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

The reality of anthropogenic climate change is undeniable and poses a significant threat. My adversary has neglected to address all issues except for the depletion of the ozone layer. Given the absence of a response, I assert victory in the unaddressed areas. Concerning the ozone layer, there is irrefutable evidence linking chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related chemicals to its degradation. [3][4] "The scientific community has reached a definitive consensus that CFCs and similar substances are the primary culprits behind ozone depletion in the stratosphere, as these chemicals are the only plausible source (Russell et al., 1996). The reduction and cessation of production of many ozone-damaging substances in industrialized nations is crucial." [3] Thank you for the engaging debate. 3. http://www.un.org... 4. https://www.epa.gov...

The basic support for global warming is that temperatures are rising, and at the same time, greenhouse gases are too. This is a flawed support. My first point is that the form of this support is a common logical fallacy. According to the Encyclopedia of Errors in Reasoning, this fits a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc format. That is, it is saying that because two things occur together, they are causally related. This does not follow. As an example, a graph from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster shows that global temperatures have increased as the amount of pirates has decreased. They use this to prove that the decrease of piracy has caused global warming. Obviously this is not the case. This is the same format used to "prove" global warming. As CO2 and other gases have increased in the atmosphere, global temperatures have risen. It is a logical fallacy to say that they are in a causal relationship. So right off the bat, global warming is not supported by logic. Obviously, something is a little off here. My next point is that temperature increase is not as dramatic as environmental groups would like you to think. For example, according to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, global temperatures have only risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit since the end of the Little Ice Age, in 1880. That means we are only one degree warmer than a little Ice Age. Unfortunately, GISS data outside the US is not as accurate as GISS data in the States, and the GISS data from the US alone shows only a third of a degree increase. If the most accurate temperature collection system shows only a third of a degree increase from an ice age, is that really a cause for alarm? Moving on, if we look at Vostok ice core samples from Antarctica, we see that the temperature cycles, and that the current temperature rise started about 25000 years ago, before any industrial pollution occurred. Also, today's temperatures are significantly lower than those that we have seen in other warm periods. Today's temperatures fit perfectly with temperature trends, and are not anomalous or unusual in any way. My third point is that CO2 does not cause global temperatures to rise. The Vostok ice core samples which I mentioned earlier also allow scientists to measure CO2 changes in the atmosphere. What we often see, is that CO2 will not correspond with temperature changes, sometimes it goes up while the temperature goes down, and vice versa. Other times, temperature goes up, but CO2 doesn't rise for another thousand years or so. More recently, the GISS data shows a thirty year decrease in temperature in between 1940 and 1970, yet CO2 is rising at the same rate as today. Fourth, according the SYR Appendix Glossary, the greenhouse effect works when the greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, the atmosphere, and clouds, which they then send out from all sides, including towards the earth's surface. According to NASA climatologists, this means that the upper atmosphere should warm first. NASA has had satellites measuring the upper atmosphere since 1979. NASA satellites however, have shown that the upper atmosphere has maintained a fairly constant temperature since 1979, with a change of about .03 degrees Celsius. My final point is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is nowhere near enough to significantly change the earth's temperature. The Mauna Loa Observatory has measured the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be about 380 ppm. To put this in perspective, if the atmosphere was a football field, nitrogen would take up 76 yards. Another 20 yards or so would be filled by oxygen. 3.9 of the remaining yards would be filled by various other gases, mostly water vapor, not including CO2 or methane, methane would take up all of the remaining space, except for a pencil line thick space reserved for CO2. This analogy was from Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear. A pencil thick line in a football field is virtually nothing. In fact, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall published an article in Nature showing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could change earth's cooling processes by less than 1%. So, pretty much, the basic premise of global warming, that CO2 causes global temperatures to increase is completely unsupported by scientific fact. I hope that was sufficient.

The world is fine. There"s no "hole" in the ozone layer. It"s all a myth. "Argument 1 " No Significant and Prolonged Temperature Changes Since 1997 " Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn"t real because since the 90s there hasn"t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature have been flat since then which clearly states that there isn"t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years." "Argument 2 " Not Enough Historical Data Available " There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn"t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don"t have long-term historical climate data or the data they have isn"t clear." "Argument 3 " Arctic Ice Increased by 50% Since 2012 " Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version." "Argument 4 " Climate Models used are Proven to be Unreliable " The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long-term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift." "Argument 5 " Early Predictions About the Effects of Warming Have Been Proven Wrong " Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example, Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012."

