A debate on a topic that I am not mentioning in the topic line.

In this round I will break down my opponents arguments and rebut them. -- "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." Yes, you can say this. However it is different once things become statistically significant. I bet that if you did hundreds of trials and vast research on pirates and global warming, you would find that the results are not statistically significant. However, environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming. Opponents, such as yourself, either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science. =----= The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Sources: -Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity". Knoxville News Sentinel. --Lindzen, Richard S. (Spring 1992). "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus". Cato Institute Regulation. -"Global Warning". Washington Post (5 February 2007) =---= The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion. Sources: "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change December 2006 "Joint Science Academies' Statement" =---= "My third point is that CO2 does not cause global temperatures to rise." -Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence. --- Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. They have issued many reports summarizing the correlation between human industrial activity and global warming. A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." Source: www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 =---= Also, Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol. =---= My opponent says: "First my opponent brings up the UN thing. I would like to point out that if it is undoubtable, then how can I provide so much evidence to the contrary?" -Your evidence was based off of logical contradiction. My evidence is based off of scientific evidence, MASS GLOBAL SUPPORT, multiple worldwide studies, and more. He also says: "Furthermore, this is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. 60 years ago, the scientific community was in consensus that eugenics was a good idea (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers). Science is pretty much trial and error, so something that is undoubtable just means we should doubt it even more." -This is completely your subjective opinion. Please state evidence to support this. He also says: "Cool science experiment, fill up a cup of water close to overflowing. Place it on a paper towel. Then add ice until water reaches the brim. Wait a few hours, surprise, the cup has not overflowed, and the towel is dry except for a small amount of water left from condensation. Ice displaces more water than it takes up when it melts." -Obviously this is true. However you forget to account that the poles are ABOVE WATER as well as below. This is not too significant at the North Pole, as it is approx 90% underwater and 10% above. HOWEVER, antartica is a continent covered in mass amounts of ice. If this ABOVE WATER ice melted into the oceans, they would rise. Interesting science experiment. Take a cup and fill it to the brim, then place a funnel filled with ice with a hose leading into the cup. I bet you can guess what might happen. =--= My opponent said: "I've rebutted my opponent, and constructed a fool-proof argument myself. Obviously, you should vote for me." My opponents argument was very unstructured and hard to read, however I believe I have summed it up and negated it very well for you. This so-called "fool-proof argument" obviously had some logical fouls in it. Therefore, you should obviously vote for me. =---= In order to win this debate, my opponent will have to provide significant scientific evidence to disprove the MOUNTAIN of evidence that I have shown. He will have to negate all of my points without introducing any new points. If this is possible, then I still have one round to rebut once again. However, I do not feel that this will be necessary.