Question: Is mankind's impact the main driver of alterations in the global climate?

Global climate change is predominantly a result of human actions. My stance on climate change is clear; not only do I acknowledge its existence, but I also firmly believe it is predominantly caused by human activities. I will begin my argument by asserting that global warming is an irrefutable reality, and those who contest this view lack understanding of the subject. It is a widely accepted fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is mainly caused by human activities. Furthermore, the arguments presented by those who deny human-induced climate change are baseless and devoid of factual evidence. I wish my adversary the best of luck in this debate. Sources: Shaftel, H. (Ed.). (2012, January 5). Global Climate Change: Consensus. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov...

Ever notice nobody can win or lose a global warming debate? There is just too much conflicting information out there. Luckily this is not a debate about global warming, but whether we know for certain which side is correct so that we might take action. Let's talk about what we do know. 1) There are convincing arguments from QUALIFIED scientists on both sides who have come to opposing conclusions. 2) Neither you nor I are qualified to confidently refute scientists on either side. 3) There IS an ongoing debate with regard to global warming theory. 4) That debate is not settled just because Al Gore said it is in his movie. In summary: It is absurd (not to mention arrogant) to think the general public (or Al Gore) has the expertise or information available to accurately pick a side on this. There are just too many credible scientists who disagree with the "consensus." http://www.speroforum.com... Since we aren't anywhere close to knowing for certain which side is correct, there is no GOOD REASON to TAKE ACTION, especially if temperature changes haven't exceeded anything occurring naturally in the past. That is the focus of this debate. And to win this debate you will need to convince the readers the debate is over, the GW crowd has won, and that you are qualified to make that decsicion. Good luck with that one.

I, in turn, thank you for accepting :) I hope this will b fun and informative.I'll state my contentions below.I recently did a very similar debate topic, so my contentions will be virtually the same.By the way, if there are a few letters missing here and there, I apologize. For whatever reason, my computer does that ONLY on this site :/ It is not my fault, nor am I dyslexic. (In that sentence, I had to correct 4 mistakes). Contention 1: Carbon content in the atmosphere is increasingThe evidence indicating the increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is overwhleming and undeniable. According to NASA's best estimates, 1950 was the first time in 650,000 years that the carbon content of Earth's atmosphere climbed higher than 300 parts per million [2]. And over the past 4 years alone [1], the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere jumped from roughly 385 to 394.29 and, judging from the linked graph, the rate of CO2 increase will continue to climb. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect is well known and ell documented. It's why venus has become so hot that, unless I'm mistaken, gold melts on its surface. In the past 50 years, the atmosphric ppm has been growing exponentially [3]. From a scientific stand point, 450 ppm would make the earth so hot, that there will be periods when the arctic is completely ice free [6]. It's why the US government has made it their pledge to keep the earth from capping out at 450 ppm even though oil and gas companies lobby much harder than the renewable resource industry [5].Contention 2: Why we're to blame.Using models tracking only natural sources of CO2 output and heat generation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently failed to accurately described observed changes in temperature over the past century [4]. Only by factoring in human carbo output have scientists been able to effectively describe observations about climate change. Over the past century, an increase of 1 degree Celsius has been observed with the majority of the increase being in the last 20-30 years [again, 4] which lines up perfectly with when the majority of CO2 increase occurred. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.intmath.com... xDhttp://www.ipcc.ch... http://www.opensecrets.org... http://www.securegreenfuture.org...

I replied: I think most climate scientists has a very complex knowledge and have a high awareness of how new factors influencing the environment and nature. I replied: All research regardless of the area is dependent on the money to be able to be carried their research. I replied, All development has a pain threshold for what it can tolerate. When the limit is reached or exceeded begin instead a negative decomposition take shape. Mankind has his immune system to be able to restore and repair the imbalances in the human body. I Replied, The same applies to nature's own "immune system" to recover and repair itself. I also wrote that: The first billion humans on the planet took roughly one million years to achieve and the last billion took only 14 years. It is a population explosion that is unparalleled in the evolution. When the 7 billion people consume energy and industry to support all these people with goods and services, to respond or react to nature on this. Summary of your argument: climate scientists do not know what they are talking about, the results are manipulated to get money, climate threats and disasters is about how to raise money, climate scientists has no legitimacy, they just talk about saving humanity from disaster for the research money. I replied: You get that sound as if it is a kind of entertainment for the fun of it. I think it is for real. Your argumentative and the starting point is that climate change, the climate threat, global warming, climate scientists do not have legitimacy for their argument, but your argument is sustainable. You have already made up your mind, but to listen and weigh in with new arguments. When you don't get a hearing for your arguments, you don't want to continue the debate. Climate science is just about creating legitimacy to be given top priority. That is why I wrote to the climate threat is an issue that belongs in the heavyweight class. The biggest enemy is man himself. There are YES voters and NO deniers of climate change. The most basic problem is not carbon dioxide that many seem to think. It is a just a conse-quence of the previous reason. To access the root cause of climate change to squirt water on the smoke and not fire. The population explosion reveals this accelerating process, where the first billion people took a million years to achieve and the last billion only 14 years. What does this have to do with the context wonder anyone? Climate scientists express or mean that the Earth's population of 7 billion people today con-sume energy and resources equal to 2-3 planets. If today we consume more than we can afford, so does it mean that emissions from industry and emissions from cars to the Earth's atmosphere with emissions and exhaust emissions equivalent to 2-3 planetary emissions. You need not actually be a rocket scientist to understand why things are going so slowly. The climate threat, and global warming has nothing to do with communism you imply, but, on the other hand, CAPITALISM and CONSUMPTION has. Society has created a social culture which is entirely based on ECONOMY and consumption. It could be summed up with the word CAPITALISM. What has capitalism with the climate threat, and global warming to do? A LOT" Human beings live in a society that consumes everything. Consumption knows no borders any more than greed. "Greed and envy demand continuous and unlimited growth of material nature, without due regard to the management of natural resources, and this kind of growth cannot possibly fit into a constrained world". It is trying to continually expand. Higher GDP, consumption and economic growth will be dependent on "modernity hubris". To develop a culture that consumes everything. This is the short description of why humans today consume energy and resources equal to 2-3 planets. The downward spiral and ferment called constant ECONOMIC GROWTH. And to be able to achieve a higher economic growth, the factories produce maximum and man must then consume a maximum of. Economic capital has become impatient and demanding increasingly short-term profits. Maximum economic growth, maximum production, maximum consumption may not be sen-sible target for a humanity that live in a thin membrane of life on a limited sphere. Now we have to find new forms of production which allows us to live with the Earth's resources. In-stead of poison and them. It is a trite fact that Earth's cycles is a closed and its assets are limited. Previous patterns of life and natural resources that have existed for thousands of years and built up by previous generations, have been destroyed during a single generation time. It is recognized that waste of resources and mismanagement of natural resources. Human activities have for a very moment in Earth's history reached such intensity and extent of the risk to life sphere's fragile balances are being seriously disrupted. "The development of this economic system is determined not by the question: what is good for man-but by the question: what is good for the system's growth?" The obvious argument for ' NO ' campaigners will be to argue that the maximum production, maximum consumption, the system's growth can never be about global warming or the climate threat. The immediate consequence would be to start to consume more responsibly, resource management and make self-sacrifice to win something else in the longer term. Today's current economic and social thinking is based on the assumption that the rate of growth that has characterised the current temporary period can be permanent. There is no doubt or denial of that economy's enormous triumphs have been valuable for human well-being; Today begins a growing number argue that these successes now or in the long run mean value losses for humanity, while others welcome them as new opportunities for tomorrow. There is nowhere a safe recipe for the success of this nature to continue to be won or defeated, because an unlimited economic growth does not fit in a constrained world of natural resources. The need for new solutions that require an unconventional way of working within the field. The previously successful economic and political prescriptions applies only to the already achieved. The individuals, institution, organization or the society that has been purchasing power available can only produce at incessantly without regard to nature. It is nature that may be slapped. How will the modern welfare affected when natural resources has decreased drastically in 50 or 100 years? In every time in a nation's history, it is always some social problem that weighs more heavily than the other. For the next two-three generations, energy and climate change no doubt end up in the heavyweight class. Insight and awareness means; "To learn, is about to suddenly understand something you al-ways understood, but in a new way". The human is his own worst enemy. The real goals be-comes easy enveloped in smoke and the real motives act as eyewash. Today, the materialist development described as that; "economic activities have become divorced from ethics and human values. The financial mechanism has come to be regarded as an autonomous entity, independent of human needs and people's will ". In summary, natural resources a dwindling asset, and the faster people consume it and the faster it is allowed to shrink, the shorter will be the time that we have to develop a new basis for the economic existence. Today's economic mismanagement of the planet's resources are going to the next generation leave behind a plundered land and Earth. How much of the Earth's resources and natural resources remain about 50-100 years? THE RECESSION WON`T BE OVER TILL WE RAISE A GENERATION that knows to live on what they"ve got. Thanks for the debate if you continue. Learningbythinking.com (new website from next week) Peter Horttanainen

