Round 1: Supercertari vs Heike: "Is It Hot Today Or Is It Just Me?"

The topic for this debate is "Man Made Global Warming is a Myth and I Can Prove It."

Supercertari will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Heike will argue the con position.

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.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.


[edit on 2/16/2009 by semperfortis]

[edit on 2/17/2009 by semperfortis]

Change of Fighters

Supercertari has 24 hours from this time stamp to post...

Semper

My thanks for the opportunity to leap into the forum’s debating facility and to MemoryShock et al for the tournament itself. To my opponent Heike I begin by offering cordial greetings and a sense of trepidation as my first foray brings me head to head with such a worthy and renowned fighter-writer. All respect to Heike for agreeing to this debate given that s/he has already offered an opening statement in its previous incarnation.
_____________________________________________________________

OPENING STATEMENT

“Is It Hot Today Or Is It Just Me?” - "Man Made Global Warming is a Myth and I Can Prove It."

Not only a natural apprehension at entering this debate forum makes my fingers slower than usual on the keyboard but also the effects of one of the coldest winters in my own memory. As “Global Warming” is said to threaten us all I find myself endlessly amazed by the snow, sleet, rain that seems to accompany each day from January through to December. Of course thus do I fall into the first trap of the Global Warming advocates, listen carefully and though their calls are dampened by the snow and pitter patter of rainfall we can hear them cry “That’s weather you’re talking about, we’re talking about the climate!”

Indeed, we might well prepare ourselves for the forthcoming grand overview of how the climate has changed. Using particular statistics and analyses those advocates draw general conclusions. Those sceptical of man-made global warming often fall foul of this modus operandi by getting drawn into arguments about minutiae. Whether it’s the sun? Whether the ice-caps are melting or growing? Whether hurricanes/tornadoes/droughts/floods are proof?

Rather than focussing on these particular “whethers” let us instead focus on the “climate” - a climate of fear and manipulation on which is founded the misanthropic world-view of the anthropogenic global warming advocates. Rather than falling foul of the usual particular statistical data from which general conclusions are drawn I intend to focus on the purposes of this myth’s promulgation.

I am prepared to be bludgeoned with those scientific facts which “prove” global warming and particularly those which will seek to establish an absolute connection between human behaviour and this entirely natural phenomenon. An entirely natural phenomenon which finds us in one of the earth’s cold troughs of its natural climatic cycle. I will, whilst answering the pertinent questions of my opponent, seek to focus on that aspect of the question under discussion which is most relevant – “man made.” I will seek to prove that not only is “man made Global Warming” a myth but that it in itself is man made.

We live in an age not of “man made climatic change” but “man made climactic change” where all our futures are filled with a variety of apocalypses which suit the belief system of the modern era and well suit our ages own manifestation of millenarianism. Science has supplanted religion in mankind’s teleology and in the popular “piety” of the hoi poloi rushing after prophets whose white robes have been replaced by white coats. Satan’s legion has become E.T.’s fleet. Vulcan has become the Yellowstone super volcano. Fire and brimstone have become asteroids and carbon footprints.

With familiar zeal the new priesthood excommunicates those agnostics and atheists opposing, or doubting, the absolutes of the man made global warming faith. Embracing the cause of this oppressed group I shall plaster across the Clapham Omnibus the encouragement “Its Probably Not Your Fault. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Drive.”

I shall demonstrate that Global Warming is being used by international governments to allow them to continue to fund that which people demand without being willing to pay for. As taxation continues to be the most despised aspect of society’s functioning I will show how Global Warming has been used to sweeten the bitter pill of providing governments with the means to increase their power over our lives. This issue takes on even greater importance when the political slogan “your children and your children’s children” is transformed into “your children and your children’s pre-approved and licensed child” as the Global Warming lobby now turns its sights on “population control.” I will further demonstrate that this rapid incursion into the most intimate aspect of a citizen’s life is a continuation of a decade’s old project to continue the developing world’s enslavement to a resource greedy western elite.

I will, in summary and conclusion, show that “man made global warming” is a man made phenomenon which has its roots in:
1. The sociological phenomenon of millenarianism
2. The transference of belief from priest to scientist
3. The need of governments to fund those programmes which increase the citizenry’s dependence upon their largesse
4. The elite’s intention to maintain the imbalance of the global status quo.

I look forward to reading my opponents opening statement and I thank Heike again for participating and you, the reader, for indulging us with your time.

First, a thank you to my opponent for stepping in and stepping up. I appreciate it; I really didn’t want to win my first tournament debate by forfeit. Thank you also to the fellows who did such a great job of setting up this tournament, and our judges and readers. I hope you’ll enjoy it as much as I enjoy and appreciate being a part of it.



"Man Made Global Warming is NOT a Myth and I Can Prove It."

The controversy surrounding global warming is a visible manifestation of some of the less attractive characteristics of human beings. Apathy, selfishness, laziness, greed, and the desire to maintain our modern lifestyle encourage us to believe that it’s only another cycle, a natural process that will take care of itself, and in any case the effects won’t cause any serious problems until long after we’re dead.

We want to believe that we aren’t responsible for global warming for many reasons, but the primary reason is probably the simple fact that if we aren’t causing it, we don’t need to do anything to fix it. We can continue on just as we have been, and the planet will be just fine - it’s only one aspect of a natural cycle that’s been going on much longer than we’ve been around.

The alarmists and activists may, indeed, be overstating the case a bit, but the underlying science and evidence is incontrovertible. Pollution, emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human activities are causing a warming of the Earth which is above and beyond any natural cycles.

During the course of this debate, I’ll present - and prove - the following.

1) The scientific evidence that points to human causes of global warming.
2) Science and scientists are overwhelmingly in favor of man made global warming.
3) Global warming skeptics are protecting their own interests, and they are the ones using deception and “fake” science.

First of all, let’s review the basic science.

You probably know what a greenhouse is. A structure composed mostly of glass or plastic; something that lets sunlight in but reflects back a significant portion of the heat and light that try to bounce back out, resulting in temperatures inside the greenhouse which are warmer than those outside. It’s great for growing plants in cooler temperatures but not a good thing when applied to the planet as a whole.

Greenhouse gases are called that because they have a similar effect - they allow sunlight in but reflect heat and light back to Earth instead of letting them escape into space. The result is warmer temperatures between the Earth’s surface and the layer of gases. The most significant greenhouse gas is Carbon Dioxide, or CO2. CO2 is produced naturally by plants, but is also produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gasoline. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase due to human emissions, the greenhouse effect becomes stronger, and the Earth warms up.

... as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.

[1]

Socratic Question #1:
If man made emissions are not what’s causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, then what is?

Another important greenhouse gas is water vapor. Water vapor in the atmosphere is part of natural climate variations; it fluctuates with ambient temperatures. Water vapor is often pointed to by global warming skeptics as a greenhouse gas not produced by humans. Human activity is not the main cause of water vapor in the atmosphere, but water vapor itself is not a primary player in global warming. It is, however, an amplification factor; as ambient temperatures increase due to the effects of other greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, which increases the greenhouse effect. It is a vicious cycle which increases global warming, but water vapor is a secondary effect, not a primary cause of global warming.

Other greenhouse gases include methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons. Although methane is produced naturally by animals and decomposition, human activities such as waste management, coal mining, and agriculture are estimated to be responsible for 60% of global methane emissions. [2] Fluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases are produced almost exclusively by human activity.

So, global warming is happening and it’s a result of the greenhouse effect of various gases in the atmosphere, and most of the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is due to human activity. Man made global warming is the reality; the myth is that humans aren’t responsible and therefore don’t need to do anything about it.

Rebuttals to Opponent’s opening:

I am prepared to be bludgeoned with those scientific facts which “prove” global warming and particularly those which will seek to establish an absolute connection between human behaviour and this entirely natural phenomenon.

Yes, I do indeed intend to provide scientific facts which prove that global warming is being accelerated by human activities. The thing is, no matter how you try to prep the audience or spin the evidence in advance, they remain scientific facts. In much of our daily lives we accept scientific fact as simple fact and live by it. Water boils at 212 degrees F. at sea level whether we like it or not, and freezes at around 32 degrees F. We depend on such facts daily as we cook and make ice for our drinks. Scientific facts have been used for hundreds of years to discover the “natural” laws that we live by, and we can not, at this point, simply choose to throw out a particular set of facts because we don’t like what they tell us. Facts are facts.

I shall demonstrate that Global Warming is being used by international governments to allow them to continue to fund that which people demand without being willing to pay for ... I will show how Global Warming has been used to sweeten the bitter pill of providing governments with the means to increase their power over our lives.