"...other variables such as water vapor, soot, solar radiation and other green house gases.”Water vapor isn’t a forcing agent. It’s a “feedback loop” as when CO2 levels go up, more water vapor gets in the atmosphere [1]. Soot (A.K.A black carbon) is only in the atmosphere for days to weeks, but CO2 is there for centuries.“Short-lived climate forcers – methane, black carbon and ozone – are fundamentally different from longer-lived greenhouse gases, remaining in the atmosphere for only a relatively short time. Deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions are required to protect long-term climate, as this cannot be achieved by addressing short-lived climate forcers.”[2]“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.”It wasn’t suppose to. There are some positive effects yet the negative outweigh these. The negative effects areDecline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures [3]Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts [4]Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin [5]Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems [6][7][8]Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever [9]and so much more [10]“My opponent also follows the EPA designation that CO2 is an air pollutant that directly harms humans. “The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. [11]This is a much broader definition. Also Title 1, Part A, Section 7408 states"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [12] (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."Greenhouse gases including CO2 fit the Clean Air acts definition of air pollution. Furthermore Encyclopedia Brittanica defines pollution as"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." [13]Increasing CO2 levels have direct affects to our environment. Such as, the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, leading to acidification which messes with marine ecosystems. Clearly it’s a pollutant.“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. “OK, I don’t see what this has to do with global warming, but OK. Bit of a red herring here. If this truly is a threat, then we should deal with both.[1] http://www.nasa.gov...[2] Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone; United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org..., 2011[3] http://www.pnas.org...[4] http://www.pnas.org...[5] http://www.agu.org...[6] http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr...[7] http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org...[8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[9] http://www.decvar.org...[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[11] United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) [12] http://www.supremecourt.gov...[13] http://www.britannica.com...

Before I begin, I would like to bring up a prior statement you made from Round One: "Correlation is always an argument in this debate...It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it." (See Round one for full quote.) . I would like to point out that this is true, but the Regression Factor of CO2 would of course not be as effectual as the Irradiance of the Sun, as that is where all energy on our planet originates. The r=.44 of Carbon is not as large as the PDO and AMO (Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillation), but .44 still means that there is a strong enough correlation, that it may affect our mean temperature. Of course, the .83 r factor of our currents is more effectual, since a large amount of our world’s heat is stored in our oceans as shown in the following chart: [2] Notice that there are more high temperature areas in the oceans (mostly since the ocean is 75% of the Earth's surface area), and that they go farther North and South than the land masses do. This was meant to be included in my last round, I'm sorry for including it now. 1. Climate Change is real and is a threat There definitely have been natural warmings of our planet, but never as fast as these last 162 years in which we have kept records of our planet's weather. In the last 7 years alone, Carbon counts globally have risen 18ppm according to various studies. [1, 3] In regards to the end of a noticeable rise in temperature being 1995, I still wholly agree. However: it is well known that just because one thing happens, the effects of it are not immediately felt. Just as how we are only now seeing light from stars that shone that light millions of years ago. The ocean's currents will not change immediately, but slowly over a few years, as will sea level. Though sea levels aren't rising worldwide, they are growing by an average rate of 3.11mm per year, an increase in the average (documented prior to 2000) of 1.63mm more per year. [4] "However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years," is a quote from my Round Two which you referenced in your rebuttal: "Regardless...the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]." (See Round two for full quote) I would like to point out that I never said there were more hurricanes, only that these storms were stronger than before. Again, I will cite this: [5] As for your claim that hurricane intensity has flat lined, realize that your source only documents hurricanes post-landfall. Landfall is when the eye of the hurricane is only on land, and hurricanes begin to lose force as the storm's boundaries cross the shore line, so most hurricanes are documented at a weaker strength after they have already done the majority of the damage they can. [6] Allow me to define climate: noun. 1. The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. 2. The prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest. [7] According to this, the dust bowl was an effect of climate change, and my opponent even says that it was caused by humans through over-farming. 2. Humans are the cause of climate change First thing I would like to say in this section is that your source 7 is out of date, as many more have been released since then that contradict what is put forth here. [3, 8] As for Carbon ppm being 3000ppm 60mya, I must cry false, as 3000ppm is only a few thousand ppm lower than during the Cambrian era, in which the mean temperature was 7 degrees centigrade higher than today. 60mya, Carbon ppm was, at its highest peak, 1700ppm during the last years of Cretaceous era, and 500ppm only 6 million years later in the Paleocene era. [9-11] In accordance to your claim that glaciers are growing, I will argue that, saying that they grow in height, but not enough to compensate for the amount lost -- or not even gained in the first place -- each year. I can agree that these ice masses slowed their ice loss, but they resumed to lose more after your source 8 and 9 were published. [12, 13] 3. Fixing the problem Renewable energy sources are continuing to become more efficient. Remember: it took us, as Hominids, 400,000 to achieve the level of efficiency we have today in combustion. [14, 15] To dismiss our strides in renewable energy so quickly is rash and immature as a species. Sure, wind turbines are dangerous to avian life. Hydro plants are obtrusive and change the local climate due to human interference. [16] Solar cells are expensive and large, and the output is not always sufficient. However! These innovations are from the last century, and in the next decade, we will have technologies that will far surpass what we have today as a renewable source. Even now, the photovoltaics which Con so easily dismissed are being produced and developed more than any renewable source (nuclear excluded, not renewable) with 1/100th the cost and 50% more efficiency. These are simply trial versions as well. [17] Wind kites can harness energy for the average home with no human maintenance and a 30-50-killowatt/hour range, with even more effective versions in development. [18] Biomass fuels are becoming more common [19] and soon may be one of the must substantial sources of fuel. Nuclear energy is the best we have (for now) in lieu of a completely clean renewable energy. If these energies were more substantial in countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, etc., the crisis we may be facing in the next decade can be stopped before it even starts. New Section: 4. The animal effect Concentrated atmospheric pollution kills millions of animals and gives humans living there life-threatening complications. [20] As these animals die from new diseases, pollution, and habitat loss (also climate change), we face a grim future. The complex chain of animals in our environment is so precarious, that one extinction or introduction could topple a whole ecosystem, throwing that climate in to turmoil, domino-ing the whole planet. In Conclusion! I believe that this round gives a broader view of the problem than Con is willing to propose, but cannot be neglected. VOTE PRO [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [2] http://www.physicalgeography.net... [3] http://climate.nasa.gov... [4] http://climate.nasa.gov... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] NationalHurricaneCenter (2009). Glossary of NHC Terms: Landfall. Retrieved on 2009-02-05. [7] http://dictionary.reference.com... [8] http://climate.nasa.gov... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://climate.nasa.gov... [13] http://climate.nasa.gov... [14] Price, David. "Energy and Human Evolution". Retrieved 2012 December 10. [15] James, Steven R. (February 1989). "Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A Review of the Evidence". [16] http://en.wikipedia.org... [17] Streep, Abe. "The Brilliant Ten: Greg Nielson." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 47. Print. [18] North, Dave. "Blueprint: Higher Power." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 18. Print. [19] http://www.tgdaily.com... [20] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. *for sources 9-11, use chart in upper-right hand corner