I apologize for any perceived rudeness but I am frankly disappointed that my opponent would regurgitate "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change" as his argument since the source, while accurately stating the existence of global warming is inaccurate in its portrayal of CO2 as the main cause of global warming due to other variables such as water vapor, soot, solar radiation and other green house gases. The source also doesn't explain how global warming is a threat to humankind, nor does it imply global warming to be a threat either. My opponent also follows the EPA designation that CO2 is an air pollutant that directly harms humans. However the contention is false and misleading since CO2 is an end product of all plants and animals in order to breakdown sugars and nutrients. Also CO2 is not designated as a toxic or harmful gas by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of the United Nations Economics Commission for Europe in accordance with the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's testing of chemicals. (1)(2) A threat to humanity and the stability of geopolitics is the current hyped up rhetoric between Iran and Israel over Iran's nuclear program which could result in the creation of a nuclear warhead. With Israel threatening military attacks on Iranian nuclear enrichment plants. (3) Another economic threat to the world would be Iran's threat to attempt to blockade the straits of Hormuz if UN sanctions severely cripple its oil economy. (4) An even more obvious threat to international stability is the possibility of the chemical weapons stockpiled in Syria could fall into the hands of terrorist groups as the Syrian Civil War invites third party jihadists on the sides of either the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian Regime. (5) (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.washingtonpost.com... (4) http://www.upi.com... (5)http://news.yahoo.com...

They say CO2 Dangerous but CO2 has little effect on the environment, changes in temperature are natural and extreme weather is a hoax ( not warming just that CO2 is the root cause) Happer, writes on 3/27 Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the Marshall Institute and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993, he served as Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his return to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics and Chair of the University Research Board. 3/27/12, "Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" http://online.wsj.com... ." What is happening to global temperatures nothing The latest monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees. The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the (IPCC) to demonize CO2 million),. CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated.. The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated. the timing of the warming suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true.. Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., "There is no evidence of any trend in the number of potent tornadoes over the past 50 years . But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions. Then they say that because tree are being pulled up that not as much oxygen is being produced However this is 1.Not a reason in which carbon emission are good or bad, deforestation will occur regardless of carbon emmisons being good or bad 2.Trees are not the only plan that turn CO2 into O2 3.Means this is not a reason that CO2 emissions are bad food crises are beginning --- only CO2 ensures strong plants that can provide for the increasing globe Idso et. al. writes in 1 1"Former Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ Arizona State and PhD from UMinnesota and former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture"AND Keith Idso, PhD in Botany"AND Craig, PhD in Geography (Sherwood, "Is There a Need for a More Sustainable Agriculture?" Vol. 14, Iss. 24, 15 June 2011, http://co2science.org..., DA: 6/23/2012// In a paper that came to our attention Gomiero ask the question "Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture?" they write notwithstanding the great achievements of the 'Green Revolution,' the world will need 70 to 100% more food by 2050," concluding that "a new challenge lies ahead: how to feed nine billion with less land, water and energy, while at the same time preserving natural resources and soil fertility." In their analysis of the question, Gomiero et al. state that "technical advances are important in order to meet the future needs," as does Idso.Gomiero et al. state that "addressing key socioeconomic issues, such as the inequality in the access to resources, population growth and access to education are also a priority if we want to properly deal with sustainability." Idso alludes to these same factors, but he concentrates most heavily on a subject not touched upon by Gomiero et al. -- the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. Idso identifies the 45 key crops that account for 95% of world food production, after which he calculates the rates at which their productivities rose over the past 15 years in response to all technological innovations of that time period plus the concurrent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. , calculating the percentage increases in the productivities of these crops in response to a 300-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration from experimental data tabulated in the Plant Growth Database of CO2 Science, and knowing how much the atmosphere's CO2 content rose over 15 years, he determines what part of the past 15 years' productivity increases were due to the aerial fertilization effect of CO2 Extending the linear regression representing this latter effect to the year 2050, and using the IPCC's best median estimate of what the atmosphere's CO2 concentration will be in that year, Idso calculates the productivity increases of the 45 key crops due to the aerial fertilization effect of CO2 to that time, This he does for the world as a whole, he determines which entities' projected crop productivity increases fall either below, within or above the 70-100% interval that is deemed necessary to insure food security in 2050, with productivity increases below 70% representing food insecurity, with those above 100% representing food security, and with anything in between being a "maybe" in terms of food security. The results are rather chilling. And they should cause all those who are calling for mandatory reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions to seriously reconsider their views on the subject, while those who may not have thought at all about the topic should do so now; for the looming global food crisis is everybody's business, and all should have a say in what to do about it. CO2 provides an essential boon to agriculture " 600 years of African trends prove Taylor writes in 11 James Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism with a circulation of approximately 75,000 readers. He is also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute focusing on environmental issues. " Climate Change Weekly: Global Warming Benefiting Africa"s Sahel Region" http://news.heartland.org... Accessed 6/18/12 the notion that global warming is devastating the Sahel is unlikely to stand the dual tests of time and scientific scrutiny. the argument that Western democracies should reduce carbon dioxide emissions may have been driving the study, rather than the other way around. Gonzalez is a lead author for the (IPCC), whose funding are dependent on the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis having a new study claiming global warming is causing drought and related problems in Africa"s Sahel region bolsters the shared interests of Gonzalez and IPCC., NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey funded the study. If such funded studies find little about which to be concerned, NASA and U.S. Geological Survey funds dry up, as do funds for Gonzalez and his National Park Service employers., many studies have documented improving conditions in the Sahel as the earth has warmed. "The southern Saharan desert is in retreat, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa," "Burkina Faso, one of the West African countries devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago, is growing An "analysis of satellite images reveals that dunes are retreating "Vegetation is ousting sand Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid-1980s a survey among farmers shows a 70 per cent increase in yields of local cereals, "satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara." "The broader picture is reinforced by studies carried out in the Namib Desert "This is a region with an average rainfall of just 12 millimetres. Last year the local research centre, measured 80mm Scientists at Brown confirmed a longer term improvement in African soil moisture. After studying African drought patterns since the 1400s, the scientists reported in January 2007 in the peer-reviewed science journal Geology that Africa is "experiencing an unusually prolonged period of stable, wet conditions in comparison to previous centuries of the past millennium." The same patterns are occurring globally. Analyzing satellite imagery that has been available since 1982, scientists reported in a 2003 peer-reviewed study in Science, "We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% globally