Actually, my dear opponent is after the wrong villain here. In old cowboy movies the bad guys are always easy to spot by their black hats, and the plot is simple enough for a third grader to figure out what their nefarious scheme is. In real life, the bad guys can wear any color hat they like and usually try to hide their true agenda. In this case, the bad guys are the oil, gas, energy, mining, manufacturing, and other industries who don’t want their profit-generating activities curtailed by efforts to diminish or reverse global warming. The governments, however, aren’t exactly the good guys either - they’re perfectly willing to fleece the public for whatever they can get in the name of combating global warming while also accepting tax monies, bribes, and lobbying from the very companies and corporations who are causing it (and know perfectly well what they are doing to the Earth’s climate while at the same time trying to convince us, the people who pay for their products, that it isn’t happening). Global warming “skeptics” are not altruistic heroes trying to protect our freedoms, they are the tools of industry, bent on trying to keep us in ignorant bliss so that we will continue to burn fossil fuels and buy products that were manufactured using methods that put greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

Socratic Question #2:
Which do you think generates more revenue for governments: Funding for global warming projects and/or "carbon taxes," or the sales taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, import/export taxes, and other revenues produced by the many industries which contribute to greenhouse gases and pollution?

In beginning my reply to my opponent’s opening statement may I first acknowledge with gratitude the confession that:

The alarmists and activists may, indeed, be overstating the case

I would broaden that to ask that we examine how our governments and the elite have heartily supped from these overstatements and become intoxicated by the promise of the additional revenue they can seize from the general populace.

Indeed, we find ourselves in what might be described as if not a “green house” a “hot house” where the accumulated hot air has granted to the elite that which the current capitalist world view depends on for its sustenance – growth. Like demonic horticulturalists they have fertilised the soil, using “carbon footprints” instead of “carbon pellets” to ensure a profitable harvest, recalling the old Yorkshire saying “where there’s muck there’s brass”. [1]

Like all myths that of the green house effect relies on a kernel of truth. Indeed there are indisputable facts concerning the natural effect of the gases in our atmosphere, this natural cycle of the earth warming and cooling of the carbon cycle etc., etc., have continued since before humanity was a glint in the eye of the primordial ooze. Indeed, these natural cycles have facilitated the evolution of humanity and the abundance of life in all its variety and richness upon the earth.

The current treatment of these cycles gives the observer a marvellous opportunity to witness the construction of a myth, for where the data is incomplete the zealous fill in the “may” and “perhaps” with ideological insertions. The material “sins” of the material world inflict upon humanity a range of biblical catastrophes unless we leap into Gore’s Prius and save ourselves from the flood. “Repent!” cry the prophets of material doom and commercialism having now vanquished the spiritual with mere flesh and blood. The faithful rush hungrily to fill the religious void with a new mythology and belief system constructed entirely of the detritus of capitalist living. God once forbade the apple, now Apple forbids God. We once knew we were “gazing through a glass darkly” now we rarely look beyond Windows.

Materialism’s flourishing coincided with a Millennium and looking into those three zeros the world once again worried about the fourth Zero, it’s own. “Repent, before it’s too late!” cries a world which had come to understand only the blessings of the material and so only the similar curses of the mundane. If, for many, the demands of this new creed are too much then fear not for here comes a high-priest with his trunk of indulgences, “How many carbon offsets for you my child?” Would that this scenario was only the rhetorical analogy of a debater but this new zealatory even has its own Luther who protests the sale of these absolutions. [2]

Answer #1:
Here then let me answer the first direct question from my opponent:
“If man made emissions are not what’s causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, then what is?”
I shall be a scientific fundamentalist and answer – I do not know. I do not know because the data, the revelation if you will, is incomplete and I excuse myself from assenting to the interpretations of the new faith’s hierarchy. Only this week the Japanese are launching the satellite “Ibuki” to help fill the huge gaps in our understanding of the global carbon cycle. The Economist notes, repeating my opponents already quoted statistics, that:

It is believed that atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million to around 370 parts per million since the start of the Industrial Revolution. How much of this is because of human action is still a matter of conjecture. [3]

Here, I think quite beautifully, enters onto our stage to join all our environmental popes and Luthers our own Pascal, with his own famous response to the great “maybe” of his age. Let us listen to his tempting proposition: “If I don’t know for sure isn’t it worth amending my environmental impact for the sake of future generations just in case they may be affected?” In replying to Pascal let me begin by replying to my opponent’s second question.

Answer #2:
“Which do you think generates more revenue for governments: Funding for global warming projects and/or "carbon taxes," or the sales taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes, import/export taxes, and other revenues produced by the many industries which contribute to greenhouse gases and pollution?”

At the moment those other revenues produced by those industries – at the moment. This “moment” is of high significance for the question at hand. What moment do we live in? We live in a time where humanity’s tastes have been manipulated and manufactured over the last century to ensure that Libertas’s cap has become Tantalus’s stone. Where need has long since been satisfied in the Western World new means of “adding value” to the materials of production have been required.

Look back into the demonic horticulturalist’s green house. Watch him prune and dig to ensure growth. Don’t we all raise our eyebrows when companies in the current economic climate see their share prices collapse when their profits fall? Have we grasped that often it is not the report of a loss but a report of the fall in profits which causes the panic? “We didn’t fleece people for as much as we did last year!” How to continue growth, how to ensure that profits continue to grow, how to add value to products to ensure continued purchasing – here is the sinister side of environmentalism manifest.

For decades we have been manipulated to such an extent that wants and needs have become indistinguishable but even humanity has tired of this endless cycle of purchasing. Is that bigger television or smaller mp3 player really essential? It is if it’s green. It is if it saves our children. It is if that cuddly panda that smilingly approves the product on the packaging can be saved to munch more bamboo.

We’ve grown enough corn to feed the world, we haven’t actually fed the world we’ve just fed ourselves more, but even waste lines have a limit. How can it be ensured that our crops earn more and more, make the fields into ethanol wells. We’ve sold all the earth and waters, what more can we sell? Well there’s always the air and fire indeed shall we, as President Obama urged, “harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.” [4] Strangely the continent with the most abundant “quantity” of sunlight will continue to be excluded as they continue to be distracted by the poverty and starvation that quickly follows the realization that ethanol is not as nourishing as corn.

Socratic Question #1: Is this further encroachment of capitalism into these principle elements of the earth’s resources justified on the grounds of avoiding something about which there is no certainty?

And to Pascal I answer that no, the gamble is not worth it because the rituals and rubrics of environmentalism in our capitalist world leads only to the swelling coffers of the rich and the distended stomachs of the starving here and now today.

My opponent’s discussion of hats left me anxious that s/he was confusing millenarianism and millineryism, however, I am again gratified to note our agreement that

“The governments aren’t exactly the good guys either - they’re perfectly willing to fleece the public for whatever they can get in the name of combating global warming.”

Capitalist governments can continue to grow their coffers, arm their troops, monitor our streets, police our speech in that unholy union with, and in most cases as, that capitalist elite. We will pay more for burger buns so the tax revenue can be used to subsidise ethanol which we, though already having paid for, will purchase. The government and the companies will get richer, we will have the value added to the false glow of our fast-food rush the similarly false sense that we are ethical consumers, the panda will continue to smile but the poor will scratch outside Shi Shi’s protected enclosure to find the corn capitalism would rather burn than share.

“Man made global warming” is a myth. Its development and purpose clearly follows the sociological pattern that has accompanied the construction of many culture’s mythology. As a myth it has collected to itself that potency which, manipulated by an elite, ensures the enslavement of the general populace for that elite’s own self aggrandisement. Humanity has a duty of care, a duty of stewardship, for creation beginning with their fellow human beings. The anthropogenic global warming myth does not save the planet but, and at times absolutely nakedly, misanthropically continues the oppression of the poor and voiceless, whilst deluding the consumer into parting with more money to “save a planet” rather than their brothers and sisters. It is not carbon on that velocipede that threatens the earth it is capitalism which has found a new way to keep its wheels spinning.

Wow! Are you guys as impressed as I am? My opponent really has the rhetoric rolling, doesn’t he? After the debate I’ll have to extend an invitation for him to join us in the Short Stories forum, where his talent for writing fiction will be much appreciated.

But for now, welcome back to reality.
 
In this post, we’ll learn about the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly points to human activity as the cause of accelerated global warming. But first, let’s talk a bit about tiny numbers. When looking at small percentages, we tend to dismiss them .. but let’s see how they add up.
 
Suppose we have a little planet somewhere with a climactic cycle of temperature change +/- 10 degrees every thousand years. That is to say, for 1000 years the average temperature goes up ten degrees, then for 1000 years it goes down ten degrees. No matter how long we track this for, the net effect will be zero. With me?
 
Now, suppose we add some gaseous herbivores to the planet – ok, a LOT of gaseous herbivores – which increase methane in the atmosphere and cause an average temperature increase of 1%. One little percent – a tenth of a degree. So we go up 10.1, down 10; up 10.2, down 10, up 10.3, down 10…. After 50 thousand years (the blink of an eye geographically speaking), where is our net effect? Up 5 degrees! Good grief, that’s a whopping 50% of the original cycle .. from a one percent increase in just 50 thousand years. And I used only a LINEAR increase and didn’t account for the amplification effect of other greenhouse gases such as water vapor.  So, now you see how little bitty numbers can make a big difference over time.
 
