Instigator / Pro
6
1438
rating
6
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#537

CO2 doesn't cause climate change.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

CO2 doesn't cause climate change.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The lack of organization makes this a difficult debate to evaluate. I'll fault Pro as instigator for lack of framework or overarching thesis: more of a collage of climate change critique then a structured argument. I'll read " the above data shows that CO2 has zero effect on the climate and that if there was any change, then cloud cover would compensate for this change and reduce temperatures back to normal," to be as close to topic as we get. Problem is that there is no data above, just a quote from a blog by some Australian TV personality and even her blog undermines Pro's absolutism. Pro's one source says, "Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference" AND "It’s true that carbon has some warming effect, but it’s also true that extra carbon doesn’t have the same effect" AND " each extra molecule of carbon makes a little difference, but it becomes less and less so, and there’s a point where it’s irrelevant." Pro's one source confirms that CO2 causes some climate change, which burns down Pro's single argument. In the absence of any framework and because Pro is making claim contrary to popular, conventional understanding, BOP is Pro's. However, Con proceeds as though BOP is shared and gives us a short, dull walk thru. Pro's R2 arguments are in no way relevant to CO2 or Con's R1. Con correctly calls foul. Pro's R3 still has no CO2- just a critique of weather forecasting in general and some tangential conspiracy theories. Con works up some counter-arguments but we are so far afield from topic that there's little point to discussion. By R4, Pro is at least making an effort to refute Con but there's still not much CO2- essentially Pro seems to imply that if cloud cover or solar cycles might contribute to temperature increase, then carbon dioxide must not contribute. Pro vacillates between denying climate impacts and denying carbon's role. Refuting Con's citation of the IPCC 4th report, Pro states there is no such document....astonishing. By R5, Pro seems to be developing several reasonable counters against IPCC Climate Change forecasting but the original assertion regarding carbon is blurred. Arguing that carbon's contribution to warming diminishes after saturation is in effect arguing that carbon makes some contribution, disproving Pro's apparent thesis. Arguments to Con- he did an adequate job of parrying Pro's unfocused jabs. Sources to con as well- Pro's sources were more blog than peer-reviewed science, several sources contradicted Pro's thesis, and Pro couldn't find the IPCC 4 report in a climate change debate.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro's opening argument was a non-sequitur, given that if CO2 caused nothing but clouds, that would be climate change: Which was easily outweighed by con's evidence such as Nasa.giv explaining all about CO2 causing heat with long term effects on the climate. Pro then ignored the counter case (leaving it unrefuted), to offer conspiracies, and complaints about his case being ignored (while ignoring cons... multiple rounds of this repeated).

There are just too many dropped proofs to take pro seriously on this debate, not the mention the number of times con caught him disagreeing with himself. ... Pro, next time I suggest arguing just one of the conspiracy theories related to this, until you have the skill toe argue such a profound conclusion.