Haha yes that was just about sufficient! Firstly, to clear things up, i am not suggesting that the earth is warming because of the CO2 we are producing, because the amount we contribute (compared to the sea and cow's arses) is somewhat tiny. I understand that yes, there is 'a low proportion of co2 in the atmosphere' compared to oxygen, nitrogen etc. However, the o-zone layer it reacts with is also minute, and still thinning in most areas across the globe. Guess when 11 of the warmest 12 years since 1850 were? I understand that the earths climate changes periodically, (the UK used to be desert, and it feels like a long way from that today!). However, anyone clever enough to understand that the climate does change, should be wise to notice that it is right now. You said, "If the most accurate temperature collection system shows only a third of a degree increase from an ice age, is that really a cause for alarm?" Well i'm sure most people reading will appreciate that yes it probably is quite a lot to get worried about. Another point I should add is that 'average' climate change values are doubled near the poles. 1/3 of a degree in the sahara may not make much of a difference, but 2/3 of a degree near the poles, in such a short time?? In conclusion, there is not much we as a race can do to add to/detract from the rate at which the climate is changing. One thing we can do however, is accept that it is.

Thank you for your response. However I'm a little confused as you accept in your post that recent warming trends are due to man made CO2 emissions, even if not as much as some people think: "I agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming". You therefore condede the topic to me.I will save rebuttals for R3, but I think the topic for debate you want to argue and the topic you actually posted are two seperate things. If you want to FF and start a new debate then that makes sense. I think the topic you would want is "The global warming effect of CO2 emissions result in negative feedback" which is the technical term for what you seem mean by "the climate system responds by dampening Co2 induced warming".IntroductionGlobal warming is the name given to the process of "the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases"[1].I will show that the facts clearly show that man made CO2 emissions are a factor driving global warming.The Massive Overwhelming EvidenceThere is only so much evidence you can put into a post with a few thousand characters and both PRO and CON have the same character limits. This does not mean however that the actual body of evidence on each side is the same.There is a scientific consensus supported by the vast majority of the literature which shows that "The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [2]SImilarility the IPCC have stated "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." [3]Therefore on any point where there is dispute and it seems like our points might be equally matched, the vast weight of evidence is on my side and greater precedence should be given to my arguments.GMST is exceptionally highAlthough we expect some variation over time, the current temperature is at a level which cannot be explained as occuring naturally.Every one of the months in the last year has been the hottest since modern records began in 1880 and all the hottest years occur within the last couple of decades.[4][5]When we look at the trends, the rising temperature is clear. [6]This is true and consistent even as we look further and further back. [4]CO2 would be expected to cause global warmingThe physical properties of CO2 are not up for debate. It is a greenhuouse gas, a gaseous molecule with more than one element. A property of these type of molecule is that they absord and emit thermal infrared radiation (heat, basically). [7] This is a verifiable, easily testable quality that I don't think even the most ardent climate change denier would try and dispute.We would therefore expect the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to act as an insulator that keeps the earth warm and for this effect to increase as the amount of greenhouse gases increases. [8]CO2 emissions have shot up massively since the industrial revolution [9]Since humanity industrialised, we've got factories, cars, trains, airplanes and all other sorts of devices pumping out CO2. This has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.THEREFOREIt is it logical, scientific and evidence based to expect the increased CO2 emissions to cause the higher temperatures. More CO2 in the atmosphere should make the earth warmer. There is more Co2 in the atmosphere. The earth is warmer.We can be sure this is not coincedenceAlthough unlikely, it is theoretically possible that a temperature rise and a CO2 rise going hand in hand could be coincedence. However, when we look at paleoclimates we can see that this cannot explained naturally. When the climate has naturally wamred in the past "it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees" but "In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster"[10]This current warming is happening an entire order of magnitude faster than anything we have seen in the past. Therefore based on all available data cannot be ascribed to natural phenomenon. Therefore we must look to manmade phenomenon for the cause of the warming. As discussed above, scientists have found time and time again that CO2 emissions are increasing global temperature. As the global temperature is indisputably rising, unless PRO can put forwad a convincing alternate hypothesisis for a manmade cause of global warming, Reams of EvidenceScience doesn't just rely on a single models, but is testing global 3warming theory again and again using multiple models. The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels. [11]Evidence