On to the evidence:
 

 
B -> C.
This chart shows us very clearly that, global average temperatures are linked to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact, over the past four hundred thousand years, during which there have been sunspots, solar flares, variations in solar activity, ice ages, volcanic eruptions, and (supposedly) at least one visit from Nibiru, what we see is that average temperatures are so tightly linked to CO2 levels that these other factors seem to be completely irrelevant. In other words, the driving factor for average global temperatures is atmospheric CO2 levels, period. Throw in volcanoes, tectonic shifts, polar shifts, solar flares & sunspots, anything you like .. it doesn’t matter, because it’s all happened before, and none of it was able to cause average temperatures to deviate from atmospheric CO2 levels.
 
Therefore, we can logically conclude that Atmospheric CO2 levels directly drive Global Average Temperatures, and that an increase in Atmospheric CO2 levels will cause a direct, corresponding increase in Global Average Temperatures.



A -> B
This second chart shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1880, and the corresponding increase in Global Average Temperatures. As I asked in my previous post, if man made emissions aren’t causing this steep increase in CO2, then what is? My opponent simply replied that he doesn’t know, which isn’t surprising. Given the evidence, there really isn’t any other logical explanation. I suspect that the expert skeptics, if they could somehow be hornswoggled into answering such a direct (and potentially embarrassing) question, would also have to reply “we don’t know.” This reminds me of the kid’s version of the 5th amendment; if the truth is going to hurt you, say “I don’t know.”

Mom: Who made this mess?
Kid: Not me.
Mom: Well, if not you, then who?
Kid: I don’t know!

Have another look at that first chart. Notice anything interesting? Although it’s not a pretty sine wave like our +10/-10 example would have been, the Net Effect over the first 350,000 + years was pretty much a big ZERO. It went up, it went down. But if you drew a line across the top spikes and the bottom spikes, both lines would be rather horizontal. That is, until human industry came along. Then all of a sudden we’re headed up, up, up ….
 
Can we really, reasonably think that this is just coincidence? In four hundred thousand years the CO2 levels never rose above 300 ppmv, then during the 150 or so years since the industrial revolution really took off, they rose from 280 ppmv to 376 ppmv (an increase of 34%!). I don’t see how anyone can logically conclude anything other than that human industry caused this sharp, drastic rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.

We now have one of the simplest of logic “equations,” a causality chain. If [A] causes [B] and [B] causes [C], then [A] causes [C].

Substituting: [Human industry] causes [an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels] and [an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels] causes [an increase in Global Average Temperatures]

Therefore, [Human industry] causes [an increase in Global Average Temperatures].

And, since [an increase in Global Average Temperatures] = [Global Warming], we have:

[Human industry] causes [Global Warming].

 Socratic Question #1: How can a 34% increase in CO2 levels, which has occurred over the past hundred years or so, but never previously in 400,000 years, be part of a “natural cycle”?

This is simple human logic, but our most advanced tool, the computer, agrees. Computer models of climate change using either natural or human influences alone do not match up with observed data. However, models using a combination of natural and human influences DO match. Thus, computer analysis also tells us that human activities are having a significant effect.

Based on results such as these, the IPCC's 2001 report stated emphatically that "concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities."

[1]

Opponents SQs:
1. Is this further encroachment of capitalism into these principle elements of the earth’s resources justified on the grounds of avoiding something about which there is no certainty?

Ummm ... ... No? Ok, No. What, exactly, does this have to do with our debate? We aren’t discussing the merits of possible solutions, but deciding whether or not there is a problem. It’s usually best to define the problem before beginning to evaluate potential solutions.

Rebuttals:

I must briefly pause here to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to my opponent for jumping into my little trap, feet first.

In beginning my reply to my opponent’s opening statement may I first acknowledge with gratitude the confession that:

The alarmists and activists may, indeed, be overstating the case

It looks to me like he’s agreeing with this statement. The thing is, in order for someone to be “overstating a case,” they must first have a case. I’m not expert or scientific enough to try to figure out to what extent the experts may be exaggerating the danger, but my intuition - and 50 + years of experience of human nature - tells me that they probably are. Unfortunately, the fact that they are possibly exaggerating the extent of the problem doesn’t change the fact that there is a problem. Like my Dad says, “When there’s this much smoke there’s usually a fire somewhere.”

At the moment those other revenues produced by those industries – at the moment.

Exactly. And, let’s take a brief look (I’ll go into this in more depth in my 3rd response) at what the likely result of steps to combat global warming will be. By looking at what has already been done, we can reasonably extrapolate to see how it will be handled in the future. When “we” decided to eliminate CFC’s, were laws passed to make it illegal for you to spray paint your lawn furniture? Did they come and confiscate all of your refrigerators and air conditioners? No. They targeted the companies who made products containing CFC’s and told them to use something different. If and when decisions are made to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, the focus will be on the auto manufacturers, oil refineries, coal mines, and perhaps the landfills and sewage treatment plants, etc. .. but not on the individual. Before cost-effective solutions are eventually found, big business will suffer, and so will revenues to the governments. I seriously doubt that “carbon taxes” and “carbon offsets” will make up for the lost revenues of corporate and industry taxes, income taxes from industry workers, sales taxes, etc. etc. If we really take immediate and drastic steps to combat global warming, it’s going to destroy our economic base and cause serious problems for governmental bodies responsible for water treatment, waste management, transportation, and other services we currently take for granted. It makes no sense, therefore, for “governments” to lie to us about it; corrective measures are going to hurt them more than they hurt us, especially in the beginning.

...How much of this is because of human action is still a matter of conjecture. [3]

Nice link there. I encourage all of you to take the time to read it. My opponent has omitted part of that sentence, which actually says:

How much of this is because of human action is still a matter of conjecture, but it is widely accepted to be significant.

[2]

The article goes on to explain that the satellites are to assess and evaluate CO2 sinks, natural features like oceans and rainforests which absorb CO2. This is another aspect of the impact of human activity - deforestation is taking away the Earth's ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

I do admire Heike’s use of statistics and how stylishly zealous faith is used to fill in the gaps. I thought the self-deprecating honesty of the line “I’m not expert or scientific enough” showed great courage and humility, which we can now evidently add to the list of coincidence between religious faith and climate change faith. Who’d have thought they would not only share the same modus operandi but also the same virtues? To facilitate his/her adventure into science, beyond statistics, allow me to correct the misapprehension that saying “I don’t know” is somehow dodging the “hornswoggle” or embarrassing. It is, rather, the first principle of science. “I don’t know” is indeed what motivates the wonderful human habit of discovery. Some might prefer to jump to conclusions based on a minimum of evidence, science will always caution us to hold back until all the data has become available and apparent.

Let’s look at the evidence provided by our advocate of anthropogenic global warming. Here the notion of “tiny numbers” s/he introduced us to will indeed be significant. Isn’t it marvellous to see Heike’s little charts with their alpine aspect, one can almost see an environmentalist in the roll of Bob Barker yodelling the little man up the cliff until Al Gore commands the temperature to “Come on down!” What a mighty range of peaks it is, and 400,000 years worth of data included – gosh, that’s got to be convincing! Alas, and here’s that tiny number, the graph represents, wait for it, 0.01% of the earth’s history. Now, call me picky, but I’m not inclined to accept 0.01% of the data from which conclusions are to be extrapolated as quite complete enough. What’s even more extraordinary is that of this 0.01% of data the conclusions my opponent claims as factual are based on the last 186 years that is 0.05% of 0.01% of the earth’s existence. The gall of us sceptics answering “I don’t know” when 0.05% of 0.01% of the relevant data is clearly presented for us to examine.

Of course the last 186 years are really all that’s relevant we are told because that’s roughly when the industrial revolution began. May we see a similarly detailed graph of the centuries preceding 1820 as well, just for curiosities sake? Oh no, don’t do that! Don’t look behind the curtain! Well allow me to unleash little Toto to extend that graph, though be warned the Wizard of Ozone won’t be too happy with us.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/949076b869f0.jpg[/atsimg]

In the equally statistically insignificant period of the last 1000 years the earth’s climate has oscillated between periods of relative warmth and relative cold whilst we endure the more significant trough of the current cold era of the earth’s simply enormous cycle of climate change. Now, I know the Vikings were quite beastly and even the mention of them makes the Celt in me seek high ground but did they burn enough villages to produce that leap?

