To say climate change is manmade isn't exactly to be true. As many others have stated on here it is a naturally occurring process and has been for all of known life. Yes we manufacture cars and such which produces even more nitrates and carbon emissions into the air, but as Rivers suggested earlier this would have happened anyways. Yes, maybe it would't have happened by the industrial revolutin, but who is to say Our known Mother Earth wouldn't have come up with some other way to make this happen? We can never truly know. Now I know the arguement focuses on whether or not this is man-made and I'm standing here essentially claiming it really isn't completely our fault, but if you read the first couple sentences with great care you may not help but find yourself seeking truth in my words if you, as well, are even a bit of a believer in fate. Plus every thing we do in life and make is all natural. Every chemical and just EVERTHING in general essentially all narrows down to Earth. Also, who is to say that climate change is a bad thing. What if this is what is going to, in turn make Earth a better place. Maybe our time has come to end, and another to begin in our place.

climate has been changing drastically since there was life. Now I'm not saying humans aren't maybe speeding it up or affecting it, but for the most part i would say its a natural occurrence.

The argument that should actually be made is this: whether climate change if man made is antagonistic to the state of nature or if humans should be optimistic about this incoming and present change. But then if it is just natural causes, than we can only expect nature to change as nature needs.

While no one can go against the facts that say humans do have an effect on CO2 levels on the planet. Our total effect on Climate Change is only 0.28% of the total. It is proven that most Climate Change is produced by nature(animals and the water cycle) and agriculture. So we should not blame this on factories, cars, and fossil fuels, but I think we should find a better way of farming that gives off less Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide.

I believe that climate change is not just all human made. It is a natural process that equals itself out. We do play a small role in climate change, but not big enough to make a drastic change in the world. Yes there are some small changes that have been appearing here and there in the world lately, but those will take care of themselves. That is what the world is made to do. The earth is self cleansing.

I've seen a few references to God on this prevalent issue. Though I don't fully disagree nor agree with his existence, I do find it peculiar how we twist the words of the bible and/or of God him(it)self. If such an existence is to be, then how are we to know the true ways. In no way do we hear from this prevailing force the words set upon us. We are only given our minds to comprehend things into our own viewpoints. So even if we are to hear the true words from this Ultimate Force won't we just make our individual interpretations rather than what was initially intended from the Creator. So how can one expect our minds to fully develop the knowledge of the truest comprehendance on each word thrown upon us.

Now even if certain individuals viewpoints on God is to be of physical form, then I still have yet to argue. Many supporters of God claim that climate change is, in fact, man-made. So if that's to be true in your eyes, then aren't you contradicting your "own" beliefs? You say God created us, yet we are the ones at fault for worldly issues. Doesn't it, in turn, break down to Gods fault. After all, he is the one who made the decision to bring us into form.

For those of you looking for certain biblical quotes to refer to, here you are---> http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-creation-1-quotes-to- study/

The argument for and against climate change is unneeded and should be headed onto other pressing 'conflicts.' The choice of this debater for choosing "climate change is false" is merely to aggravate the others, who as a majority will inevitably choose the prospective thesis. "Climate change is false" presumably has no chance at overcoming the anti-humanism of the opposing side, so the best that can be offered as 'evidence' for this side of this debate is precise rhetoric-- informal logic versus empirical evidence.

The view that will be upheld in this dialectician's side of the debate has inadvertently been stated in the first segment of this stated 'argument.' It is therefore the oppositions job to make a discovery of what was indirectly made as the argument and defend against the initial thesis-- become the antithetical force you know that you are!

The question asks "Is Climate Change Man Made?" We have already stated with multiple facts that Climate Change has been happening for millions of years. So as proven, Climate Change is NOT man made. We have added to it, but we did not create it.

Climate change is not man made and is a scam. First of all the earths temperature hasn't increased for more than 20 years and if global warming was everything people make it out to be, the temperature should be sky rocketing. Many predictions about things that would happen would because of global warming have already been proven wrong, such as Al Gore predicting that all glaciers would be melted by 2013.

Not that this is an agreement nor an argument but I have something to say. We have both stated the facts and opinions but are missing another point. Not to say that climate change is not man made or is man made but to say it is, in a way, machine made. When thought about, yes, these machines/factories are made by humans but they are also emitting these things themselves. I am not saying these factories and machines have a mind of there own, I am just stating. Is it really man made? It is a natural process anyways. "We" are just speeding it up. But is it really our fault? The answer is, sort of inconclusive. No, it is a natural process, but yes, "we" are releasing these toxins into the air and making it happen at a faster pace. But another question about it is, How do we fix it?

So obviously climate change does happen naturally but we as the human race ( though not all humans have contributed.) have given it a nice big push to help it move faster. The question shouldn't be, is it man made or not but, what are we doing to slow it down and is it enough.

From what the European Environment Agency has stated, I have gathered that the major way humans impact climate change is through affecting concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Two of the largest ways humans do this are: Aerosols (and more specifically chlorofluorocarbons) and the burning of fossil fuels.

I do realize that climate change does exist, however, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the surface temperature has risen about 1 Fahrenheit above the average (up to 2010). And since 1880, the average surface temperature has increased roughly 1.3 Fahrenheit. Of course, if we continue this upward climb in temperature indefinitely, it will be the end of, at the very least, the human reign of the Earth.