from historical sources before the modern day like tree rings, ice cores, fossilised plant seeds, speleotherms, sediments and middens all point to a historic record of temperature which sows our current climate as abornmal. [12]Predicitons made based on models which predict climate change have been shown to be accurate - even beyond our increasing temperatures. For instance following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo "Climatologists predicted global temperatures would drop as a result of that global sulfate infusion. They were right: Following the eruption, global temperatures abruptly dipped by about a half-degree (0.6°C) for about two years." [13] Being able to succesfully make testable predicitions shows that climate change models meet Popperian standards of scientific falsifiability and the models are trustworthy.[1] http://goo.gl...l[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...[5*] http://goo.gl...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] http://goo.gl...[9] http://goo.gl...[10] http://goo.gl...[11] http://goo.gl...[12] http://goo.gl...[13] http://goo.gl...[14] http://goo.gl...

there's no question that temperature and CO2 is correlated. you can see that in the links i provided, historically. here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together http://www.skepticalscience.com... you can click on "advanced" for advanced explanations of the science. or you can read the simpler versiosn. it is pointless for me to repeat what it says. it gives an example of measuring the sun that gets refracted back to the earth from the CO2. and then it explains that there are ways to 'check your math' with alternative methods that pretty much then corroborate the findings. i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself. con seems to eb conceding that a third of the warming is from the sun. my resolution can still stand though as all i said is that man made reaosns was significant. even if we accepted a study that said it was like two third of warming from the sun... it is still signficant from man, and that's all i resolved. even if you found a study to say otherise, the overwhelming consensus of studeis says that the sun is only a fraction of the warming cause, less than half.

RebuttalsFirst my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist. Opponent's arguments.1. Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidThis is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]"The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation" [2]From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically. Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on recordArgument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />Argument 3 Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theoryAntarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3]"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.""Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5]4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesThis is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]""When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. "show picture of graph if possible." [6][7]Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures. Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority. Sources2. https://www.epa.gov...3. http://grist.org...4. http://grist.org...5. http://grist.org...6. http://grist.org...7. http://www.grida.no...

This is a no brainer Al Gore and many others are pushing this latest scare tactic to force and agenda - this agenda is to curtail fossil fuel use and encourage renewables Now, I am in the solar business, so these fools who buy this garbage are good for business, no doubt However, the "science" behind the theory that CO2 is a main player in global climate is LAUGHABLE And I am going to make some unusual points that you havent heard the earth is getting a little bit warmer (like 1 deg in 100 years) , and we have no control over it, but: I argue that this is GOOD! Why? What is the greater threat to humans - Cold or Warm? Duh! Where do people live- North Dakota or Florida ? Saskatchewan or Southern Cal? Hey all you folks in the midwest right now under a sheet of ice with no power- are you worried about global warming now? Sorry you cant be here in Sunny Cal right now! Now, we have an ice age every 11000 years or so- this is UNDENIABLE We have had dozens of them over the history of the earth So what caused these to recede in the past? Duh! Global Warming- and guess what Al Gore ? it was before SUVs! Furthermore, the temp on Mars is increasing - is that from CO2 ars well. So what is the REAL AGENDA of the Bali Commission? Well, listen to what they are asking for- MONEY from the RICH NATIONS! and CONTROL over their economies! and to think that intelligent people are buying into this HA HA HA HA HA ! I am laughing all the way to the bank (again I am in the solar business) And guess who is the largest emitter of pollution - China! Guess who isnt required to do any reducing of emissions - China! The only reason why I would opppose this blatant scare tactic is two fold: (1) I am generally opposed to ALL the scare tactics of the left and liberals (2) I am opposed to the attempts to screw up our economy (3) Al Gore is a moron and makes me want to puke (4) I see the pro-GW crowd as alarmingly stalinist- calling those of us who can inteelgently debunk them "deniers" which is a little bit too much like "Holocaust Denier" for me But I am torn, becuase I DO WANT my SOLAR HYDROGEN economy- I have been working on bringing it about for 20+ years and we NEED TO DO IT> Just for some references, here is a link to a great book debunking the schmuck Gore http://www.amazon.com... any takers?