The global warming zealots, though, would nod encouragingly at my decision to seek high ground, after all when the ice caps melt, the oceans rise, the catastrophes ensue we’ll all be running for the hills. Which hill should we choose? Well look carefully at all the fear-mongering graphs of carbon dioxide levels and temperature trends, including my opponent’s, and you’ll see that since 1960 the data has been collected from Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Indeed, look carefully, the most dramatic leap on these graphs comes once Mauna Loa’s data began to be included in the presentation of the data. What crisp and pristine area of our globe these clever analysts must have chosen for this vital evidence? One can imagine the pineapple farm with little sensors placed discretely among the plants as the daiquiri quaffing researcher collects the data. Imagine the image of this tropical and pure paradise which alas, the data clearly shows, is not even immune from the horrid consequences of our environmental sins. In fact painting a mental picture of this paradise isn’t enough, bandwidth be damned, here’s a picture of Mauna Loa….

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ec62188f734.jpg[/atsimg]

Oh. Well, like my dad says “when there’s this much carbon dioxide about there’s usually a volcano somewhere.”

Of course, prior to the data from Mauna Loa information is established by examining ice cores and, despite what we’re told, we needn’t fear about that source drying up soon as glaciers rather than shrinking seem to have decided to contradict current “facts” and have decided to grow. [1]

The evidence from which the myth of man made global warming is extrapolated is so infinitesimally small compared to the total required data set that to draw conclusions and assert them as fact is entirely unscientific. When one takes the broadest possible view from the data that is actually available the best supposition is that our climate is continuing on its own inscrutable cycle of warming and cooling – and please remember what I stated earlier we are actually in one of the earth’s cool periods.

To claim otherwise reminds me of the kid’s version of the 16th amendment [2]: if the facts are missing just claim it anyway.

The 16th Amendment has a particular significance beyond this little analogy in that it is that which enables the federal government of the US to do that which other capitalist states have come to rely on – the power to lay and collect taxes on income. My opponent chose to suggest that my Socratic question about solutions was irrelevant,

What, exactly, does this have to do with our debate? We aren’t discussing the merits of possible solutions, but deciding whether or not there is a problem.

S/he evidently forgot this as s/he proceeded to discuss at some length the solutions, citing historical precedent and, indeed, promising to return to the subject despite claiming its irrelevance:

And, let’s take a brief look (I’ll go into this in more depth in my 3rd response) at what the likely result of steps to combat global warming will be.

I commend this attempt to call something irrelevant and then use it to support that which is claimed and advocated. It shows devotion not only to the cause of man-made Global warming but its techniques. Remember a wet summer is “weather” it isn’t climate so its irrelevant but individual hurricanes and bush fires are? Heaven forbid we should have a warm summer, clearly we’ll all be doomed. So the solutions to the imagined problem are irrelevant except, well, when they are!

My interlocutor couples this inconsistency with naïveté,

If we really take immediate and drastic steps to combat global warming, it’s going to destroy our economic base and cause serious problems for governmental bodies responsible for water treatment, waste management, transportation, and other services we currently take for granted. It makes no sense, therefore, for “governments” to lie to us about it.

The good old USA may not yet have exercised its constitutional right to impose taxes as it wishes but we poor shivering souls in Europe now enjoy very few services we can take for granted and all in the name of combating global warming. “Water treatment”? Is that what those private companies do that we pay a surcharge to for water waste? “Waste Management”? Is that what our local government does is called when we trundle up our drives with our multi-coloured wheelie bins only to find them still unemptied at the end of the day with a fine attached because we didn’t peel the paper label of our plastic bottles? “Transportation”, I know what that is! That’s the way of travelling from A-B via the environmental protection act and car and petrol taxes which promise to renew the face of the earth. Why on earth would the governments lie to us indeed? I mean it’s not as if we object to income tax on one hand and demand expensive services on the other. Why would a government try to bribe us into voting for them by cutting our income tax? Why would they then tax anything that moves or lights up to make up the shortfall to pay for those services which get people to, well, vote for them? The government lying to us - makes no sense at all.

As my reply yesterday demonstrated how and why the commercial capitalist elite used, and promulgated, the myth of man made global warming to meet their own ends let’s see how capitalist liberal democracies work. Politicians want people to vote for them, they cut their taxes, increase their “services” and entitlements, pay for those increases despite less income tax by inventing new ways to collect revenue. The myth of man made global warming has given politicians of all hues the most splendid excuse for ripping of the common people whilst appearing to be virtuous.

The myth of man made global warming has been embraced gratefully by governments and capitalists alike as it has been the greatest boon to the continuing growth of profit and revenue that both require to maintain the status quo. The general populace have suppressed their natural disbelief of the myth to maintain their own domestic status quo.

However, the truth is not democratic – if it was then the world was flat. People knew it was flat because myth filed in the blanks where the data was incomplete, it was the most obvious and logical explanation for the horizon, but once people saw more than 0.05% of 0.01% of the world’s surface they were able to not suppose the truth but see it.

Before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent did not answer the one Socratic Question I posed in my last post.

I have a friend who is a successful horror story writer. If you’re into the genre, you’d instantly recognize his pen name if I stated it. I am privileged to be on my friend’s review team, a group of a half-dozen or so people who get to read his stories (for free! ) before they are submitted to the publisher. Although he has been a professional author for over 30 years, he knows that he is only human, and humans make mistakes. Thus, we read his stories not only to catch grammatical and spelling errors, but for content and to make suggestions about plot and story flow. Just last week a major plot change was made due to a concern of mine.

Scientists and researchers use a similar system called “peer review.” In the peer review system, study results, research, conclusions, and theories are reviewed by other experts in the same field prior to being published in scientific journals or released to the public. This because, like writers, scientists are only human and humans make mistakes. The system is self-balancing since peers are generally a fairly small group of experts in a field. The guy whose work Dr. Joe is reviewing now is likely to be one of his reviewers next month. Why, then, would a scientist choose to publish findings, theories, or research without submitting them for peer review, knowing that they will be considered suspect by other scientists and professionals? Other than an impossibly large ego or considering oneself to be perfect, the most likely reason I can think of is deception. Experts in your field are much more likely to catch any deliberate errors, misrepresentations, or unsubstantiated conclusions than the general public or the media. Keep this in mind as we continue.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

[1]

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit organization which began in 1969. Its members believe that Global Warming is man made and that we need to begin reducing the production of greenhouse gases immediately.

The Woods Hole Research Center is another independent, nonprofit institute, and the source of most of the references in my previous post. Obviously, then, they also believe that GW is man made.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature.

[2]

In January of 2009, the results of a survey of 3,146 scientists conducted by the University of Illinois concluded that the vast majority (80 - 90%) of scientists surveyed agree that global warming is occurring and that “human activity has been a significant factor.”
[3]

In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

[4]

I could continue, but debate rules prohibit me from simply listing all of the organizations, universities, scientific communities, panels, and surveys which overwhelmingly show that scientists - especially climatologists - agree that global warming is man made. As we will no doubt see in my opponent’s next post, a quick Google search will turn up lots of articles about the “hundreds” of scientists and organizations who disagree.

Note, however, a few differences between these dissidents and the supporters of global warming.

1) Most of the published materials which refute global warming have not been submitted for peer review. (Here’s where you’re supposed to remember what you learned from the side trip at the beginning of this post).

2) Most of the organizations and scientists who disagree that global warming is man made are not part of international panels, independent nonprofit organizations, or recognized and respectable scientific communities.

3) A majority of the dissenting scientists are meteorologists and petroleum geologists. Meteorologists and geologists generally are not as familiar with the science of long-term climate changes as climatologists.

I think it is now quite clear that the “dissent” in the scientific community about global warming is more of a myth than man made global warming.

In my next post we’ll take a look at who’s paying these guys to reject man made global warming, and why.

Rebuttals:

400,000 years worth of data included ,,, Now, call me picky, but I’m not inclined to accept 0.01% of the data

The 400,000 years of data was only used to show how closely global average temperatures follow CO2 levels, and I think 400,000 years is enough time to show that. Besides, the Earth has gone through some really serious changes in older times. Do you really think that ages when vegetation was radically different than it is now, or ages when there wasn’t yet life and much of the Earth was covered with volcanoes, are going to be relevant? I don’t.

May we see a similarly detailed graph of the centuries preceding 1820 as well, just for curiosities sake?

You didn’t post your source for that image, but I managed to find it. Although this site itself provides little information about the the “Friends of Science Society,” a little research on my part revealed that FoS is a Canadian nonprofit funded by indirect donations from the oil industry, and that some of their funding has been cut off due to funds having been “used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change.”
[5]

This chart goes back to 900 A.D. Since the thermometer was invented by Galileo in 1593, I have to wonder how they got such precise temperature measurements going back so far? Someone’s estimates, perhaps?

here’s a picture of Mauna Loa….