Well, as expected, my opponent has ignored my two references which clearly shows that the whole climate change fiasco is an elaborate money making scam. Then he proceeds to produce false information which has been specifically designed to trick and fool people into believing in climate change. My opponent also suggests that if the climate changes that it will pose a threat to humanity. This is false information as well. This is because the Earth is like a thermostat which self regulates itself. Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will create more cloud which will then cool the Earth back down to an even average temperature. 1. My opponent has ignored 1000 top level scientists who have clearly indicated that climate change science is a fraud. 2. My opponent has ignored that Maurice Strong was an evil person who used climate change as a means of gaining power and personal wealth. Quote from Quadrant - 'Investigations into the UN"s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong " issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.' Note - We can plainly see that the instigator of climate change was himself a criminal. Thus, how can we accept climate change and the science of climate change when the originator is a crook? 3. The hockey stick graph trick. An email was intercepted which reveal that graphs were inverted. That's the trick that was used to create an increase in temperature. https://climateaudit.org... 4. Adding more Co2 doesn't increase temperature. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.

My case is essentially a counter case to my opponents, so it refutes his arguments in and of itself. 1. Global warming, true?Much of the data that claims the world is heating is actually unreliable, the classic examples (cited in most global warming editorials) is the ground heaters that show massive increases, yet the funny thing is they are unreliable. First, these scanners started seeing heat at certain times, mainly around 2000. At the same time, many of these stations where previously recording no change. But in 2000, many of the recorders where moved or things where built. Many where found like this. One started seeing increased temperatures, BUT the time it saw an increase is when an are conditioner was installed next to it. [1] Now this is a problem as the air conditioner emits hot air, hence the increases in these modules can be linked to the air conditioner. Many of the recorders used where moved into urban areas when previously where rooted in the suburbs. They saw an increase, obviously, they installed them next to roads, asphalt reflects heat, metal buildings, same problems as roads, and then again a lot near air conditioners. A kid could see the problems with this. Other stations saw growth if they where rooted in suburbs, then the suburbs expanded in population, more houses roads etc. [2] As we can see this has serious problems as these highly cited materials fall into one basic problem: The extra asphalt, man made heating objects therefore emit heat near the censors confounding the result, hence there is a likely hood many of the stats you cite are, well, unreliable.Further many of the large studies that show global warming are highly exaggerated, and have been found of fraud accounts. Hence the data my opponent cites is data, but whether or not the data is fabricated is another question. [3]89% of global warming detectors failed to meet accuracy standards due to the reasons above. [8]Quote:" The southern hemisphere of the earth has been generally cooling for the past fifty years, Hundreds of years of data show that temperature rises precede increase in CO2 levels, rather than following them, Ice cover at the north and south pole is growing, which results in more glaciers breaking away Throughout the 20th Century, temperatures have been rising on other planets in our solar system – including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton, Neptune's largest moon – where few people drive SUVs. This clearly points to increased solar activity as the cause of global warming on the Earth, rather than any human activity." [10] http://a-sceptical-mind.com... (graphs)My graphs aren't posting anymore, its really annoying, is it like this for everybody? I cant ask Ima for cnfidnetial reasons. 2. Polar ice is expanding We can see from data in Greenland that the ice and snow is actually expanding, not decreasing like Al Gore would claim. As we can see:"Though the ice may be melting around the edges of the Greenland Icecap in recent years during the warm mode of the AMO much as it did during the last warm phase in the 1930s to 1950s, snow and ice levels continue to rise in most of the interior. Johannessen in 2005 estimated an annual net increase of ice by 2 inches a year." [4]Cold war satellites (during time of their function), find that the ice is expanding continually in Greenland, and not decreasing. These stations first received 4 feet of snow, per fall, but in 2006 many of the stations where semi-burried by the snow. The site, formerly alive, is now buried in snow, while greenland ice expands. [5] Now what about overall arctic ice volume? Using US navy data the volume of the ice is increasing and the ice is expanding. [6] "The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice." [6]So the thin ice is being defeated, this implies that the ice is getting thicker, this requires colder temperatures, this is an "arrow to the knee" for global warming proponents. How can ice get thicker under warmer temperatures, and how can formerly thin ice get thicker? 3. Global cooling? Now, this is generally pushed to the side in most climate change debates. Well yaddy blah blah blank my liberal science teacher said X. People are mainly going of knee jerk reactions look towards the "majority". Ice in the caps are one way both sides look at the global warming debacle. New data has come to light, we see the earth is no longer "warming", assuming those faulty data sets are correct, but cooling. [7] Now if the things near metal buildings are seeing cooling, this means the earth must be REALLY cooling down to show a decrease. "As Robert Felix just reported in his authoritative iceagenow.com, on various days is June of 2009 there were record low temperatures in 18 states; record low temperatures in 15 states; record low temperatures in 24 states; record low temperatures in 11 states; record low max temperatures in 20 states; record low temperatures in seven states; and record low temperatures in 10 states." [8]4. Even if the earth is warming, it may be natural. http://www.forbes.com... (page two graph)Due to the predicatable fluctuations, we can assume we could predict the cycles and it also shows that global warmign is also caused by a natural cause. Also:http://www.isil.org... (half way down graph[s])This also shows the earths temperture is constantly changing, and we can assume it is a natural fluctuation. With this data, the resolution is negated as even if you prove the global wamring scare, you need to explain the natura fluctuations which easily explain it. If global warmign exists, the governments CANT do anything to stop natural cycles, hence it would be a waste of reasources. 5. Economic harms of regulations First if we assume humans create this phenomona, we must ask what is the cause? The most common claim is human CO2 and oil usage, natural gas etc. But these regulations DO harm the economy. Many of tese regulations are huge costs to buisness, this is hard on them as now they must eiher give up or find ways to compensate (fire workers, or declare bankrupsy), and then no body is helped. These regulations hurt buisness by raising costs, and higher costs to buisness hurt the companies, econ 101. Further, many of these regulations outsoruce jobs for the reason above, or actually make it impossible to do X here, so they do X in china as they can actually do stuff there. One perfect regulaton is the congress' plan to regulate 85% of energy, this harms big time. It is estimated to lease 85% of our energy, and prevent them from drilling on areas that could sustain us from Saudi Arabias imports for 30 years. [9] So these regulations FORCE other countries to take our supplies, well not take, but replace and indirectly take out jobs. Sorry, tese regulaitosn hurt us. CONCLUSION: My case disproves global warming claims, and proves if global warming occurs it is likely natural, hence if it doesn't exist its a waste of time, if it does exist but is natural its a waste of time, if the earth is cooling it is a waste of time, and if it hurts the economy it is one colstly downside. My case esentially refutes my opponents, and I used facts. I urge a CON vote. _________[1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://onforb.es... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://on.wsj.com... [8] http://bit.ly... [9] http://bit.ly... [10] http://bit.ly...