C1: The World is in a Current cooling phaseSome evidence for this is the ice caps are actually growing and not shrinking, this implies that the earth is cooling. [1] Some people put it as the earths fever is gone. [2] The earth has been cooling for a long period of time some estimates say. [3]C2: Overall trendshttp://www.debate.org...(this old computer wont post graphs)According to this trend there has been no significant global warming.http://www.debate.org...these US trends show a flat line trend, major ups then downs but overall there is little change.http://www.debate.org...These trends (comparison of 18th and 20th century tempertures) are actually not very different, hence little change.http://www.debate.org...These stats from iceland show very little change, mabe only a very slight increase. http://www.debate.org...These stats too show very modest warming.There is a strong correletion with sun activity and warming, and the sun is actually becomming less active, causing a doubt in the warming claims. [4]http://www.debate.org...This too shows very little warming...http://www.debate.org...summer: Flat lineSpring: flat lineFall: Very slight riseWinter: very small riseAnnual: Flat lineEngland recently had one of its coldest winters. [5] [6]Vote CON there has been little global warming.[1] http://www.odu.edu...[2] http://epw.senate.gov...[3] http://www.cbc.ca...[4] http://a-sceptical-mind.com...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


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

In October, the PF UN prioritizes poverty reduction over environmental concerns. Paul Brooks, a writer and environmental activist, once stated, "In America today, you can murder land for private profit, leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops." The commodification of the environment is not only morally reprehensible but also a destructive policy. Therefore, I oppose the resolution that the UN should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection when in conflict. My opposition is based on three main reasons:

1. Global warming outweighs everything.
2. Global warming exacerbates global poverty and famine.
3. Observation: In conflict, Professor Jonathan Turley reports that countries like China have made it clear that they will continue to prioritize economic development over the environment, even if it leads to a global ecological disaster. China's main task is to reduce poverty, according to Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China's national development and reform commission. China's pollution has already caused significant environmental damage, resulting in an estimated 500,000 to 750,000 deaths annually. As the largest producer of greenhouse gases, China's pollution is causing major environmental issues in countries as far away as the United States. Developing countries will have a higher output of greenhouse gas emissions, and poverty reduction worldwide will require an increase in carbon-emitting infrastructure in these nations.

Contention one: Global warming outweighs everything, including poverty. The condition of global warming caused by an increase in carbon emissions over the past century is one of the most pressing concerns facing humanity. Bill Henderson, an environmental scientist, reports that global warming isn't just about warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice, and threatened polar bears. The scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. Immediate Draconian security measures are necessary to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Otherwise, we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it, and possibly the end of man's several million-year-old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.

Contention two: Global warming exacerbates global poverty and famine. The economic base of most poor countries is agricultural, and the crops grown by these farmers are sensitive to the effects of global climate change. This not only worsens the problem of famine in impoverished countries but also leads to further environmental disasters that will have a massive negative impact on those living in poverty and everyone else in the world. The UN