Beautiful, isn’t it? I’ve actually had the opportunity to be there, to walk in the crater, and it’s very impressive. I remember the sulfur smell from the steam vents being very strong. Although my opponent means to have you thinking that the Mauna Loa observatory's data is suspect due to the proximity to a volcano, the site was carefully chosen for its altitude and access to cleaner air than could be found anywhere on the US mainland, and the data is accepted as being very accurate by the scientific community. Remember that the oceans by which the island is surrounded are the Earth’s largest CO2 sinks. Furthermore, the data from Mauna Loa is combined with that from several other sites around the world to obtain a globally averaged figure.

I commend this attempt to call something irrelevant and then use it to support that which is claimed and advocated.

I was asked, as well as I understood the question, whether the “uncertainty” of global warming justifies turning corn, a food crop, into an alternative energy source. In my response I said “no” and mentioned that our debate is about the cause of global warming, not whether a particular potential solution is “justified.” I also didn’t bother to mention that corn isn’t actually a major food crop on a global scale; it is used more for animal feed and corn oil than for human consumption.

Now, my opponent goes on to tell you that I first labeled this as irrelevant and then went on to discuss potential solutions myself. There is, however, a distinct difference. My opponent has been trying to convince you that global warming is a myth because certain parties will benefit from the steps which may be taken to counteract it. Which is kind of like saying that oceanic pollution must be a myth because someone’s going to get paid for cleaning it up. Huh? Instead of ignoring this whole line of reasoning which I find ridiculous, I addressed it because I’ve been told that “if you leave an opponent’s point unrefuted, it will stand as proven in the minds of the audience.” Hence, my excursion into explaining that “certain parties” such as governments will, in fact, be harmed by efforts to combat global warming, which makes the idea that they’re promoting global warming in order to benefit from projects to correct it rather inane. My discussion of the likely result of such projects was, therefore, specifically directed at disproving my opponent’s “theory,” not to consider the value of or justification for any such projects.

I’d like to also briefly point out that most of the programs my opponent is complaining about having to pay fees and surcharges for are intended to reduce pollution and garbage - such as plastic in landfills - and encourage recycling, NOT reduce CO2 emissions or address global warming. Thus they are, once again, irrelevant to this debate.

“I don’t know”, it’s troubling that someone who is using statistical data to give their argument a patina of scientific veracity is incapable of appreciating the foundational importance of this phrase to science. My opponent might have rushed to inform you that I did not answer a Socratic Question, however as the reader and I are aware I did. For Heike’s benefit let’s inform him/her that asking the same question twice only requires one answer. What has caused the increase in atmospheric CO2? Whatever way my opponent asks that the answer is still “I don’t know”, indeed lets involve our peers and say “We don’t know.”

There are some proposed answers for which much more data needs collating and examining before a definitive answer can be given – in this debate we are discussing the mythological aspect which I have clearly demonstrated. Science is a noble pursuit as the manifestation of the impulse to answer all the “I don’t knows” of our life. In the current age a distinction is made between those who support science and those who don’t, this demarcation is promoted particularly by zealots on either side of the ideological, note not scientific, divide. The search for truth is always threatened when any party claims dogmatically that they have already established that truth. In the science v anti-science debate the zealots from both sides have their cause celeb. The most famous of one camp is the creationist’s rejection of evolution supported by the claim that it cannot be true as it contradicts their declared truth. For the other branch of zealots anthropogenic global warming has fast become their shibboleth. The data so far available has been combined with “belief” to present the rest of society with a “with us, or against us” binary decision which contradicts the very first principle of science.

To the reader of this debate I ask you to note well some of the terminology my opponent mixes in with his/her presentation of empirical evidence. Terms such as “believe” do not belong in science and those who ask questions, sceptics, are not as my opponent calls them called “dissidents” they are called “scientists.” All too quickly the notion of man-made global warming has taken on all the qualities of a mythological faith. Something is noticed, an explanation is proposed, the explanation is declared as “truth”, hierarchies are appealed to, questioning is discouraged, questioners are maligned and “excommunicated.”

My opponent proceeds to support his/her faith in man made global warming by citing sources, the weight of who’s authority it is imagined should silence any “dissent.” Unfortunately this appeal to authority leaves us with more questions than answers. Let’s look at my opponents descriptions of these sources and ask ourselves does their “authority” mean we should ask them no questions, or, ask them even more with a healthy scepticism with regard to their independence?

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment,"
…
clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme,
…
In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty

(My favourite of those is the last one, unanimous once meant 100%) The White House, Intergovernmental Panel, policymakers and the United Nations – all organisations which are beyond reproach?

But who am I to contradict “The Union of Concerned Scientists... Its members believe that Global Warming is man made” if they believe it no wonder they are “concerned.”

My opponent has given us a description of “peer review” and shared his/her experience of reviewing “horror stories”. A useful analogy as the man made global warming establishment exclude from the ranks of their “peers” those who question their horror filled findings, those people my opposite number in this debate calls “dissidents.”

With bell, candle and journal my opponent proceeds to pronounce the reasons for their excommunication, all unsourced but nicely numbered. We even hear that many of them are not members of “recognized and respectable scientific communities,” I suppose they must wait their opportunity to be anointed by the White House, the United Nations or some other “intergovernmental organisation.” To be a member of any of these groups requires submission to the dogmatic proclamations of those organisations hierarchies – is it surprising they have been refused membership? The oldest identifying feature of an establishment is thus embraced.

In lauding the sources of his/her position my opponent directly supports my contention that the man made global warming myth is promulgated by an establishment that is interwoven with the political and capitalist elite.

Another ploy is to denigrate one’s opponent as somehow foolish, implicit in all the comments against the sceptical is an implication that if they don’t agree they are somehow foolish. In keeping with this methodology my opponent asks:
“This chart goes back to 900 A.D. Since the thermometer was invented by Galileo in 1593, I have to wonder how they got such precise temperature measurements going back so far? Someone’s estimates, perhaps?”
Unfortunately I must ask that s/he accepts such measurements are not estimates but derived from the same sources as the 400,000 years worth liberally employed in his/her replies so far. My argument is never with the naked data itself but the conclusions that are drawn from it.

The intellect is hobbled more by belief than by scepticism. I would call no-one foolish but ask everyone to consider how they employ their intellectual capacity to question and establish the facts in so far as they can be apprehended. My opponent, undoubtedly captivated by zeal, misunderstood my question: “Is this further encroachment of capitalism into these principle elements of the earth’s resources justified on the grounds of avoiding something about which there is no certainty?” as: “whether the “uncertainty” of global warming justifies turning corn, a food crop, into an alternative energy source.”

S/he then goes on to make the extraordinary statement: “I also didn’t bother to mention that corn isn’t actually a major food crop on a global scale; it is used more for animal feed and corn oil than for human consumption.” Limiting one’s peer group really does limit one’s range of experience and understanding, my opponent clearly has enjoyed too much company with the capitalist elite of the western world as they promulgate their myth and not noticed than corn is a dietary staple of people in South America, Africa and the livestock throughout the world that many depend on.

The myth of man made global warming does this, it cuts off the rest of the world as we obsess about our own existence and views them as a threat to the economic status quo in keeping with the infamous NSSM 200 authored by Henry Kissinger [1] The west condemns the rest of the world to remain in its poverty enjoying the benefits of its own industrial revolution whilst determinedly stifling the developing worlds own opportunity to do so. For this reason the single most important resource in economic development is being threatened and hindered in its growth by the machinations of the western capitalist elite – population. Keep the developing world economically backward and deprived of its work force and the status quo may continue. The ascent of the myth of man-made global warming promises to be a great boon to this scheme as we now hear some of those lauded “policymakers” seriously suggest population control as beneficial to the protection of the environment and a check, if not cure, for the invented problem. It’s an obvious solution, if global warming is man made then reduce the source. Here the myth’s analogy with zealous religious faiths is showing itself so nakedly it is utterly amazing that everyone does not realize it yet. Having fought tooth and nail to get religion out of our bedrooms environmentalists are now replacing them with their own code of morals for the same purpose of control.

Wouldn’t it serve my cause better to include my own counter “facts” to give an opposite view and interpretation to Heike’s? If you dear reader are asking this then know you are in the good company of my own self. However, this latest exchange demonstrates that engaging in such a dual of statistics is futile when dealing with the zeal of the advocates of anthropogenic global warming. It is impossible for them to resist ad hominem dismissals of the alternate theories. This in itself is something which supports my case in demonstrating the cultic, mythological milieu in which these advocates exist. To coin a phrase “resistance is futile” against a myth which has infiltrated all strata’s of society from top to bottom. That “top” enjoys watching the effect of their machinations as every aspect of our lives begins to come under the influence of the myth. Were that it only concerned what we drove, even if it only had grown so far as to leech from us some extra money in our spending patterns but now we see it begins to filter into the most intimate aspects of our lives and enables the continuance of the impoverishment and oppression of the developing world.

I am proving it is a myth, not by fencing with numbers, but by setting out the progression of its development from a theory based on incomplete understanding to an all encompassing zeitgeist. From your breakfast table to your bedroom routine through all that happens in your daily life a theory based on 0.05% of 0.01% of the relevant data threatens to assert control.