Note: [x, y] indicates source y from round x. For instance, [1, 4] is aaas.org. "the affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of GW." My burden, as I stated in round 2, is only to prove that the human effect on GW is significant: important in effect or meaning. Something does not have to be the majority effect in order to be important. ======== "1)Actually 3* temperature increase is due to all green house gas emissions in total. From CO2 only it is a 0.095 degree increase, not even one degree." I don't know where this number came from; probably from my opponent's discreditable source. According to [3, 1], human CO2 accounts for about 3% to 8% of the greenhouse effect. The temperature increase directly from human CO2 is about 1 to 2 degrees, but the article claims that this is "not a sensible way to calculate climate sensitiv[i]ty" because it ignores the feedback effect. Though much more difficult to calculate, the feedback effect is a very prominent effect of human CO2 emissions. "2)(...)Because my opponent has the burden to prove that CO2 from humans is the largest contributor to global warming, and because CO2 is still only 3-4% compared to water vapor being 95%, my opponent still does not fulfill the burden." 1. I do not have that burden of proof. See above. 2. Water vapor is not 95%, but is actually more like 36-66% (66-85% with clouds). It is still the most important, but CO2 is also prominent, with 9% to 26% effect [2]. Since right now it's just my word against my opponent's, I will point out my source. This data is from a scientific paper by Ramanathan and Coakley. Ramanathan is a publishing scientist [3] (and I can't find a bio on Coakley). My opponent's data I presume is from that site which I hope I succeeded in discrediting. Not only is CO2 more prominent than my opponent claims, but its prominence is exaggerated by the feedback effect. When CO2 causes just a little bit of warming, this increases water vapor levels, increasing temperature further. While not the original cause, water vapor acts as an amplifier for the effect of CO2. ======== "The article is considering the amount of CO2 stored in the ocean which is more than the CO2 from humans." The article [2, 2] is considering CO2 in general. Only for part of the last paragraph does it discuss ocean CO2 in particular. Since we could argue about the article all day and I can't quote the whole thing, I recommend that the judges read it. ======== "No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming." That's what I meant. CO2 is 9 to 26% of global warming, before feedback. And CO2 increased by 30%, almost entirely due to human activities [4]. "2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule." 4.703% conflicts with my opponent's estimate "CO2 is still only 3-4%", since 4.703% is outside of that range. Additionally, my opponent's level of precision is incredible -- and I mean "incredible" by the word's original denotation. ======== "Yes, I agree human emissions are the cause of part of the CO2 increase, yet even if humans were 100% of the increase, because CO2 contribution to global warming is so small, it is still insignificant." -One could multiply 30% (CO2 increase) by 9 to 26% (effect of CO2 on GW), which gives 3 to 8%. Therefore, humans are contributing 3 to 8% to greenhouse gases (before feedback, remember), which is hardly insignificant. It is enough to have a serious effect on the climate. -Two words: Feedback effect. ======== "1)You have conceded to the fact that CO2 emissions are around 4%." -I misunderstood what was being measured. It is still worth noting that most CO2 emitted by nature is re-absorbed, but humans are emitting CO2 too fast for nature's sinks to absorb it. So even if nature emits more CO2 than humans, it is humans who are responsible for the increase in CO2. -(2) and (3) have been rebutted at least once already. ======== 1) I am using studies as evidence. If many scientists think something, it is more likely to be true. 2) There is disagreement in society about GW. There is consensus among scientists. ======== "They actually found a substantial amount of data." Please link this data. "since 2001, the air temperature did not rise at all while CO2 emissions were on the rise." -Seven years is too short-term to draw any real conclusions. -Temperature rose and fell many times [5]. ======== "4)" I don't see anything on the graph saying who it was made by. Though this graph may be from a peer reviewed source, we cannot know. We do, on the other hand, know that my data is from a peer-reviewed source. ======== "1)If you just say that you win because more scientists believe in my side is not debate. That is an opinion poll." This is a fair point. I do not suggest that I should win outright; I suggest that my side should be weighted more heavily, since it has the support of the scientific community. ======== "1) My opponent does not give counter evidence to my evidence that water vapor is the main cause of GW not humans." -CO2 is 9 to 26%, not 5%. -CO2 is a climate forcer, while water vapor is a result of feedback. "2) My first contention, that water vapor is 95% of GW, flows through as there is no counter evidence against it." I provided a counter-claim (water vapor with clouds is 66 to 85%); data is from a peer-reviewed paper [2]. "3) Therefore my opponent does not fulfill the burden." Significance does not imply majority. When a cause is insignificant, it does not mean that it contributes to less than half of the effect. It means that without it, the effect would not be noticeably different. "6) He has conceded that CO2 is around 4% of GW." No I have not. CO2 is 9 to 26% of GW. When I said that CO2 is around 4% of GW, I had gotten mixed up by the different factors inherent in GW. I admit that that was a false statement. ======== [1] http://www.edf.org... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu... [4] http://www.realclimate.org... [5] http://data.giss.nasa.gov...

My opponent begins by stating seven premises of global warming that he claims almost all scientists believe. I will leave 1-5 as is, but I will first attempt to counter premises 6 and 7 because those simply aren't true. I. The Temperature of Earth's Atmosphere Has Been Increasing Slightly, but No Longer Continues to IncreaseLooking at the bare temperature statistics, there has now been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with CO2 rising with no global temperature increase. Since 2003, the trend has actually been negative. "[1]Then why is it that the 2000s had the warmest years on record? "The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA's James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U. S. , conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F). "[2]Here is a graph showing the last 35 years of temperature records, including a trend line: [4] As shown, temperatures are actually beginning to trend downward as the ocean cycles reverse. This trend is actually set to continue for the next two decades: "Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend. "[3]Even though this contradicts both many computer simulations and the IPCC's official claims, it is clear that they have not been so right before: [5]That's a negative 0.1 degree C decrease in the last 10 years, contrary to my opponent's claim. II. The Increase In Global Temperature Does Not Correlate With the Increases of Greenhouse Gases Looking back at history, premise 7 is simply not true: [6]In fact, CO2 seems to lag behind temperature. "In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Ice cores provide a detailed record of local temperature and CO2 concentrations. A study finds that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years. CO2 does not seem to be following that well. "[5]This can be illustrated in this graph: [7]It is easy to see that CO2 correlates with temperature increases, not the other way around. On a more modern frame, "In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend. In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC). "[8]This graph shows the non-correlation of temperature and CO2 in the same timeframe: [5]Or to take a hot topic of conversation, the Arctic. This century's Arctic temperatures do not really correlate with CO2 increases: [9]In conclusion, ice core data also shows CO2 count is rising. When examining the temperature and CO2 data, the correlation is striking. CO2 only correlates on a .44 scale (r = .44). This means the correlation rates from “fair” to “poor”, which is bad news for an alarmist. It shows the correlation is not very strong. [10][11]In addition, by the greenhouse theory, both poles should be warming. However, the Antarctic is not (I'll leave the Arctic alone for space reasons): "If the greenhouse thoery were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. .. Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, '. .. our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. They report that satellite imaging shows increases in Souther Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s"[12]III. My Opponent's Main Points I will attack each of my opponent's points one by one. III. i. This is irrelevant, because I already showed that CO2 does not correlate with temperature. III. ii. Again, irrelevant. III. iii. Maybe, but, "A short-term correlation does not imply that the CO2 increase caused the temperature increase. Causation can be inferred if there is a correlation over several cycles of CO2 concentration changes, with the CO2 change preceding the temperature change. The actual climate history shows no such correlation, and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2. Temperatures have been variable over time, and do not correlate to CO2 concentration. When CO2 concentrations were 10 times higher than they are now we were in a major ice age. As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is vastly outweighed by (natural) water vapour and clouds, which accounts for over 70% of the greenhouse effect. Human-related CO2 emissions soared after 1940. Yet most of the 20th century's world-wide temperature increase occurred beforehand. "[5] This point isn't really relevant either because it's having no effects on the climate. III. iv. Explain further how this is important. III. v. Actually, this is not happening: ". .. satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor. "[12] Neither has CO2 caused cooling happened in the stratosphere: ". .. stratospheric cooling is predicted to occur due to both greenhouse gasses and ozone depletion. The ozone concentration in the stratosphere has declined from 1970 until 1995, and has not declined at all since then due to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limits the emission of ozone reducing CFCs. .. The lower stratosphere temperature has not declined at all since 1995 (when the ozone levels are stable or slightly increasing), so the data does not indicate any greenhouse gas cooling of the stratosphere. In fact, it appears that there has been a slight warming of the lower stratosphere since 1995, the opposite of what is predicted by computer models of the greenhouse gas effects. The stratosphere cooling indicated by the radiosonde data is caused by the changing ozone concentration, not by greenhouse gases. "[5] In the end, a comparison of the records show that the surface has warmed faster than the troposphere, the opposite of what is predicted by the theory of CO2 warming. Observations agree with the Sun-Cosmic ray warming theory. [5]III. vi. Actually, on wavelengths, "Comparing the CO2 and H2O absorption spectra shows that much of the CO2 spectrum overlaps with that of water. Parts of the CO2 spectrum are already fully saturated. Adding more CO2 will result in ever diminishing effects as more of the available wavelengths become saturated. The temperature effect of increasing CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic. This means if doubling the CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a 300 ppm increase, causes the temperature to rise by 1 degree C it would take another 600 ppm increase to add a further 1 degree C temperature gain. "[5] Meaning that CO2 cannot have a 1-to-1 linear relationship with temperature, even though most correlation graphs show that. Sources . http://www.debate.org...;

