent Earth eras,
sea levels have risen and fallen far more cataclysmically than our current
worst-case scenarios anticipate. Since the end of the last ice age (after
the time pre-Columbians arrived in the Americas), the oceans have probably
risen by more than 300 feet (compared to a worst-case greenhouse scenario of less than 3 feet in the coming century). With the melting of the
great continental ice sheets and the relative stabilization of climate in the
current interglacial era, sea level rise appears to have slowed.
That�s the good news. The bad news is that in the last few centuries
human settlement and development along coastal areas have mushroomed.
So small sea level rises will have much greater human impact �
and human changes to the coastlines will probably magnify the ecological
impact of sea level rise as well.

To finish this post,

IPCC Assessment finding: �There has been
no detectable acceleration of sea level rise during this century. However,
the average rise during the present [20th] century is significantly higher than
the rate averaged over the last several thousand years... .�

This seems to be in direct conflict with your statement above about sealevel rise ....

Global warming is not a myth. It is occuring and we are beginning to see the consequences. My statistics are far from flawed, Global warming is happening.








www.commondreams.org...

iabp.apl.washington.edu...

www.ualberta.ca...

www.environmentaldefense.org...

www.nsc.org...

You wrote-
The bad news is that in the last few centuries
human settlement and development along coastal areas have mushroomed.
So small sea level rises will have much greater human impact �
and human changes to the coastlines will probably magnify the ecological
impact of sea level rise as well.

This is really not relevant to our topic. The fact that people are foolish enough to build more homes on the coast does not make global warming real or not..
Any natural effect to be expected over time are going to happen.. sure these areas will be damaged by natural disasters, but it has nothing to do with global warming. These things happen normally over the course of history..

www.sepp.org...
Forget about health scares; there are still other ways to frighten the public. One of the all-time favorites has been to predict a catastrophic rise in sea level that would inundate much of Florida and other coastal regions and even cause storm surges with waves smashing into New York's skyscrapers and the Washington Monument. But a new scientific discovery has suddenly changed all this. True, sea level has risen about seven inches in this century, but not because it warmed. It is now quite certain that the oceans have been rising at about this rate, and even more rapidly early on, for the last 15,000 years Because of the end of the Ice Age, it is warmer now than it was 15,000 years ago [and we should all be grateful for this]. But this increase in temperature is slowly and inexorably melting a major ice sheet in the Antarctic; it will continue to melt away for the next 5,000 to 7,000 years or until the next Ice Age, whichever comes sooner. And there's nothing we can do about it except to adapt and invest in properties further inland.

it is part of the earths naturally fluctuating climate. It has nothing to do with more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. As a matter of fact

The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.

If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.

The truth is Carbon Dioxide is essential to human existance on this planet and increasing it would be a benefit to our way of life.

www.junkscience.com...
For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.
plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity.
The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.

The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.

Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.


Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.
The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.

I suppose we COULD go round and round with polls that each say different percentages

YOU WROTE-
With regard to your pie graph with the supposed results of a gallup poll, those numbers have been largely refuted, with the misconstruing of the numbers of the poll being attriubted to Rush Limbaugh and George Will. The real numbers from the poll are as follows: 66 percent of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with only 10 percent disagreeing and the rest undecided

Perhaps it would be best to put some actual names to those opinions?

www.thebatt.com...

More than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Institute Petition, which states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Karry Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry once said, "Environmentalists predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."

Real names.. from Real scientist who are willing to put their name where their opinion is.
Not a few but 17,000 respected scientists were willing to put their reputation on the line to make a statement.
I don't know about you, but that seems like a very large number to me.

This is really not relevant to our topic. The fact that people are foolish enough to build more homes on the coast does not make global warming real or not.. Any natural effect to be expected over time are going to happen.. sure these areas will be damaged by natural disasters, but it has nothing to do with global warming. These things happen normally over the course of history..

It is relevant. Regardless of whether you see people foolish or not for establishing homes on coastal areas, global warming, and the rise in sealevel will become a REAL problem for them. The issue is not whether people are foolish, but whether global warming and its effects are a real problem.

Greenhouse gases are certainly not bad - in moderation, but when there comes to be an excess presence of such gases in the atmosphere problems will arise and warming will occur. While more carbon may cause plant life to thrive it also traps more heat in the atmospehere, warming the eath. We should also keep in the mind the phenomena of Ozone Depletion, which alows more rays in, thus more heat will be trapped in sensitive areas such as the Arctic. Abunndance in plant life would hardly be the only effect of increased carbon presence in the atmosphere.

The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth.

The link between burning fossil fuels and global warming may be a myth. As I've already stated the causes of this warming are absolutely debatable, but the burning of fossil fuels are hardly the only cause considered for global warming. As I've mentioned previously there is sunspot activity to consider, volcanic activity, as well as the disruption of enormous carbon sinks such as the oceans. I've also presented the possiblility of global warming occuring natural but being accelerated by man. While the specific cause mentioned here may be a myth, the phenomena itself is NOT.