I. The Sun Is Warming Since the Other Planets Are WarmingI admit, the sun is cooling currently, but the correlation between the sun and the climate is reinforced by this by my earlier proof that the Earth's temperature is stabilizing, and thus beginning to cool. The sun is warmer now than at any time in the last 11500 years. [1] "Moreover, changes in the heliospheric magnetic field have been linked with changes in total cloud cover over the Earth, which may influence global climate change. Here we report that the measurements of the near-Earth interplanetary magnetic field reveal that the total magnetic field leaving the sun has risen by a factor 1.4 since 1964. "[2][3]This can be seen in this graph: [3]Recently, the sun has cooled compared to recent times. But one, climate lags behind solar activity, and two, this is being seen in the recent temperature slowdown. ". .. the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a "global cooling" may be on the horizon--a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles. "[4]Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming, 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming. [5]This can also be seen in climate data: [6]. Longer term, here is a correlation of a solar proxy to a temperature proxy for a period of 3000 years. Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays, hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (temperature proxy). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900 years BP. The above graph summarizes data obtained from a stalagmite from a cave in Oman. Finally, we see the correlation between temperature and CO2 & solar activity: [7]. It's easy to see the sun is more determinent. On the planets, here are some solar system wide effects: Sun - "Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years [meaning it's not just the 11-year cycle] and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25% 300% increase in galactic dust entering solar system Mercury - magnetosphere experiencing significant increases Venus - 2500% Increase in Green Glow Mars - Rapid Appearance of Clouds, Ozone and"Up to 50% Erosion of Ice Features in one year alone Jupiter - Plasma Torus increasing and"Jupiter"s Disappearance of White Ovals since 1997 " recent increase in storms Io - "observing same changes -" 200% Increase in Density of Plasma Torus and Ionosphere 1000% Higher Europa - Much Brighter Than Expected Ganymede - 200% brighter Saturn's - Plasma Torus 1000% Denser and"Aurora First Seen in polar regions in recent years Uranus - featureless in 1996, now exhibiting huge storms since 1999 and markedly brighter in 2004 than in 1999 Neptune - 40% Brighter, Near Infrared Range " 1996 " 2002 Triton - Severe atmospheric changes, warming Pluto - 300% increase in atmospheric pressure. [8]. You can't be telling me all of this is a coincidence. Also, on Pluto, it is moving further away from the sun despite the fact it is warming. II. The Sun Via Cosmic Rays Is Causing Global Warming Looking at the Earth's long climatic history, it is easy to see the correlation: [9] [10]Low clouds means warmer temperatures: "Cloud cover has decreased over the past 39 years globally, and temperatures have risen during that time. This global decrease in cloud cover alone could account for all surface warming observed since the 1970s. "[11]So more solar radiation (and galatic positioning) causes fewer cosmic rays, which cause the creation of fewer clouds, which leads to warming. This was confirmed with the Svensmark experiement: "Preliminary results show that these faux cosmic rays indeed have an effect on the atmosphere: When high energy protons stream in, production of nanometer-sized particles in the atmosphere increases by more than ten times. "[12]In addition, for the predictions made by the AGW theory and the cosmic ray/solar theory, the latter is the effects currently being experienced. [6] For example, the AGW theory predicts the fastest tropospheric warming will be in the tropics, and the cosmic ray/solar theory predicts the warming will be uniform. The surface warming is similar or greater than troposphere warming. The latter theory wins. [6]Finally, it is clear the cosmic ray/temperature correlation: [6]. "The graph below a correlation between the cosmic ray counts and the global troposphere temperature radiosonde data. The cosmic ray scale is inverted to correspond to increasing temperatures. High solar activity corresponds to low cosmic ray counts, reduced low cloud cover, and higher temperatures. The upper panel shows the troposphere temperatures in blue and the cosmic ray count in red. The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend of 0.14 Celsius/decade. "[6]III. Oceans Are Causing Global Warming "Current research also shows that Earth's oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun. "[4]The PDO correlates extremely well with global warming, and is not caused by humans. [13] Ocean currents correlate better than CO2: [14]In fact, Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature, and 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. [18] IV. The 1500-Year Cycle The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was globally warmer than today, and in both hemispheres: "Chinese temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher than present during China's climate optimum. " ". .. during the Medieval Warming. .. . Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer [than today] due to a southward shift of the climate belts. " ". .. the central Argentinean area had more precipitation during the Medieval Warming than today. Temperatures may have been as much as 2.5 degrees C warmer due to a southward shift of the tropical rainbelts. " "The largest anomaly was a rapid warming-4 degrees C-between 350 B. C and A. D 450, reflecting a warmer climate in equatorial East Africa. " "On Signy Island, halfway between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America, there clearly shows the Roman Warming. .. , the Dark Ages [cooling]. .. , the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming-which is cooler to date than the Medieval Warming. "[15] From Medieval manuscripts, it is easy to confirm that Europe was warm during the MWP, but so was the southern hemisphere: [16]. This means it was a global event, and not a see-saw hemisphere event. "Indirect evidence suggests that the average temperature was as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer [during the Medieval Warm Period] than today. "[17] [17] V. Three Equal Warmings Period Length Trend(Degrees C per decade) Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes [19] [20] Conclusion Putting this all together, "For example, the authors of a paper by NASA's JPL remark '. .. has compared the minimum aa [index of geomagnetic activity] values with the Earth's surface temperature record and found a correlation of 0.95 between the two data sets starting in 1885. The solar irradiance [solar activity] proxy developed from the aa minima continues to track the Earth's surface temperature until the present. '"[21] There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. Sources . http://www.debate.org...;