In the controversy over Global Warming, there are two basic possibilities. One is that man made global warming is a myth, and certain groups are trying to convince us that it is real for their benefit. The other is that man made Global Warming is real, and certain groups are trying to convince us that it is a myth for their benefit.

In my last couple of posts, we’ve already had a look at how the most likely efforts to counteract global warming are going to harm the global economy as well as national economies and cause serious problems for the people - mostly governments and public agencies - who are responsible for providing public services such as waste management, water treatment, and public transportation.

The idea that projects to combat global warming will be used to assess taxes, charge fees, and control individuals, and that these will offset the losses from curtailing the oil, gas, coal, mining, automobile manufacturing, waste management, transportation, shipping, construction, and other industries is less than compelling. Historically we know that efforts to reduce other types of pollution such as CFC’s, water pollution, and even the campaigns against smoking focus on corporations, businesses, and public agencies, not on individuals. It is not reasonable to think that efforts to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will be different.

If, on the other hand, we look at who benefits from convincing the public that global warming is not man made, it is a more interesting - and convincing - picture.

The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth. They have funded, promoted, and used as witnesses a handful of greenhouse skeptics, who have widely and loudly proclaimed that global warming is a myth.

[1]

Let’s take a brief look at a few of the major “skeptic” organizations.

The Global Climate Coalition was originally funded by British Petroleum, DaimlerChrysler, Texaco, and General Motors as well as other corporations.

The George Marshall Institute and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, funded by private sources, mass mailed a petition to reject the Kyoto Protocol to thousands of scientists. The included materials, although formatted to mimic a scientific journal, had not been peer reviewed or even previously published. GMI has received at least $470,000 from ExxonMobil.

Science and Environment Policy Project - funded by Forbes, the Reverend Sung Myung Moon’s Unification Church, and conservative foundations.

Greening Earth Society - tightly linked to the Western Fuels Association, a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the Western U. S.

American Enterprise Institute - a pro-business, neo-conservative, right-wing think tank which has received $955,000 in funding from ExxonMobil.

The Cooler Heads Coalition is closely tied to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both are industry-friendly and opposed to government regulations of industry and trade. CEI has received at least $1,310,000 in funding from ExxonMobil.

[3](Source of ExxonMobil funding figures.)

ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

[2]

On the “they want you to think it’s real” side, we have some mostly hypothetical claims about carbon taxes, carbon offsets, population control, extra fuel taxes, needing a license to have a child, etc.

On the “they want you to think it’s a myth” side, we have the companies, huge corporations, and businesses who have already proven that their profit margin trumps our well-being. They aren’t even really deceitful about their purpose; they admit they’re out to make a buck or 2 million, in a capitalist society it’s all good, right?

However, we also know they aren’t above hiding or misrepresenting the truth in order to keep being able to make those profits, whether it hurts people or not. Coal mining, oil extraction, automobile manufacturing, construction (think asbestos) and the tobacco industry are just a few of the industries who have proven, more than once, that they are willing to sacrifice people for money. These are the folks who stand to lose the most if we start trying to reduce greenhouse gases and fight global warming, and these are the people who are funding and promoting the global warming skeptics.

Which scenario do you think is more likely?

Rebuttals:

asking the same question twice only requires one answer.

Asking where the CO2 is coming from and asking how an unprecedented 34% increase in CO2 levels could be part of a “natural” cycle are not the same question. Nevertheless, let us assume that my opponent answered “I don’t know” again. It does not concern me if my opponent really doesn’t know the answer - after all, he isn’t a scientist either. What does concern me is that people who should know also claim not to. This “I don’t know,” however, is not the genuine admittance of lack of knowledge that leads to scientific inquiry, but the “I don’t know” which denies the truth; the “I don’t know” which is a refusal to admit that the facts as presented are correct. We do, in fact, know where the CO2 is coming from; it’s coming from human industry. Anyone who refuses to admit that truth, however, is left with no other answer except “I don’t know.” We have satellites which can pinpoint the origin of atmospheric gases down to one power plant or one landfill; claiming “not to know” where this CO2 is coming from is patently ridiculous.

Terms such as “believe” do not belong in science

I must be doing well if all you can find to disagree with is my choice of words. I could just as easily have used “agree” or “concur” or “support.” It’s just a word choice. The point is that their expert scientific analysis of the evidence leads them to conclude that human activity is having a significant impact on global warming.

not as my opponent calls them called “dissidents” they are called “scientists.”

Is this all my opponent can find on which to base his argument? A dissident is “one who disagrees.” Since they disagree with the majority assessment of global warming, I think “dissident” describes them perfectly.

(My favourite of those is the last one, unanimous once meant 100%)

And it still does. 100% of the climate experts linked the increase of average global temperatures to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases with 90 percent certainty. It helps if one understands what is actually being said before trying to ridicule it.

measurements are not estimates but derived from the same sources as the 400,000 years worth liberally employed in his/her replies so far.

Doesn’t work, sorry. The 400,000 year figures came from ice core analysis. The nature of ice core analysis makes it useful for producing charts which cover long (millennial) periods of time, but it is presently not considered to be useful for detailing temperature variations over shorter periods of time, such as 100 years. This is why the only reliably accurate detailed charts for a 100 or 200 year time period are for years since humans have been recording temperature. And that is why a reliable “similarly detailed graph of the centuries preceding 1820” is not available (unless you count the one provided by a questionable organization which is known to present biased data).

In response to my opponent’s tirade about my supposed ignorance of other peoples’ diets and the “western capitalist elite” basis for the theory of global warming, I have only this to say: This is not an ethical question, nor a social question. It’s a scientific question. Either human activities are increasing CO2 levels and global average temperatures in excess of natural variations, or they aren’t, and the truth will be found in scientific facts, nowhere else.

It’s an obvious solution, if global warming is man made then reduce the source.

Population is not the source. Industry is the source. Oil refineries, coal mines, manufacturing plants .. these are the CO2 sources that will need to be controlled, not people. Who’s using scare tactics here? Population control measures would be a staggeringly ineffective way to address global warming.

My opponent also spent a good bit of his word count addressing the issue of “reputable” or “respectable” scientists. Apparently he thinks any scientist is as good as any other and we should believe all of them. Really? There are scientists who think the Earth is expanding, scientists who can “prove” that Nibiru is approaching, scientists who believe that our universe is a giant hologram, and scientists who believe in a hollow Earth. Do you really want to eliminate the peer review system and the scientific “establishment” and accept all scientific theories as having equal validity? Didn’t think so.

In my concluding statement I would like to thank again the moderators and organisers of this tournament – my initial foray into the realm of online debate has been thoroughly enjoyable and challenging. My thanks to the readers of this particular debate, I hope it has been as enlightening for you as it has proven to be for myself.

I thank too my opponent for his/her dedication to the debate and for his/her contribution to the impact of my argument. Your generosity to this neophyte has been noted and is appreciated.

Even in your last reply you have supported my previous claim that the advocates of man made global warming seek to impose a binary “with us or against us” decision upon the general populace.

In the controversy over Global Warming, there are two basic possibilities. One is that man made global warming is a myth, and certain groups are trying to convince us that it is real for their benefit. The other is that man made Global Warming is real, and certain groups are trying to convince us that it is a myth for their benefit.

I know writing this must have caused you a considerable degree of angst when considered in reference to your stated reliance upon the scientific method. That engaging in this debate has obliged you to represent that position which proclaims as truth what can best be called assumptions based on 0.05% of 0.01% of the relevant data must have caused some pain to your rational nature.

No-one will have missed the continuance of your generosity in announcing to us that the data of the last 100 or so years is an unsound basis for making the leap to proclaiming global warming is man made given the fact that:

it is presently not considered to be useful for detailing temperature variations over shorter periods of time, such as 100 years.

Thus denied the opportunity of comparison or a “control” time span it would indeed be foolish to leap to the conclusion that this current infinitesimally small period of time relative to the age of the earth, or even the last 400,000 years, can conclusively determine or prove the man made global warming myth.

My opponent’s last reply has indeed been filled with more such generous proofs of the mythological nature of “man-made global warming”, presented under the almost impenetrable disguise of advocating such an irrational and unscientific tale. For this Heike must be commended for so convincingly representing this position, though I confess to be slightly embarrassed that s/he has gone so far out of the way to assist me.

It was, after all, only in my last reply that I pointed out how the zealous advocates of anthropogenic global warming persistently use ad hominem to question the virtue of sceptical “dissidents” and how gracious of Heike to demonstrate this in his/her lengthy representation of the character assassination of these individuals which is utterly unscientific, founded rather in the manipulative methodology of politics and the capitalist elite. If your own position is untenable attack your opponent to distract from their message. I am so pleased to note that rather than attacking me Heike has chosen instead to represent so fully the truth of my charge – this is further proof of Heike’s support for my position and how difficult it must have been for him/her to adopt the opposing position for the purpose of this debate, again s/he needs commending.

