Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

You the judges are presented with a problem. Whose statistics, whose figures should you believe?In order to help you I'm going to tell you a short story paraphrased from Professor Helen M Walker that you can find in a book titled “How to lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff published in 1954 starting on about page 62. If you wish to debate any statistic, or figure you might want to consider reading the book in full.As women get older they toe out more as they walk. It seems like an absurd conclusion, and indeed false, but it is something the data would say at the time. To reach this conclusion you simply survey a large sample of women, and plot their age and angle of their feet, and it would say that at the time. Women who were younger didn't toe out as much as women who were older. However, it is wrong because it's assuming the younger women are a valid reconstructed past of the older women. The issue is actually that the older women toed out more even when they were younger as well because it was a generational fad that faded over time with each generation. The correct way to do this analysis would be to take women born at around the same time like 1900, and measure them once each year over a period of time like 115 years. Only then would you be able to tell if women toe out more as they grow older.This highlights the major problem with global warming data. It assumes that adding in a large volume of weather stations at different periods of time that have no past to compare to won't cause any deviation in their data. It assumed that adding in data from volunteer ships for the first half of the century, but not the later half wouldn't affect their data until adjusting it in a favorable way appeared to remove part of the argument.If we had no choice I'd agree that this method is flawed, but there exists no alternative. However, we have a sufficiently large number of weather stations that have been in operation from 1900 to Present. But this basic analysis for checking to see if sampling bias, and methodology bias is the actual cause of the change is ignored. There exists no funding of additional projects that says there is no measurable change in temperature in the last 115 years. There is no renewal of tenure for the professor who can only publish once that there is nothing here on a subject, and then must find another controversy to publish on.As for the Hiatus, if you understand my argument at this point you should have a clue as to what it actually is. Over the years we've added so many weather stations that by the mid 90's that ability to manipulate the data by adding more sample would require adding 5 to 10 thousand samples. They'd finally reached the point where the law of large numbers overwhelmed them, and adding a few hundred only accounted for a few percentage points to the total sample. The cost of adding non randomized weather station sample exceeded their desire.The evaporation data by itself is all that is needed to prove man is not a significant player in global warming. The rest is ether to confirm the finding like how stable evaporation had been prior to 2005, and 2010. Or to discredit, and confront the poor methods used to support my opponent's argument.If the evaporation data couldn't show changes in the Earth's Atmospheric energy then it would remain flat regardless of any change in the environment. However, we know it does change, and changed with the predictions from NASA that the Earth would be subjected to more solar storms than we normally do for Solar Cycle 24 due to an unexpected effect in our electromagnetic field. The correlation is so pristine that it even has the same peaks and valleys. If it can change for that in such a fine tuned way then why doesn't it so the change for man caused global warming? There are only two answers. Either man caused global warming is insignificant compared to the solar effect, and is drowned out by the subtle noise. Or that it is nonexistent. Ether conclusion fully supports my argument.I've undermined, and instilled doubt into my opponent's argument. That isn't to get you to vote for me. That is only to give you a reason to listen so that I can give you the time of day. You will vote for me because you will have looked at the evaporation data I've presented, and come to the same rational conclusion.Man Made Global Warming has nothing to do with the enhanced levels of energy in our atmosphere over the last decade, and is insignificant, or nonexistent compared to the natural cause: Solar Storms breaking through our Electromagnetic Field.Thank you for letting me give you the time of day.