Thank you for accepting. I assume that what my opponent is trying to say above (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they believe that Co2 is a major or significant cause in warming but not the sole cause. Just to clarify, I agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and that it causes warming. What I don't agree with is how the climate system responds to this direct warming effect. I believe that the climate system responds by dampening Co2 induced warming while global warming alarmists believe that the climate amplifies Co2 induced warming. An example of this is water evaporation. Global warming alarmists believe that Co2 causes direct warming which then causes water evaporation which then heats the Earth (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas). I, and other skeptics, believe that the direct warming of Co2 causes water evaporation, which then turns into clouds and cools the Earth. I believe that the clouds dampen the direct warming effect of Co2 by causing cooling that has more of an effect on climate then the heat produced by Co2 and water vapor. (Evidence of how cloud cover influences climate is seen through cosmic ray numbers: Flipped Cosmic rays and temperature: http://a-sceptical-mind.com... How cosmic rays influence clouds and therefore temperature: http://physicsworld.com... ) Now, for my arguments showing why this is incorrect: (Sorry if I put a lot but there is a lot to discuss) Fact 1: There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1998. In addition to this, there has been a lack of an atmospheric hotspot (in the mid to upper troposphere) that was predicted to be caused by greenhouse gas caused warming. This in itself proves that greenhouse gasses are not causing the recent warming trend. No warming 1: http://blogs.news.com.au... No warming 2: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Lack of hotspot 1: https://mises.org... Lack of hotspot 2: http://sciencespeak.com... (Specifically on pg 6 but I suggest you read more) Fact 2: Co2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, it can only store and release 7% of the electromagnetic spectrum that passes through it. Fact 3: Throughout Earths history, Co2 has been much higher in the past showing that recent levels of Co2 are harmless. http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 4: Recently, ice core data shows that Co2 followed temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years, not the other way around. Lags warming 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Lags warming 2: http://joannenova.com.au... Lags warming 3: http://tinypic.com... Fact 5: Co2 has never caused amplification of warming in the past. It is simple logic. If Co2 amplified temperature after orbital changes raised the temperature first, when would the amplification stop? The answer is when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic and this has only happened once in the last 25 million years: Ocean pH 25 million years: https://www.manicore.com... (I know it shows acidification at the end but this does not contradict my argument because it is a different result of more Co2.) Fact 6: Almost every single computer model made by the IPCC is wrong. This suggests something fundamentally wrong with the models used. In addition, the models are all wrong because they predict to much heat which suggests that the effect of Co2 is being overblown. Computer models wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Computer models wrong 2: http://c3headlines.typepad.com... Computer models wrong 3: http://cdn.phys.org... Fact 7: During the post economic boom, when Co2 soared, temperatures fell despite the increase in Co2. This has been blamed on increased sulfur emissions but NASA says, "the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas" which explains how sulfur would only cause cooling in or around the areas it was released. This means that sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling. Post war economic boom: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net... Co2 levels: https://www3.epa.gov... As you can see, Co2 levels rose dramatically during the post economic boom, past what they had ever been at before, yet temperatures fell. In conclusion, I have provided 7 facts explaining how Co2 can not, or has never been, a main climate driver. All the historical and recent evidence is stacked against it and, while it does have some slight effect on the climate system, this effect is not, or has ever been, significant.

Yes, I have said "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that"and the CO2 emission is nowhere the same now as they were back in 1945. However, what I was trying to prove was that even though there was a huge increase in the CO2 emission in 1945, the climate didn't increase which suggests to me that greenhouse effect might not be the case which proves global warming. I wouldn't call global warming the cause of the melting of the glaciers. I would use the term climate change. And yes you are right, that is not the only explanation.I have given you evidences in the next paragraph about the Inconvenient Truth and ClimateGate. In this argument, you have failed to give me another reason why you believe that global warming exists. In the next argument you make, please do include why you think global warming exists rather than just pointing out the mistakes I have made.

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...;

Defending my arguments.First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary. I made this argument in r1 and thus far has been uncontested. I have fulfilled my burden of proof with this documentary in round one. As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority. Argument one, burning of fossil fuels increase Co2.I've shown that the EPA states that burning of fossil fuels increase the greenhouse gas of CO2. I was unable to figure out why CO2 levels dropped during the time interval of 1940-1950. Yet, I did show that by my opponent's same graph CO2 levels have risen dramatically. In 1850 with Co2 at 285.2 ppm and in the year 2011 391.15 ppm. This is a cherry picking fallacy, my opponent has chosen a time frame that best suits him/her despite the obvious overall trend of higher concentrations of CO2."The two main byproducts of natural gas combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor" [8]As you can see the combustion of natural gas causes carbon dioxide, Co2 emissions. 2. Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph.3. Ice in AntarcticaThe overall tend is hotter. Climate can be difficult to predict, just because not everything predicted came true at the correct time, doesn't destroy the overall premise is false. 4. CO2 and temperature are strongly correlated.The graph clearly indicates that Co2 and temperature show a strong positive relationship. Yes, there are a few anomalies but that doesn't discredit the theory. ConclusionsMy opponent relies almost exclusively on cherry picking as a strategy. The overall trend is warmer and Co2 levels are increasing. Thanks for debating. Sources8. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

"Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim." harrytrumanSunspots play a minimal role. As for CO2 levels only being a small part of the greenhouse gases this is true. Neverthless, naturally occuring CO2 is balanced out. Human industry made CO2 is not. Thanks for the debate.http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Round two argumentsPicture of consensus studies. [2] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [2] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [3] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [4] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [5] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [6] Human fingerprint picture. [7] As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver. A person may ask, but is there not natural sources of Co2? Yes, but natural sinks of Co2 outweigh natural sources. Meaning nature is a net sink of Co2. This can be seen by more Co2 going into the ocean than out and the resulting ocean acidification. Sources2. https://skepticalscience.com...3. http://www.climatecentral.org...4. https://www.epa.gov...5. https://skepticalscience.com...6. https://skepticalscience.com...7. https://skepticalscience.com...