I will embarrass Heike no more by praising his/her generosity to me in the course of this debate and in conclusion summarise what I have proven with his/her support.

Look at the sun; look at it day after day from the window of the Papal Palace in Rome at the turn of the 17th Century. It’s perfectly clear that the sun is moving while we remain stationary. We may not have the capacity to look at the rest of our solar system or galaxy but from the 0.05% of the 0.01% of experience and information necessary to draw any conclusions about the movements of the heavens it’s quite clear that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it. Some will object and tell us we are not looking at the full picture but they are “dissidents” who contradict what we “believe” to be true. Jump forward a few centuries and we are no longer in Rome – it wasn’t the centre of the universe after all – we’re on Mauna Loa squinting at our instruments through the haze of sulphurous steam vents. Our experience and information is extremely limited but conclusions have been reached, belief has been mixed in and any who disagree are dissidents. This time though it’s not these sceptics who are to be burned it’s everyone who doesn’t listen to the “truth” and condemns themselves to the material apocalypse of “man-made global warming.”

In proving that “man-made global warming is a myth” I have focussed on the aspect of myth – showing how the proposition has rapidly drawn to itself all the qualities and characteristics of myth as experienced throughout human history.

From the first rational thoughts of our species natural phenomenon have become clothed in myth according to the spirit of the day, myths that have revelled in the promise of apocalypse if disobeyed. In the materialist world in which we currently find ourselves the same natural impulse has elevated the limited experience of “global warming” to the level of myth with its own material apocalypse. Once a notion based on limited experience is declared a “truth” it is not long before it attracts a hierarchy which decides who’s opinion is to be considered worthy and those who disagree are to be isolated and castigated as “dissidents” clothed in whatever represents evil in their time. The general populace applauds the punishment of these reprobates and is feed their humiliation to affirm the truth of the myth and distract them from the greedy hands of that hierarchy reaching further into their pockets to collect the richness that supports their power.

The myth of man made global warming has utilized fully the advances in the means of communication to promulgate their message quicker than any missionary of the past. Politicians, businesses, the arts have all been employed to inform the world of its impending doom unless it submits and complies with its demands. We have seen how business uses the notion of man-made global warming to “add value” to those products we began to tire of. We have seen how governments have used the myth to take our money and buy our votes. We have seen how these two groups, the capitalist elite, have combined to stifle economic growth in developing countries. We have begun to see how the myth has infected society with enough zeal to readmit moral authorities into the bedroom – the Pope has become a Porritt. On this point, lest anyone think I was scaremongering earlier, allow me to quote one of the British Government’s environmental advisors and a long term man-made global warming advocate (and personal friend of the Prince of Wales)

Absolutely love the new campaign from the Optimum Population Trust do your bit for addressing climate change by having fewer children – or even no children.
The Chinese government calculates that since the introduction of the One Child Family Policy in the early 80s, at least 400 million births have been averted.
Each Chinese citizen today emits an average of 3.5 tonnes of CO2 every year. Multiply the one (400 million) by the other (3.5 tonnes per annum), and you get a figure of 1.4 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. By a million miles, that’s the biggest single CO2 abatement achievement since Kyoto came into force.[1]

Mr Porritt is not alone the British Government’s Special Envoy to China, Barry Gardiner M.P. said the following in May last year:

Current emissions are around 11 tonnes per capita in the EU, 25 tonnes in the US, 5 in China and 2 in India.
This gives us 3 options for the future:
…
2. Reduce population. Something politicians in developed countries are very reluctant to discuss but which you here in China have tackled most commendably with policies that have avoided a population growth estimated at 400 million. [2]

If anyone thought Heike meant it when s/he said “This is not an ethical question, nor a social question. It’s a scientific question” and agreed with that statement, think again. China isn’t only providing us with the cute panda’s on our environmental packaging they are also supplying us with an apparently laudable method of population control.

Heike in his/her research missed this, or more likely found advocating his/her position difficult enough without having to promote this appalling encroachment into individual freedom, and said “Population control measures would be a staggeringly ineffective way to address global warming.” Those who truly adopt the position s/he has so valiantly tried to represent note, on the contrary, that it would be, globally, even more effective than the Kyoto Protocols.

At the very outset of this debate I decided that rather than engaging in an exchange of data and the theories derived from them I would focus on the myth of man-made global warming. As we have progressed I believe I have indeed shown that it is in origin, presentation and consequence indeed demonstrably a myth. The correspondence between “man-made global warming” and other historical myths has been constant and, I hope for you the reader, revealing.

If you still want to “believe” it, and that is all that you can do, then ask yourself is 0.05% of 0.01% enough to justify all that is demanded of me? Is it really enough to give others so much control over every, every, aspect of my life?

Thank you again to Supercertari for taking over as my opponent, and to our readers, judges, and mods, thank you for following along on this journey. For this, my final post, I will place my rebuttals first and put my closing, well, as the closing.

Even in your last reply you have supported my previous claim that the advocates of man made global warming seek to impose a binary “with us or against us” decision upon the general populace.

Since I clearly explained in my opening post how I intended to proceed, stating that I would show that “3) Global warming skeptics are protecting their own interests, and they are the ones using deception and “fake” science,” you tried to make it look like you predicted what I was going to do based on your “myth” theory. Good strategy for a neophyte, but unfortunately for you, this audience is too astute to fall for it.

I know writing this must have caused you a considerable degree of angst when considered in reference to your stated reliance upon the scientific method.

Your concern for my emotional well-being is commendable, but misplaced. My reliance is not upon the scientific method as much as it is upon facts, and logic, and the truth. Logic says that there are only two possibilities: either human impact on global warming is real, or it isn’t. It didn’t bother me in the least to write out simple truth.

the data of the last 100 or so years is an unsound basis for making the leap to proclaiming global warming is man made given the fact that: it is presently not considered to be useful for detailing temperature variations over shorter periods of time, such as 100 years.

Apparently you don’t rely on logic as much as I do. For the last few hundred years, we have human observations of temperature to rely on. For periods prior to that, we are able to look at the long-term variations using ice core analysis. The 400,000 year overview makes it clear that there have not been any big “spikes” in CO2 levels such as we are currently experiencing in that time, and the more detailed records since humans began observing and recording temperatures tell us that the current pattern has not occurred in the past 2 or 3 centuries. Looking at both together, it is clear that the current sharp increases in CO2 levels and temperatures are anomalous, and best explained by the action of human industry.

It was, after all, only in my last reply that I pointed out how the zealous advocates of anthropogenic global warming persistently use ad hominem to question the virtue of sceptical “dissidents” and how gracious of Heike to demonstrate this

You informed us that global warming advocates do what I had already said that I was going to do in my opening. Perhaps you thought that I would change my strategy because of your “prediction” and you could then have pointed out how I didn’t do what I said I was going to do. Either way, you had something to accuse me of. Not bad.

it’s quite clear that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it. Some will object and tell us we are not looking at the full picture but they are “dissidents” who contradict what we “believe” to be true.

Yes, the advances of scientific knowledge do take us through cycles. At first the scientists who have come up with a new theory are the dissidents, and then as the majority come to accept the theory, those who cling to the old theory become the dissidents. At first those who insisted that the Earth is round were the dissidents, and after the truth became undeniable, the few who still believed in a flat Earth became the dissidents. When global warming was first discovered, the scientists who proposed it were in the minority. As other scientists checked the facts and tested the hypothesis, the validity of it became clear, and now those scientists who first opposed the “establishment” have become the majority, the “establishment,” themselves, and those who refuse to accept the facts put before them are the dissidents. That’s just how it works.

China isn’t only providing us with the cute panda’s on our environmental packaging they are also supplying us with an apparently laudable method of population control.

China has had its population controls in place for far longer than the global warming theory has been around, and for different reasons. Population control addresses the belief that we are using up the Earth’s resources and approaching a point at which the Earth will not have sufficient resources to support the human population. This is an entirely separate issue from global warming. Some people are now using global warming to make population control seem more reasonable and acceptable, but your argument ignores the fact that the real purpose of population control has nothing to do with global warming. People just living and going about their daily business, especially in countries where everyone doesn’t have a car, are not making significant contributions to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As I have pointed out over and over again, it is industry, the oil refineries and the coal mines and the manufacturing plants, which are producing the CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

The correspondence between “man-made global warming” and other historical myths has been constant

I suppose you are using the definition of myth that says “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution,” since none of the others make sense in this context. Unfortunately, this particular definition of a myth refers to stories that people make up in order to justify something they are already doing. In other words, the social institution precedes the myth, and the myth becomes the “good” reason for the institution, not vice versa. That doesn’t work, since concerns about observed increases in global average temperatures came first.

Closing Statement

How many people have you ever heard say “I don’t like change?” It seems to be human nature to resist change and protect the status quo, even in the face of evidence that the proposed changes are going to be “good for us.”