One last time, regardless of whether sealevel rise has occured over the course of history, or not, the ocean is still rising and the speed at which it is doing so is bound to increase do to increased melting of sea ice in the artic as well as more precipitation due to the retreat of the sea ice. The costs for relocation would not be cheap, and the potential damage to ecosystems would not be measurable.

With regard to water vapour and its interactions with other gases, it's not as simple as you would like to make it out to be.

Water vapour in the troposphere, unlike the better-known greenhouse gasses such as CO2, is essentially passive in terms of climate: the residence time for water vapour in the atmosphere is short (about a week) so perturbations to water vapour rapidly re-equilibriate. In contrast, the lifetimes of CO2, methane, etc, are long (hundreds of years) and hence perturbations remain. Thus, in response to a temperature perturbation caused by enhanced CO2, water vapour would increase resulting in a positive feedback and higher temperatures.

Global warming is causing our climate to change and in the future it will be a real problem to humans, and to the ecosystems which provide sustinence for us. The problem must be addressed fully, by scientists who specialize in climate (Unlike even less than half of those 17,000 who may have signed that petition) and not be politicized any more. Doing so only prolongs accurate analysis and collection of empircal data of the effects of global warming and climate change and the problems it is causing, and will cause in the future.

(BTW, I hardly think the scientists are putting their reputations on the line when most of them don't specialize in the field of climate science )



www.menv.gouv.qc.ca...
www.sepp.org...

YOU wrote
Global warming is caused by so-called "greenhouse gases", and occurs through the 'greenhouse effect." The gases to blame for this phenomenon include methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's, which also are to blame for ozone depletion).

As we have clarified already.. this is a falsehood .. as the greatest component or greenhouse gasses that affects the temperature is water vapor... which you have in so much as admited yourself that these things are not to blame.

YOU wrote
The link between burning fossil fuels and global warming may be a myth. As I've already stated the causes of this warming are absolutely debatable, but the burning of fossil fuels are hardly the only cause considered for global warming. As I've mentioned previously there is sunspot activity to consider, volcanic activity, as well as the disruption of enormous carbon sinks such as the oceans. I've also presented the possiblility of global warming occuring natural but being accelerated by man. While the specific cause mentioned here may be a myth, the phenomena itself is NOT.

You pretty much switched gears here when you realized that the facts were as I had originally stated twisted and inaccurate and had to change your definition of what global warming is.

Unfortunately.. what you are supposed to be proving here is that the first definition given by evironmental alarmists as global warming is a real problem... the fact is that there is no global warming by that definition..

So ya.. the earth is warming.. it always does when its NOT an ice age.. but we are not in the midst of what evironmental alarmists call "Global Warming"... we are in fact still experiencing the same weather that is to be expected inbetween Ice ages.. and frankly.. I would be more concerned if it stopped.

I think the simplest way to understand this is by basic scientific analysis.
In an article published in the Wall Street Journal titled Science Has Spoken:Global Warming Is a Myth , the hypothesis is tested.. and it fails

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

This information along with the 17,000 other scientists who signed the the Oregon Institute Petition Is proof that the majority of the scientific community does not agree with the environmental alarmists cries that global warming is real and is going to be the downfall of mankind.

The truth is most of the funding for basic research, such as global warming, comes from the federal government. Therefore, the kind of research that is funded is aligned to political views.

Once again.. Ignorance is denied. Global Warming is a Myth.

There has been no admission on my part that nitrogen oxide, CO2, etc., are not to blame. Water vapour may be the prevalent green house 'gas', but as I've already demostrated, the result of increased CO2 mixing with water vapour results in... You guessed it, higher temperatures

I was the first to admit the possibility of global warming being caused by man, by nature, or it being a natural process being accelerated by the actions of man. The causes of the phenomena itself may not be known for sure, but the phenomena itself is far from a myth and the earth is warming and if it continues to do so it will cause great problems for humans, ranging from higher sealevels to destruction of ecosystems and sources of food.

I never changed my statement of what global warming is. Global warming is the rise in mean temperature of the earth. That much is clear. The causes of this warming, however, are debatable. I have not switched gears at all... pay more attention

Also addressed and explained was the anomalies in satellite data collected in the atmosphere and those taken from the surface. Nephratari was asked to provide locations in the atmospehere where the temperatures were taken but none were provided, perhaps because this would prove her own point wrong.

If one takes a look at the information I have provided, along with the photograph of the sea ice in the arctic, for example, it becomes quite obvious that global warming is real, and it is and will cause real problems for humans. With sea ice melting, sea levels rising, more freshwater (via precipitation and runoff from the arctic melting) going into the Northern Atlantic, shifting of animal and plant ranges global warming and its effects are staring us right in the face. If more study does not go into the problem humans will face even more problems in the future, because global warming IS real and it is a real problem.