1. Maurice Strong - In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world's first "state of the environment" report. The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change. Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983. Thus, Maurice Strong was the first instigator of a United Nations led Climate Council. This is not confusing, this is fact. 2. Mauna Loa. My opponent is using information from a volcano site as being average for global CO2 levels. Hmmmmmmm????????? Does anybody with half a brain see something wrong here???????? Gee Con, that must be why the graph suddenly shot up all of a sudden because they started using a volcano site as their average. lol Good work, Swede named Knut Angstrom. lol Nut alright!!!! lol 3. Sea levels rising? If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel M"rner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr M"rner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 5. Authority fallacy? Drrrrr???? Never heard of that one before. Gee, does that mean that I should disbelieve all the IPCC and NOAA garbage? lol


Question: Is mankind's impact the main cause of the global climate change phenomenon?

Carbon dioxide emissions are a significant contributor to climate change.
The term "climate change" as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary refers to a substantial alteration in typical climatic conditions, often attributed to global warming. This shift in climate can result from both natural and human-induced factors. Over the past five decades, the global average temperature has increased by almost one degree. Climate scientists worldwide have been documenting temperature spikes, rising sea levels, and the melting of ice caps, all of which serve as evidence of the earth's "climate change." Many argue that this transformation is chiefly due to the surge in CO2 emissions, which has led to a higher concentration of greenhouse gases. They posit that there's a correlation between temperature increases and the rise in CO2 emissions. While data reveals an "association" between temperature levels and CO2 emissions, it doesn't conclusively prove that elevated CO2 levels are the most critical factor in current climate change. Given the complexity of weather systems, numerous scientists are required to decipher the intricacies behind climate change. While there is a consensus among scientists that climate change is happening, there is disagreement about the extent to which human activity influences it. Major international climate organizations underscore the pivotal role of CO2 emissions in climate change, but some experts remain unconvinced. Research by some scientists suggests that temperatures during the Roman and Medieval periods were higher than they are today, despite the absence of CO2 emissions on the scale we produce today. Why then did their temperatures rise? Temperature fluctuations have occurred for centuries. According to the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), long-term climate change is primarily attributed to variations in the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth. Slight alterations in the Earth's orbit and changes in solar radiation intensity can affect Earth's temperatures. Nevertheless, most scientists still highlight the significance of CO2 emissions in the unprecedented and rapid global warming we are experiencing. The stark reality is that climate change is a natural process that cannot be halted.

Alright. First things first (I'm the realest..gosh that song's old), if we were to ensure the cooperation of our world organization, then we could accomplish so much more! Our world is run on money and competition. Greed is embodied into our human nature. However, if we were to collaborate, we could tackle this problem of global warming together. Thus, world peace places a higher priority on our list than global warming. Next, let's again remind ourselves that the rate of increase in temperature is 0.00612 degrees Fahrenheit per year. This minuscule figure tells us that we should have nothing to worry about. Therefore, I'd like to kindly remind Pro to chill out (pun intended) and remember that the world isn't anywhere near falling over the pit yet. Because of our natural urge to want more for ourselves, yes, we do fight wars over resources. Pro states it himself-they can contribute to the fire that fuels the flame for a war. However, we are nowhere near burning up. Therefore, I conclude my argument, and thus, the debate, with the notion that our society as the human race should focus on discontinue our quarrels and turn our eyes to the greater issues. After all, what good is trying to organize countries at war?

It has been fun (and no, you aren't being a jerk. I do it all the time). I'll do the same thing as my opponent regarding the conclusion. This debate comes down to five seperate points: 1. Cosmic Rays 2. The Sun 3. Oceanic Trends 4. Climactic Trends 5. The Greenhouse Effect On to the points themselves: 1. Cosmic Rays: My opponent has never really responded to this argument very well at all. a) He has completely dropped my point on galatic positioning. b) On cosmic rays from the sun themselves, he has also basically dropped this point. He has not disproved that more cosmic rays cause more cloud cover, that more cosmic rays means lower solar activity, and that both of these things have an effect on global warming. c) He has not argued against that cosmic rays are in smaller frequency. Fewer cosmic rays are a significant contributor to global warming. [1][2] 2. The Sun. My opponent here has made erratic, dubious arguments. a) He has never refuted that the sun causes global warming on the Earth. The audience can see the correlation. b) He brings up an interesting point on celestial bodies, that the changes are erratic in effect and that the effect would diminish the further out one goes, however, both are flawed. b. i. ) For the first one, my opponent does not control for the effect that each celestial body is experiencing different internal climatic conditions. Some have more reflective atmospheres, some have less; some are bigger (more radiation), some less. b. ii. ) The total effect might diminish but percentage effect wouldn't too much. Also, if my opponent had read the long list I provided last round, he would see that there is diminishing effect the further out one goes. 2500% down to 40%. The sun is the only body that causes warming on Earth. It is the main cause of global warming. [3][4][5] 3. Oceanic Trends. My opponent is dening the existance of a correlation. There is a strong one. [6][7] a) There is a strong correlation. 4. Climatic Trends My opponent is denying the existance of all the climatic changes I have provided and proved. He is dismissing ice core, tree ring, and soil data from over 10 different, worldwide locations. "Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change " ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea crea- tures. There are also shorter-term proxies " cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies. Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth"s frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). Other substantiating findings followed: ● An ice core from the Antarctic"s Vostok Glacier " at the other end of the world from Green- land " showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length. ● The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe. ● Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years. Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines. None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers. "[8] And this isn't the only study: [9] Audience, please read source 8. 5. The Greenhouse Effect. I have many times refuted the CO2-global warming correlation. But, to provide even more: [10][11][12] I have disproved the greenhouse effect on various occasions and have proved that CO2 does not trap heat or cause global warming. [13] Conclusion: My opponent basically dismisses my arguments without refuting them very effectively. I have very well proved my case that fewer cosmic rays, the sun, oceanic trends, and the Earth's natural 1500-year climatic cycle, when combined, will create measurable warming. The Sun heavily influences the Earth's climatic cycle. I have disproved my opponent's case by proving that the many stipulations the greenhouse theory has are not holding up (i. e. no significant warming at the poles, no correlation, incorrect atmospheric warming, etc. .). My opponent basically repeats the same arguments after I have already disproved them. Also (this isn't a new argument since you pointed out mine were biased), the IPCC produces flawed ans biased statistics because of publicity, money, and power. Their "hockey stick", "contradicted hundreds of historical sources on the MWP and LIA and hundreds of previous scientific papers with evidence of those major past changes in the Earth's climate. .. In effect, the IPCC told us to ignore the overwhelming historic and physical evidence of the MWP and LIA. "[13] As for my studies, they are backed up by real Earth climatic data, historical analyses, and they are not in it for the money (how much could they possibly get compared to the IPCC? I mean if they were in it for the money and bias, they would jump on the IPCC bandwagon). Thanks to my opponent for the wonderful debate. I have enjoyed it. Sources: [1]:". http://www.sott.net... [2]:". http://wattsupwiththat.com... [3]:". http://www.news.harvard.edu... [4]:". http://www.theregister.co.uk... [5]:". http://wattsupwiththat.com... [6]:". http://www.drroyspencer.com... [7]:". http://www.smh.com.au... [8]:". http://www.ncpa.org... [9]:". http://www.cgfi.org... [10]:". http://www.freerepublic.com... [11]:". http://www.americantraditions.org...(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm [12]:". http://junkscience.com... [13]: Singer S. Fred and Avery Dennis T. : Unstoppable Global Warming

