Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity.

Outline: With most of Pro's argument based off the effect of CO2, I simply have to show that CO2 has a minor effect on Global Warming. I already have the historical data to prove it.Rebuttal I: Importance of CO2Pro brings up Climate Sensitivity. It's a common and exaggerated argument. The GWP measures how sensitive the Climate is to that element. 1 Gigaton of vapor has far less than the effect on the climate of half a Gigaton of CO2. Climate Sensitivity has already been addressed as soon as GWP was brought into the discussion. That being said, with a GWP of 1, not much is happening to the climate...My argument about the Cambrian Era emphasizes this. At 7000 ppm, The climate was only 10ºc. If the climate was as sensitive to CO2 as Pro claims, the Cambrian Era would have been 50ºc higher or more, and literally unsurvivable for the Dinosaurs living during it. If climate was as fragile as Pro claims, we would be in, by far, the hottest warming period in the last 400,000 year, not the coldest. Those two things are issues Pro's argument simply disreguards.A) Climate SensitiveClimate Sensitivity is hardly as intense as Pro claims. If you view my charts in R3, you will again see that CO2 is 25% higher than any other period, but the temperature hasn't followed. Why? Because CO2 doesn't have a large effect on temperature. I've already done the math in R2 showing that the increase in CO2 only accounts for 0.15°F of the total increase in temperature, which says a lot, since the total increase in temperature still leaves us freezing in comparison to other warming periods.The claim about the potention effect CO2 has and what the actual data say just aren't agreeing. Climate Sensitivity would have took effect in the Cambrian era as well, and let the tempature was well under what Pro needs to back his case.B) Man-Made CO2Much of Pro's argument is based on how much CO2 human's release... Which I've already brought up. We do tip the pot, I've said this... And we did increase the amount of CO2 in the air, I've said this... And yet the data STILL says it's doing little to nothing. Why? Because, again, CO2 is weak. The amount we release simply isn't doing anything. Again looking at my math in R2, the total increase in CO2 has had an affect of 0.15°F.Pro is arguing in circles. "CO2 is increasing" "The increase is doing nothing" "But the CO2 is increasing." Pro is simply arguing in circles, repeating his last round. We already brought up the increase in CO2, I already explained the insignificance of the increase... I even brought up how much we added... In fact, my numbers were higher than Pro's (35 Gigatons to Pro's 29 Gigatons). The increase in CO2 has been recorded, and the increase in temperature has been recording, and the correlation is small and unsupportive of Pro's case.Pro is chasing his tail, and begging the question. Claiming the increase in CO2 is bad because we are increasing CO2, ignoring every argument made showing how little of an affect that increase actually has. Pro is showing how much it's increasing, but as let to show the affect of that increase. I have shown the affect of that increase, and it is minor.Rebuttal II: Indirect EmissionsIt should be mentioned that Indirect Emissions aren't ignored when measuring PPM. The 400 ppm still includes those. That being said, Indirect Emissions have already been calculated, and do not hold some potential that was overlooked in the chart's I've shown. The increase in CO2 from Indirect Emissions isn't hidden. We see it just like we see any other. They were already accounted for.A) Tree Replanting.My math, in regards to CO2 consumption, is based on an average rate. Not the rate at which new trees consume CO2. Even if the amount consumed was much smaller, it doesn't say much against how wide the gap was. 661.17 Gigatons consumed compared to 237.6 Gigatons made. The total consumption rate by the end of 88 years would have to be cut down by 63%. Odds are, the decrease in CO2 consumption will likely never be that extreme. The gap in Consumption and Emissions is simply too large. If cut in half, the Consumption would be widely above Emission.B) Ocean and HeatingThis argument is flawed in that it ignores just how small the temperature increase from man-made emissions is. As explained, human emissions (all emission, Methane, Nitrous, and F Gases included) is responsible for an increase of 0.20°F, the rest being natural. Pro gravely exaggerates the affect of CO2 on the ocean's ability to absorb CO2. If it was as sensitive as he claims, once the extremely hot Summer season hits the ocean, it would never end. Also the increase needed, being several degrees Celsius, as Pro mentions, is far from the current increase. Assume it takes 4°c... It would take 666 years to reach that, as it took 134 years to see temperature increase by 0.85°c. This is a causational paradox. Claiming that Global Warming is causing X to create Global Warming. What's causing the temperature to rise? The Ocean's efficency going down. What's causing it to go down? The rising temperature that it was causing. Claiming that X, caused by Y, is causing Y to cause X in the first place. As well, all pro is doing is listing off new ways CO2 is building up. My data includes TOTAL ppm, including direct and indirect. That 400 ppm we are taking about doesn't somehow exclude CO2 from the ocean. For EVERY way pro claims CO2 is raising, it still doesn't prove CO2 is influential enough to be a threat, while my data shows it isn't.Final Defense:CO2 just doesn't have the needed impact to claim human's are responsible for most of Global Warming. The Cambrian Era and the past 400,000 years went unchallenged. Every variable Pro brought up would have effected temperatures in the past as well, and yet the temperature in the Cambrian era was well under what it'd have to be for Pro's claim to be true. As the data shows, the Cambrian Era (550 mya to 480 mya) was nearly 8°c above today, despite having 17x the CO2. This chart, like all my other charts, takes into account the whole temperature as it is/was. Every variable and hidden factor that Pro brings in is accounted for. If it's not, that's because the variable literally didn't effect the temperature. The temperature doesn't exclude increases from the decrease in CO2 consumption in the Ocean, if that increases temperature, we'll see it on the chart. With every variable took into effect, temperature to CO2 ratio just doesn't add up to Pro's claim. If CO2 was as capable of the kind of Global Warming Pro claims, directly and indirectly, temperatures in the Cambrian era, and today, would be much higher. Pro acts as though every variable he brought up doesn't show up on my charts, as though they only now exist. They have been involved the whole time. The temperature has increased 1.5°F, that increase is already caused by every variable Pro mentioned, and yet it's still leaves us with the coldest warming period in the last 400,000 years, and my math (using the GWP of thg gases) only makes up a small portion of that increase. To small of an increase to snowball out control. If an increase of 0.20°F is enough to cause what Pro claims, Summer would be devastating.All of Pro's arguments simply ignores the data.As seen in my charts, CO2 rises with temperature, but isn't causing (most) of the temperature increase. The argument is Post Hoc. CO2 may rise with tempature, but it doesn't cause the temperature. If it did, the Cambrian era would e 4-5x hotter, and we'd be at least 6x hotter. History simply shows that CO2 isn't strong enough to have a major impact on tempature.1) http://www.geocraft.com...Conclusion: Men-made Global Warming doesn't make up a large part of the Global Warming cycle, and isn't a threat.CO2's effect is small, as has been seen long ago and today. In order for Pro's arguments to be accurate and right, temperatures today must be well above all the temperatures of the last 400,000 years. The fact that temperatures have barely risen with CO2 shows the minimal impact CO2 has on it.Pro's arguments are begging the question. He claims CO2 level raising are an issue because we are increasing CO2, ignoring that data, and GWP of CO2, deems the increase near harmless.CO2 simply does not bare to Global Warming Impact needed to prove Pro's case. Human's are not responsible for most the temperature increase, and our influence simply isn't a threat to humanity.