The use of aerosols has been severely cut back in the last 3-4 decades and in 1987, representatives from 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol which reduced the production of CFC's throughout the world.

As to the burning of fossil fuels, other alternatives are being looked into as I am sure everyone sees on the news. But it will undoubtedly take awhile for a full switch over to occur as fossil fuels provide over two-thirds of America's electricity generation (UCSUSA).

http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/how-do-human-activities-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-do-they-compare-with-natural-influences

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels#.Vl8Di4BOoqV

I believe climate change isn't man made, but is a cycle (this is an opinion, not a statement or fact btw) as scientists have seen through many plants and elements (Ice, water, the atmosphere's "air" made up of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and Carbon Dioxide) that at different large amounts of time there has been really high levels of CO2 and then many many decades later the CO2 level drops again bringing back ice and colder weather in the ocean, and the polar ice caps.

Climate Change is only based on computer models with information inputted by so called scientist. What Climate Change is really about is control of the people which is the Leftist Dream ! But the Leftist Leaders that preach Climate Change will never stop burning fossil fuel !

If the "experts" who claim that the temperatures are rising significantly, the ice caps are melting, and the seas are rising, make predictions about immanent doom which never eventuate, then you don't have to be a Mensa from the local Audubon society to figure out that these "experts" do not have a single, solitary clue what they are talking about.

Climate alarmist predictions which flopped.

The first IPCC meeting was held in 1988 in Europe, during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded.

"Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN environment Program in 1989.

On November 4, 1998, the BBC, quoting "European scientists", claimed that Italian ski fields would snow free by 2008, while skiing in Germany would be "impossible" as the snow would simply fall as rain.

The Washington Post. 2019 "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years unless we do something now."

In 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be "ice free" by 2013. The Arctic ice cap grew by 533,000 square miles between August 2012 and August 2013.

In 2006, NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhattan would be underwater by 2008."

In 2006, In December 2009, Al Gore claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. John Kerry proclaimed 2014 as the year the arctic would melt, the seas would rise, and they would drown low lying island chains and coastal cities. The BBC predicted that New Orleans and Miami would be underwater by 2014. In 2014 when the arctic was certainly not ice free, and the oceans of the world had stubbornly refused to rise to drown cities and subways, and entire nations had not been wiped off the Earth, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, reported that the Arctic Ocean is expected to be ice free in summer before mid-century. Seems like if the "expert" predictions sadly do not eventuate, the "expert" alarmists just put the date for the end of times back another decade or two.

Oddly, Coastal real estate prices all over the world have not crashed, and nobody with a water front property (including Australia's climate commissioner Tim Flannery) are trying to sell their waterfront properties at giveaway prices. As a matter of fact, waterside real estate prices just keep climbing. Perhaps it is because the equity managers, the real smart guys, who are responsible for investing trillions in real estate, regard HIGW as complete malarkey?

Aaustralian "Climate Change Commissioner" Tim Flannery's 2006 prediction that "the dams will never fill again" looks funny when the dams overfilled and they drowned Brisbane and Townsville. Sydney's Warragamba dam had to open it's floodgates twice. When the dams overflowed, Tim Flannery then claimed that "climate change can not be ruled out" as the reason for the flooding rains. Not bad. Drought? Blame climate change. Flooding rains? Blame climate change. Temperatures hotter and bad bushfires? Blame climate change. Northern hemisphere buried in snow? Blame climate change for that too.

Other predictions from Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery.

Predicted 2004. Climate change would be so quick we would not have time to build desalination plants.

Predicted 2004. Perth would be the world's first ghost Metropolis

Predicted 2005/6/7. The eastern coastal suburbs of Sydney would be under water

Predicted 2007 Brisbane and Adelaide would run dry of water.

Predicted 2013. The Arctic would be ice free by 2018

Predicted 2015. Hurricanes would be more frequent (they aren't)

On 16th of October, 2008 the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed, committing the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds. On that very day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934. $400 billion pounds in the UK alone? Somebody is sure making big money out of this farce.

Climate "Scientist" Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. (you remember them, the Climategate guys) predicted that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

In February 2019, (and in 2020) the USA, all of Europe, and Russia were all up to their eyeballs in snow. It was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying is snowing in Brisbane.

The Himalayan Glaciers did not melt.

The "ship of fools", consisting of an expedition from Sydney University which set sail to Antarctica in a taxpayer funded chartered Russian icebreaker, to prove that the East Antarctic Ice Shelf was melting. Instead it got stuck in record amounts of thick sea ice and had to be rescued by carbon belching rescue ships and helicopters.

The "urgently" needed (and hugely expensive) desalination plants in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide which still rot away unused.

The Climategate scandal where supposed "scientists" from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit discussed among themselves how to fudge the data which clearly displayed that global temperature rises were levelling out. And, they also discussed the sacking of one EACR scientist, who was a climate change sceptic.

And whaddya know, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology themselves got caught red handed "adjusting" the historical temperature data to "prove" rising temperatures, by the families of people who have been recording temperatures in their own districts for over 100 years, and who still have their families hand written records to prove it was complete BS.