1. Global warming is real and is a threat It was implied that there was global warming, because if there wasn’t this debate would be futile. Hence my wanting to bring it up. My opponent has claimed there has been no rapid changes in climate before. This is untrue, according to the 1995 IPCC our warming really isn’t unusual at all. So my opponent and I agree, on balance it has warmed since the 1800s, but we differ on when it stopped. My opponent has been vague on the 1995 tipping point, saying it is a true statement but we are seeing the effects of global warming. This makes little sense, however, because if global warming stopped over 10 years ago why are we seeing the effects now? Regardless, the hurricane theory is a weak one. In the 1990s, for example, hurricanes were rare and not intense. Since the 1940s, the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory finds that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes have actually been falling [1]. In the past 50 years, not one decade experienced an above average amount of hurricanes (7 is the average – where we are in our current decade). Within the last 50 years, an average of 5.6 hurricanes hit the US. In the 50 years before humans supposedly began to cause global warming, the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]. Since 1900, the US hurricane intensity trend has flat lined, and decreased since the 1950’s intensity has fallen [3]. My opponent has also argued Global warming has caused droughts. Plotting the drought severity index over the last 60 years, a new paper published in Nature shows little trend in droughts throughout the world [4]. My opponent links GW to the dust bowl, which is actually odd: even climate scientists arguing humans caused global warming claim we had no impact on climate until the 50’s, after the dust bowl ended. The cause of the dustbowl, although partly not enough water, was also caused by overgrazing and over farming, wearing out (and drying out) the soil, leaving the land with little vegetation giving way to large sandstorms. Land cultivation tripled in the 30’s, causing the plants to wither away. Then drought struck, leaving over cultivated, dry, weak soil, none of which caused by man made global warming [5]. When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on balance) has been increasing and droughts exhibit no trend [6]. 2. Humans are the cause of Global Warming My opponent has argued past climate changes prove CO2 is the cause, however when you look at the data there is actually no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temperature changes regardless of CO2 levels. Using past historical trends actually refutes my opponent’s argument. Many studies done through ice cores show co2 lags temperature, in other words temperature rises before co2 rises. Lets look at these studies: Pearson and Palmer, 2000: They show co2 was about 3000 ppm 60 million years ago (mya) with a 0.3 oxygen isotope ratio. However, 13 million years later, the co2 dropped to 500 ppm; the oxygen isotope temperature dropped to zero (meaning a rise in temperature). Temperatures rose as CO2 drastically fell. Pearson and Palmer 1999: 43 mya it was 5 degrees warmer Celsius, but co2 concentrations were only 385 ppm, below our current concentration today. Pagani et al., 1999: this study found 150 mya cot concentration was only 180 ppm, but it was 6 degrees celcius warmer. And the studies go on and on [7]. Past temperature records fail to prove global warming is caused by CO2. Now, if warming is a natural cycle (I have shown how CO2 correlates poorly, but natural factors correlate much better) then the methane melt will happen regardless, and cannot be stopped. This is only significant if my opponent can argue global warming is driven by human emissions. And it is interesting, my opponents only data point for this I that they are melting too fast. When looking at glacier melt, worldwide there is no overall trend. For example, southern glaciers seem to be melting (Europe wise) but northern ones seem to be growing [8]. Interestignly, glaciers have been melting since 1850. And although arguably still losing mass, the amount they lose each year shrinks. According to Dowdenswel et al., 1997, “Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.”[9] 3. Fixing the problem I agree we cannot just drop fossil fuels, if we change anything I recommend it is slowly, and preferably to nuclear. My opponent, however, makes weak points and are merely asserted. He does not prove renewable will become cheaper. It would be unlikely, as stated, though. Wind, for example, has no value (unlike fossil fuels). Many good alternatives (like hydro) have been taken out of the picture due to river destruction and invasive buildings (so its not really good). Wind and Solar are inefficient, and current subsidies are costing millions merely for failed companies to fail. These green energies fail to compete with fossil fuels because of their failure to be a viable option [10]. My opponent has conceded my points to be true but argues green energy will, in the future, be viable without little proof. I would also like to note the resolution is in present tense, so unless he can prove green energies will be viable soon or beneficial now he has lost this point. Obviously we should not brush aside these sources, but combating climate change with them at the current time, and in the near future, would be illogical. Here is my solution: nuclear power. Its not a renewable, so I am not conceding the resolution, and it is “green”. I only support it due to its efficiency and ability to compete. If we cut down regulations, this solution would work (if you are worried about CO2, and if you’re like me: it would work if you are worried about our economy). Conclusion: I have proven (1) CO2 is likely not the cause of global warming, (2) even if it is, global warming is not dangerous and will likely benefit mankind (see round one, too)[11], and (3) combating global warming, a natural cycle, would be frivolous, and even if it is real green energy would be illogical and non-renewables such as Nuclear should be preferred. 1. http://www.ncpa.org... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 7. Here is a sample of the studies: http://www.co2science.org... 8. http://www.co2science.org... 9. http://www.co2science.org... 10. http://www.cato.org... 11. My source from last round, proving global warming might not be that bad and might help mankind. I just wanted to bring it up again: http://www.stanford.edu...

You said: "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that" Over this period, global CO2 emissions were a fraction of current levels. Currently we are emitting over 8000 million tonnes per year. 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. Last year beat the previous record holder 1998, by a full 1F. And while 2012 certainly stood out for its high temperatures, it was hardly unusual. The last decade globally has been the hottest in recorded history. (U.S. temperature records go back to 1895.) And the heat has been above average for some time. You talked about how glaciers are melting from pollution not global warming. Well, you may be correct. But does all of the Glaciers that are melting melt from pollution, or is some of it global Warming? You say it's possible that pollution caused them to melt, but that is not saying it's the only explanation. Now your final point, is Global Warming alarmists are liars, because you have disproved their evidence. But did you really? You didn't say: We'll this is how it have happened. You said : this is how it MAY have happened. I may say: The reason is because people are destroying the ice with ice picks. Well that's possible, but yet still not a solid explanation. Thanks.