Well, I do apologize for "sucking the life" out of this "philosophical" debate on a scientific theory. Wait, aren't scientific theories usually based on reality and facts? Also HandsOff, you opened that door, not me, when you made the resolution "scientists have no proof"! "It is a list of the many respected scientist who disagree with much of the data you cite." Well, this is a very, ah, interesting speech given by the far-right conservative, global warming and liberal basher, Marc Morano. (Who, by the way, has been accused more than once of offering unsubstantiated claims or false statistics.) Well, there was a report similar to it issued a while ago, known as the "Heartland Issue" Go to this link to see how scientists reacted to it. http://www.desmogblog.com... Anyway, for every scientist he offers, there are dozens more who disagree. He even stated at the beginning of this that over 51% of scientists agree with global warming. Also, go to this link that discusses those who don't. http://www.thedailygreen.com... "CO2 (whatever its source) has increased a WHOPPING 37 PERCENT over the last 100 years. Since this last 100 years coincides with only a .6 degree..." First off, the source is clearly humans, my opponent didn't respond to what I said earlier, so he must find no fault with it. Ok, my opponent seems to not understand the frailty of life. A human will DIE if its temperature increases 1.8%. Global temperatures need to decrease 1 degree in order for it to be considered an ice age. 37% is a HUGE amount in the environment, as is .6 degreed celcius. Keep in mind, that .6 degrees is causing the polar ice caps and all glaciers to melt! 15-37% of plant and animal species could be wiped out by global warming by 2050 at current rates. I ask again, how far must we go before it is considered a "degree"? "And again, since this .6-degree change is well within historic levels, it could be argued that we do not even know if the increase in CO2 is reponsible." It COULD be argued, but where is proof that any natural things are occurring to heat the climate? Its happened in the past, yet now its heating when humans are dumping 26.8 billion tons of CO2 into the air each year. Coincidence? I think not. "I am not hear to debate whether there is a good argument for global warming." Hmm..then what are you here to debate for? Because I'm pretty sure your resolution said there was "no proof offered" Based on the resolution, I should win right now because I've offered enormous proof that my opponent has not responded to. "I am just submitting that a valid debate continues because neither side can (as of yet) conclusively prove its case. There is simply no definitive proof that humans make a significant contribution to global warming. There are only opposing viewpoints based on inconclusive evidence." This is not a reason to vote for my opponent. In fact, my opponent really says nothing here because scientific debates never really end. However, there is definite evidence supporting the con in this debate. Some Voting Issues: 1) My opponent never even responded to any of the facts I gave. This alone should be the reason to vote for me, as I have clearly shown that scientists do have proof, contrary to the resolution. 2) I have clearly shown the impact of humans on the environment. (More here http://www.edf.org...) 3) My opponent has offered no reason to vote for him.

I also must admit that my opponent has put forth very valid arguments, some of which I greatly agree with. I hope that in the future -- when I am a more developed debater -- I may challenge him again. As for my correlation of CO2 to warming, I must stand strong with it. I am aware that it was not the largest factor, but this correlation rate will continue to drop as the ppm of Carbon Dioxide rises, as it is an inverse equality. This is not me conceding the fact that there is a correlation, but that as our world becomes more laden with CO2, each molecule will have less and less of an effect. 1. Global Warming is real and is a threatI do not believe in Global Warming, as it means to show that the whole planet is warming (which I do not believe), but I understand the general use of the term now, even in ways to describe climate change. I believe that there is a vast change in our climate, and will continue to be as such. Perhaps now our data is biased on both sides, pro- or con-climate change.2. Caused by humansI am well aware of the natural cycles of warming in Earth's geological history. Never before have we experienced such a sharp upward clime of Carbonppm without a natural calamity (such as eruptions, meteor collisions, etc. ). To refute Con's claims on the 2,000-3,000ppm pf Carbon 60mya, I will use the same data as in my round 3. I used data from 66mya, 60mya, and 58mya, just to make sure I had all my bases covered, in case of his 60mya figure being an estimate. My attempted refute on your round2 source 7 was based on the grounds that our methods of measuring have become more efficient and accurate, so the data could be deemed inaccurate today (only a speculation).3. Fixing the problemWe are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy. In conclusion I have done the best in my ability to refute the claims Con has made and stabilize my views and hopes for the future. I hope to one day challenge another debater to a similar topic when I am more experienced.