The status quo is an industrial, technological society which depends heavily on fossil fuels, manufacturing, urban population centers, and short-sighted methods of waste management. If we are to stop or reverse global warming, much of that will have to change. We’ll have to get serious about cars that don’t run on gasoline, wind and solar power, recycling, localizing production and distribution to minimize shipping, and so on. In short, we’ll have to make a lot of changes to the way we live.

It’s not a pleasant prospect; in fact, for many of us it’s probably a scary prospect. How much more comforting it is to believe that man made global warming is a myth and we don’t really need to do anything about it. We can maintain the status quo and continue our industrial, fossil-fuel powered lifestyles and the planet will take care of itself like it always has.

The oil, gas, coal, automobile, manufacturing, and other industries are banking on it; on your resistance to change, and your desire to stick with the status quo. In fact, they’ll be banking the profits they make off of you and me right up until they run out of fossil fuels, or until the oceans rise up and swallow their plants and mines and oil wells.

The tobacco moguls laughed all the way to the bank while people were getting sick and dying, and the fossil fuel moguls will do the same before they tell us how sorry they are that they were “mistaken,” and then disappear to the retreats they prepared for themselves while they were telling us there was no danger.

Scientists are just as human as the rest of us, and more than once we’ve seen that scientists can be bribed to tell us whatever the man with the money wants us to hear. The question we need to answer is, which scientists are trying to tell us the truth, and which are being paid to tell us lies? If we “follow the money,” the answer is obvious. While organizations like the IPCC, the National Science Academies, and the EPA are openly receiving some public and governmental funding, the skeptic organizations are receiving millions of dollars in covert funding from the oil, gas, and coal industries among others.

The Earth is a marvelous conglomerate of many balanced ecosystems and cycles, and we have seen over and over again how fragile some of these systems are, and how easily humans can disrupt them. The carbon cycle is one such amazing system; animals take in oxygen and produce CO2, plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen. Decomposition, forest fires, volcanoes, and other natural events produce CO2, and forests, rain forests, and oceans absorb CO2. Human industry is upsetting this balance by producing CO2 in excess of what natural CO2 sinks are able to absorb and by destroying some of the natural CO2 sinks. Thus atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and since global average temperatures follow CO2 levels, the Earth is warming up. These are observed and measurable facts and there’s nothing mythical about them.

We have a Winner Folks

Supercertari/Heike

I would like to start by saying what an amazing job by both fighters. You both performed admirably and it is a shame one of you must lose.

The whole debate was a fascinating contrast of styles. SC used rhetoric with a smattering of external material while Heike relied on the overwhelming amount of literature available on the subject for both defence of her premise and the knocking down of the AGW sceptics.

Both fighters used their openings to frame where they were going to take their given sides. SC showed us that with AGW, you have to have some belief in the matter and Heike showed us that we don't need belief, we just need to look at the facts presented. Both are interesting tactics and they had me moving back and forth between agreeing with both fighters throughout the debate.

I thought heikes showing that a lot of the organizations that try and debunk AGW get their funding from the very companies that have the most to lose from a consensus on man made GW was expected but powerful.

I also found Supercertari's use of the similarities between the clergy of the Middle Ages and the scientists of today to be the same. Expected but powerful, especially in the way he framed it.

The debate of the validity of the collection of data was a strong decider for me in this debate. I thought SC's refutation of the use of instruments so close to a volcano as being an accurate measurement of CO2 was well done. Heike's rebuttal that the peaks of Hawaii are a good place for this data collection and are in fact only part of the data used as an aggregate of Global CO2 concentrations was the perfect come back.

Another point that was a big deciding factor was the use of the 400,000 year data set. Sc's claim that it was only such a short frame of reference on the geological scale was good but heike's come back that the data, represented in the graphs presented, showed a good basis for average CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere and that the sharp rise in the last few hundred years since the Industrial Revolution was very telling.

Supercertari's missed answer and subsequent claim that it was the same question lost him some points. A straight answer to this may have proven to be a clincher for him but the non reply really hurt.

In the end, although an extremely close debate, I have to declare Heike the winner. Congratulations to both of these immensely talented fighters and I hope to see Supercertari compete again in the debate forum, as I believe after reading his first debate,three times I may add as it was that hard to chose a winner, he could be a formidable opponent for any fighter currently active.

Winner- Heike

Opening;

Supercertari-
Makes an eloquent opening statement. And begins setting the stage for his/her argument.

Heike- jumps right into the debate and begins case
building. Slight edge for Heike in opening.

Round One;

Supercertari- Begins a long, quite eloquent, but slightly overly flowery argument. The argument is so embellished that often one has to back track through the illustrations to recall the point. A tad too much of a good thing. He/she begins to lay out a possible motive for a myth of global warming, and an argument that humans are predisposed to blind belief, (as promised in opening) but offers only this as evidence;



It is believed that atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million to around 370 parts per million since the start of the Industrial Revolution. How much of this is because of human action is still a matter of conjecture. [3]


However there is a problem with this statement. It doesnt really support the argument that humans are not causing global warming. However it is up to Heike to pick that up.

Heike- presents us with the smoking gun of scientific evidence of human caused CO2 increase. The ice core data. However Heike goes on to overstate her case a tad by insisting that correlation equals causation. It is strong evidence of that, and provides us with a good probability, but it is not definitive proof.
Heike does catch out the problem with S.'s evidence from the Economist by pointing out he/she has altered the sentence. Round one to Heike.

Round two;

Supercertari; counters with a graph of his/her own. This graph is lof Europe, so it is a comparison of apples to oranges. Heike has to catch that however, not I. He/she also tries to correlate the high CO2 levels recorded at Mauna Loa to volcanic activity, and declines to address the ice core data, instead taking the opportunity to argue that glaciers are not melting but growing. He/she also declines to answer Heike's Socratic question. S. ends his/her argument again building the motive for governments to use global warming to justify charging us more for everything.

Heike- Immediately points out the missed Socratic question. However, in the rebuttal portion of Heike's post, she misses that the graph provided by S. is of Europe, where hers is not. And misses the apples and oranges rebuttal. But Heike does counter the volcano argument nicely. Heike also points out that S.'s case is largely one of presenting motive.


My opponent has been trying to convince you that global warming is a myth because certain parties will benefit from the steps which may be taken to counteract it. Which is kind of like saying that oceanic pollution must be a myth because someone’s going to get paid for cleaning it up.


Which IS important. Pointing out that someone has a motive to commit a crime is NOT the same as proving that that someone in fact committed the crime. It was wise of Heike to address that. Round two to Heike.

Round three;

Supercertari- tries to convince us that the Socratic question was answered. It was not. It required a second "I dont know" if that was to be the answer. It needs to be addressed directly. Supercertari makes an odd point about unanimity meaning 100%, but the 90% referred to certainty, not the percentage of scientists who agreed to the 90% certainty. He/she also uses the one piece of evidence Heike did not successfully rebut, (the graph of temperature in Europe) again. Heike made an error by attacking the idea of measuring temperature accurately rather than bringing up the apples and oranges rebuttal.

Heike- continues with her case. She also catches the issue S. brings up about the unanimity question. She then questions the graph of temperature of Europe again, on slightly different grounds and does a better job of rebutting it. Heike again takes the round.

Closing;

Supercertari- attempts to use Heikes latest rebuttal of the European temperature graph as proof that we cannot predict short term (modern) effects of humans on the climate, but is missing that the data that is showing an exponential increase is not of temperature in modern times, but CO2 concentration. He/she failed to grab their best weapon in this debate, the fact that one cannot prove that CO2 concentration is the cause of temperature increase, but is only tightly correlated to it.

Heike- doesnt quite completely rebut the argument S. brings up that the data in her graph shows a spike in CO2, as she herself includes temperature into the mix. Whereas that data does not yet show a temperature spike to match the CO2 spike.

Summary-

It was a very difficult position for Supercertari to have to defend and unfortunately, the strategy chosen was just not workable. It was creative, and eloquent, but not enough. Supercertari missed his/her best opportunity to nullify the Ice core data by not picking up on the correlation/cause fallacy that Heike introduced. That single issue was in this judges opinion the best route to take once the ice core data was presented. After all, we have the higher CO2 levels, but not yet the corresponding temperatures. Heike could have argued that temp lags CO2, but could not have proven it.
Supercertari could have argued that the CO2 rises because of the temp. increase, rather than the other way around, and that the current increase in CO2 would not result in a matching temperature increase.

Both sides made some tactical errors, both sides presented good arguments, in this debate, however the weight of evidence was on Heike's side and

Supercertari's strategy simply did not hold up against the data. Allowing Heike the correlation=cause point proved to be fatal. Very good job by both debaters nonetheless.

Conclusion; Debate goes to Heike.

Heike is the Winner and will advance..

Congratulations