"human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all." 3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3ï¿½ C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts. "1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified." No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect. And since humans are responsible for roughly a 30% increase in CO2 levels, it follows that humans are responsible for global warming. "Rather it states that the CO2 'might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms' " The article uses that as an explanation for why CO2 rises after an ice age, not as an alternative to AGW. The whole paragraph states "So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]" "CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%" It's more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase. "My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions." What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase. "1)...water vapor" Irrelevant, since I meant CO2. "Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming." Human contributions are around 30%. They are not miniscule unless we rely on [4] for our data, which we shouldn't for reasons I elaborate upon below. It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%. This is because over the past hundreds of millions of years, nature has become very good at re-absorbing any CO2 that it emits. Sure, the balance isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. This is evidenced by the continuity between 180 and 300 ppm over the last hundred thousand years. "He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true." My opponent is right in that that figure is incorrect. It's more like 80% for scientists at large, and 97% for publishing climatologists, according to a study done that included over 10,000 scientists [5]. Besides this study and the other study I referenced, I have named 31 scientific societies advocating AGW while my opponent has named only one (the JSER), and that one has under 2000 members (compared to AAAS with 120,000 members). It's even disputable whether that one is even a scientific society, since they present no original research [6]. It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies. "The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming." My opponent has not cited a source for this study. My source for this isn't particularly good, but I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever [6]. "Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through." The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source. "1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false." a. Scientists may have been wrong, but they were still more likely to be right than anyone else. At the time, the data pointed to certain laws of physics, and physicists supported those laws. b. I do not think that string theory has proven the laws of physics false. The same logic in my opponent's point can be applied, though, to the theory or relativity or to some other revolutionary theory. "2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming." While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies. "1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls." Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2]. "2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT." a. The Energy Department of Japan is much smaller than the majority of the societies on my list. b. MIT is not a scientific society, but a university. While still more credible than some, MIT is not as credible as a scientific society. c. I have not only provided a list of scientific societies, but I have provided two credible studies and their sources. While my opponent has provided a study, he has not quoted it or provided a link to it. "Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate." It's all right; I misread articles all the time. I withdraw my statement requesting to be given the conduct vote. [1] http://www.realclimate.org... [2] http://www.atmo.arizona.edu... [3] http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com... [4] http://www.geocraft.com... [5] http://tigger.uic.edu... [6] http://greenfyre.wordpress.com...

Points Ceded by Con-GHGs are at an all time high-Humans do emit large quantities of GHGs (which he claims is too small in proportion to general emissions)-The ocean is losing its ability to absorb GHGsDefencesI. CO2 and GHGs"Pro argues that humans also give off many other emissions. I acknowledged this in my last round and discussed it's potential as well. Those gases have huge GWPs but are simply too small in the scheme of things.""Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%."These arguments may seem compelling at a first glance, but that is only if one doesn't take into account climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is how sensitive the global climate is to energy change in the lower atmosphere. Cons argument rests on the concept that climate sensitivity is low. This is not true. Climate sensitivity is highEssentially, climate sensitivity is how much our climate warms if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere. (A) Climate SensitivityClimate sensitivity is high. If man continue to put out CO2 emissions the way we do now, the global warming trend will accelerate. The nature of global warming is such that the more heat that is trapped on earth, the worse the effects of global warming become. This is primarily because as the ocean becomes warmer and warmer, it lessens it's ability to absorb natural gas. Doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures by a minimum of 2 degrees Celsius. A conservative estimate places this number closer to 4.5 degrees Celsius. (1)With the extent of man-made CO2 and its impact clearly made explicit we move on to directly address Cons case regarding the % of emissions of man-made CO2 in comparison t natural emissions.(B) The significance of man-made CO2 emissionsMy opponent argues "Pro's numbers are correct, but they only represent what percent of the total MAN-MADE GWP those gases make up. But when compared to the total GWP from both men and nature, it only account for 0.278%. This is far too small to be a threat to the World."Again, this may seem compelling, but when we investigate what the effect of man-made CO2 actually is, we see his point is not so compelling. Let's talk equilibrium. Equilibrium is the state where opposing forces are balanced. Nature naturally seeks this equilibrium. The massive numbers Con shows that come through natural emissions do not stay in the atmosphere (historically). Before man began to emit large amounts of CO2, nearly all natural CO2 emissions were absorbed by the ocean or the trees. The emissions were at equilibrium with the absorption. Man made GHGs have thrown this equilibrium totally out of whack. The emissions that are naturally produced do not stay in the atmosphere, and therefore do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Man-made emissions do indeed remain in the atmosphere. (2) Consider the following graph Man made GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere and quickly accelerate the effects of the Greenhouse Effect, and thus contribute significantly to global warming. "About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)." (2)"While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2." (2)"Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions." (2)This irrefutable points out that although Con is correct in saying that the natural carbon cycle emits more CO2, the Man-made emissions have a much more potent effect on the atmosphere.Subpoint A points out the sever nature of the effects, as a rise of 2 degrees Celsius could have very severe consequences (1)SummaryMan emits a lot of GHGs. Nature emits way more, but the GHGs do not stay in the atmosphere. Mans GHGs are a major cause of global warming, as man-made GHGs remain in the atmosphere, unlike natural GHGs. The earth warms significantly. This warming further reduces the oceans ability to absorb GHGs, further increasing the damage done by Man.II. Indirect emissions(A) The effectiveness of replantingCon is correct in saying that more trees are planted than cut down, but this does not mean that GHGs are more effectively curbed. The fact is, older trees actually absorb more GHGs than younger trees."Trees' growth accelerates with age, according to a new study in the journal Nature, which suggests that the world's oldest trees could play an important role in combating climate change. The revelation goes against the long-held assumption that trees lose their vigor with age. An analysis of more than 600,000 trees belonging to 403 species found that trees grow more as they get older, which enables them to trap more carbon than their younger counterparts." (3) (B) The ocean, and heatingThe ocean absorbs around 40% of all carbon emissions, natural or man-made. (4)Warming the ocean significantly reduces its ability to absorb GHGs. As I have proved, Man-Made GHGs warm the earth significantly more so than natural GHGs. Natural GHGs that remain in the atmosphere due to the warming of the ocean via man-made GHGs are just indirect emissions from man. "The world’s oceans will absorb lower amounts of carbon dioxide as they warm" (4)Therefore, you can see that humanity raises the global average by only a few degrees Celsius, and the effects of that damage "snowballs" out of control, and results in disastrous levels of damage. SummaryI, the pro, have proved irrefutably that man-made GHGs are responsible for the warming cycles that expert environmental scientists claim to be "impossible to be natural." I have proved as well that man-made GHGs stay in the atmosphere longer, and therefore contribute much more to the greenhouse effect. This warming snow-balls and causes even more natural CO2 to be trapped in the atmosphere. These massive amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere heat the earth through the greenhouse effect. These GHGs are in the atmosphere because of man.Therefore, VOTE PRO!Sources1. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 2. http://www.skepticalscience.com...3. http://www.natureworldnews.com...4. http://www.rtcc.org...

can't you see? there are a lot of calamities because of this "climate change". isn't it enough that you can see people drowning because of its effects? can't you see that people are dying because they don't have food to eat because of the drought? isn't it really enough? it is clear that it IS killing people. it may not affect you but it affect others. if you were one of those "others", how would you feel?

Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. I will take the pro side. The BOP lies on both sides. First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only.