In closing I would like to thank my opponent for a very lively debate.

I have over the course of this debate shown that global warming in the scientific term that we all know it as .. is a myth.
My opponent has changed her definition of what global warming is more than once in this debate as a result of evidence shown discrediting the original definition as fact.
The plain and simple fact is that the earth is warming.. but this is not a scientific calamity and it is not some man made disaster.. it is the nature of planetary weather fluctuations during a non ice age.
I have shown that temperatures are still within the range that we have been experiencing for the past 13,000 years.. why are we so alarmed by these differences now? I think I have also shown that the alarm is politically motivated.
No matter where the atmospheric temperature data was taken from it does not change the fact that both ground and air temperatures are not outside of normal range, and the few peaks that have occured where shown via my wall street journal article to be in direct correlation with solar magnetic cycles.
This is natural and unchangable... and has nothing to do with the scientific term for global warming... and as stated earlier.. is still within the norm for what we have been experiencing for the last several thousand years.
My opponent states repeatedly that the ice is melting.. and I have shown and explained that the melting of glacial and sea ice is normal activity during a NON ice age.

No hard evidence that the earth is hotter than it should be or will be hotter than it should be has been presented whatsoever because it does not exist.

Scientific method requires that we dismiss global warming as a failed hypothysis.

Global warming... is a myth.

I now leave this in the capable hands of Kano and the judges.. may the best person win.

The ever-hungry judges have sunk their teeth into this rich juicy debate, results in a day or so.

The winner of this debate by a margin of 6-4 is parrhesia. Thankyou and well done also to NephraTari, best of luck in future tournaments.

Judges comments:

NephraTari basically shot herself in the foot when she said the Earth wasn't warming (which it is), and then changed gears to say it is but that it's nothing to worry about. Make up your mind. parrhesia showed a very well researched debate and excellent understanding of the subject, very well done to her and the time she sacrificed to commit to it.

NephraTari wore her pimp glove well. She persevered throughout the debate, was able to present complex subtlities and used Parrehsia's words to support her argument.

At first Parreshia let loose with what seemed to be a crushing onslaught. I found myself thinking that Kano picked a bad topic again. But I forgot to give credit for human ingenuity. While it may seem like a cheap trick to say that the earth is warming and that's different than Global Warming, the topic used the words "Global Warming". NephraTari was able to refute or at least neutralize Parreshia's points and therefore stands tall on Parreshia's back, as the victor.

While it was a good and lively debate, NephraTari seemed to get off on the wrong foot and had trouble recovering. This one must go to parrhesia.

I choose to interpret the topic of this debate as: "The temperature of the earth is rising and this will be a large problem for mankind." I think both participants have spend too much time on the debating the reality of global warming. The question is not if it is natural or normal, the question is: Is the temperature rising? Nephratari admitted this was true, so I'm going to acceppt the first part of the interpretation as true: The temperature of the earth is rising.

Not much time was spend on the question if a rising temperature is a large problem. Parrhesia did say that coastal areas will be flooded if the ice continues to melt. All Nephratari said in reply was that it was stupid to live there and that it was not relevant. I think it is relevant and I think Parrhesia showed that his side of the debate is right. I therefore declare Parrhesia winner of this debate.

NephraTari wins this one. Just a lot more information with a clearer presentation. Great job to parrhesia as well though!

to you both!

Since this debate was about global warming (period) being a real problem (period) I have to declare parrhesia the winner.

Although I understand the distinction that NephraTari based debate on I have to say that argument went off subject.

If the subject were "Global warming is real" then I would have given my vote to a well argued debate by NephraTari.

"Global warming is a real problem" is a broad but defined subject that both debators agreed to by either stating or admiting that warming per say exists (the cause is of no concern) and further that problems do occur (intelligence of those in harms way is of no concern)

All parrhesia had to show here was simply that warming is real which NephraTari agreed was happening, just not the cause or that humans influence it.

Secondly parrhesia needed only to show a problem occurred due to warming such as sea level rise to make the debate topic true.

I believe NephraTari was at a distinct disadvantage from the beginning with this topic due to the luck of the draw. It would be a very difficult subject to argue in the negative for anyone.

I do have to add parrhesia did not run away with this debate as could have been done by a far more focused argument concentrating on the two simple proofs at hand.

Nephratari, hands down. I don't think that parrhesia was ever able to gain a viable foothold, and she just...died on the operating table, I suppose. Her arguments just never hit home, and they rolled of like water on a duck's back. Way to hang in there, though.

When I saw this debate I knew it was going to be a barn burner and I wasn't disappointed. WOW. A shame one of these debaters has to leave the table. The person with the slightly better arguement as to global waming being a "problem" is NephraTari.

a lively debate indeed...
Both did their homework, however, I felt that parrhesia made a better argument. Well done

Good luck parrhesia in round 3.