Acknowledgement of opposing evidenceI shall first bring up some evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change. One may wonder why I would do this when I am arguing against anthropogenic climate change, but it’s really simple: I do this in order to provide the opposing side some representation and then I will present my side to refute that side’s argument. That is the most logical way of debating, and if you ignore evidence when it is available to you, that is a cherry-picking fallacy. The main evidence of anthropogenic climate change, is the increased levels of CO2 emissions within the past couple of centuries. It is believed that irreversible effects are occurring now and into the future due to increased CO2 emissions, and that this CO2 emission increase is due to primarily human activity [1]. In fact, in this study, it is shown that if humans were to cut all CO2 emissions the CO2 in the atmosphere would linger still and still cause more warming even if it were all put to an end. [1] There are of course plenty of other studies that show this as well. Refuting the scientific consensusThere is often stated that 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real[2]. However, it is a fallacy to trust the words of authorities on the matter without considering the evidence. In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent has cited, it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point out later. In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it. The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case. Reiterating previous debate pointsIn a previous debate with the same user, it was established that 3.225% of all CO2 emissions are caused from humans by unnatural causes. [4] In addition, the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone up by about 1 degree fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all. Problems with CO2 emissions claimsSince there may be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidence” that claims anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2 emissions, the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming of the earth. In addition, it has been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2 emissions rising often follows temperature rise, and not always the other way around [5]. If it was as simple as CO2 rises, and therefore temperature rises due to it, then the reverse should not be happening where temperature rises and then CO2 rises. It was also found that CO2 forcing effects on seasonal temperature to be inconclusive, particularly since CO2 emissions cause warming at first, but the warming causes more evaporation of water and thus more clouds and humidity, which lead to a cooling effect, the net effect is not much change in the overall temperature [5] Next, another study performed by G. V Chilingar et al found that “Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.” In another comprehensive study on global temperature rises by Patrick J. Michaels et al, it was concluded from “observations of atmospheric CO2 buildup and global CO2 emissions... that lead to exponential warming... is not based upon the reality of recent decades.” Many of the models scientists have come out with to show that CO2 rises cause exponential warming, are not reflective of what has actually been happening in the world, and the warming in the world is much more linear. Problems in general with anthropogenic climate changeWhile I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles that show problems with anthropogenic climate change; there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming, to problems with climate models, to what should have been expected to result from anthropogenic climate change not actually happening. [7]Due to all of these issues listed above in this category and the previous 3, it is difficult to believe the climate scientists who claim anthropogenic climate change is a reality, when, as far as I’m aware, they have not addressed the above issues outlined. Inconclusive results and the default positionBecause as mentioned before, that majority of the studies done into anthropogenic climate change resulted in inconclusive or neutral results, the default position should be that anthropogenic climate change does not exist. Just as believing a god doesn’t exist is the default position when there is not conclusive evidence for or against a god, or majority of the evidence is inconclusive or neutral, so would then the position on anthropogenic climate change have the default position of not believing in it. Sources:[1] http://www.pnas.org... [2] http://climate.nasa.gov... [3] http://iopscience.iop.org...[4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...[6] http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [7] https://skepticalscience.com...

I thank 101 for accepting!ARGUMENTSC1. Climate Sensitivity and FeedbacksCarbon dioxide has a significant influence on global land-sea mean temperature. All scientists agree that CO2 has some direct effect, increasing temperature by 1.1 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. David Evans argues, "Most serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with government climate scientists about the effect of CO2. The argument is about the feedbacks." [1]Climate sensitivity is the key point in all of climate science. It refers to, in this context, the rise in equilibrium global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A 2005 study by Nir Joseph Shaviv confirms that the climate sensitivity, without any amplification, is 1.1 degrees Celsius. [2] The debate is about the feedbacks. What is a feedback? A feedback is a climate process that amplifies or dampens the effect of a climate forcing. A climate forcing is any factor that influences temperature increase, in this case referring to CO2. So, a feedback is anything that amplifies or dampens the effect of CO2 on climate. Feedbacks that amplify it are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are negative ones. [3] I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate, and therefore, increase the overall effect of CO2 on temperature. Various studies report positive feedbacks as more likely. Soden and Held report a 2 degree celsius climate sensitivity due to positive feedbacks. The study reports very few negative feedbacks. "Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response." [4] A 2003 study by Colman reports a feedback of nearly 3 degrees celsius, and the paper is cited by Soden and Held. In the study, a "comparison is performed for water vapour, cloud, albedo and lapse rate feedbacks taken from published results of 'offline' feedback calculations for general circulation models (GCMs) with mixed layer oceans performing 2 x CO2 and solar perturbation experiments." [5] There is much evidence outside climate models as well. Wigley, et al. report a possible sensitivity of greater than 4.5 degrees celsius due to volcanic forcings, and supports an average sensitivity of 3.5 degrees. The study says, "After the maximum cooling for low-latitude eruptions, the temperature relaxes back toward the initial state with an e-folding time of 29–43 months for sensitivities of 1–4 degrees C equilibrium warming for CO2 doubling." [6] A 2005 study by Forster and Gregory also uses volcanic forcings and feedbacks, and finds a climate sensitivity range of 1 - 4.1 degrees Celsius. [7] Even in a hypothetical scenario where negative feedbacks cancel out positive feedbacks to a climate sensitivity of 1 degree C, research by Ziskin and Shaviv (2011) has predicted that "the largest contribution to the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources." [8] They find that of the ~0.7 degree C temperature rise in the 20th century (some estimates slightly higher), about 0.4 degrees of that are due to anthropogenic forgings, or about 57% of the warming. Nonetheless, climate sensitivity is likely much higher than that. Research by Patrick Michaels, a CATO scholar, found that the amplifier was 1.6 degrees C. [9] This means that human activity causing global warming is much greater than 57%, even under these low estimates. I still maintain that sensitivity is somewhere around 2 - 3 degrees C. A study by leading climatologist JD Annan -- using the Bayesian statistical approach -- found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees Celsius. [10] The following graph displays the literature on carbon dioxide sensitivity. The following picture portrays the evidence regarding climate sensitivity. As such, I conclude that the effect of the rise in CO2 on climate is huge.C2. Paleoclimate The paleoclimatological record is clear that CO2 has become the chief climate forcing in the Cenozoic Era (which began after the Cretaceous mass-extinction event 65.5 million years ago). Overall, solar activity has increased by 40% in this period. James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato argue, "The sun’s brightness increased steadily through the Cenozoic, by about 0.4 percent according to solar physics models (Sackmann et al., 1993). Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2 . This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era...CO2 [has been] the dominant forcing in the Cenozoic." [11] The below graph depicts the correlations between CO2 and temperatures over the past 200,000 years. The temperature changes correspond to the changes in CO2 levels. Take the example of the Vostok ice cores. A study by French and Russian institutes says, "There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." [12] There is proof that it is warmer now than since the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, it is warmer now than any year since 1400. Thus, paleoclimatology confirms that CO2 influences climate at huge levels.C3. Human ActivityI have now established that CO2 is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 65%. Now, I must establish that humans are responsible for much of CO2 generation. First, a simple correlation -- CO2 levels rose with the beginning of industrial activity. [13] If the ratio between C-14 and C-12 decline, the observation would virtually confirm that human activity is responsible for increase in CO2 concentration. This is because the CO2 emissions humans make come from fossil fuels. This has been observed. [14, 15] UNDERVIEWI have shown the following:a. Climate sensitivity is likely high, and positive feedbacks dominate climate, suggesting that carbon dioxide can significantly influence global land-sea mean and atmopsheric temperatures. b. The paleoclimatological record demonstrates that carbon dioxide has been the most major climate forcing in the Cenozoic Era, which began 65.5 million years ago. c. Human activity is the main driving force behind rise in CO2 concentrations, and there is (1) a documented rise in CO2 concentrations, and (2) a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature records. SOURCES 1 - https://mises.org...2 - http://bit.ly...3 - http://bit.ly...4 - http://1.usa.gov...5 - http://bit.ly...6 - http://bit.ly...7 - http://bit.ly...8 - http://bit.ly...9 - http://bit.ly...10 - http://bit.ly...11 - http://bit.ly...12 - http://cdiac.ornl.gov...13 - http://bit.ly...14 - http://bit.ly...15 - http://bit.ly...Thus, I affirm. Over to Con!