The recent warming trends are not due to man made Co2 emmisions

GENERALConcessionEpidex has conceded that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes global warming. He explain this is because he wanted to argue a different topic from the one he actually chose and laid out in the title R1. He cannot change topics in R2 and R3 and he has conceded the topic at hand. Lack of evidenceAlthough Epidex provides lots of links, he has provided hardly any evidence. Please look at and critically analyse the sources he provides rather than just superficially scanning past them. When I provide graphs they are always linked or referenced in regards to the studies and data they are based off so they can be checked and seen that it's accurate. Epidex typically just links to an image of a graph with no information about it or no source for where it is pulling it's data from or anything that would in any way confirm it is based in reality. These graphs in terms of evidential quality are no different from a random person's unsupported opinion. Indeed, even if you go out of your way to try and track down the source it inevitably turns out to be a load of climate change denialist blog posts and the like with nothing supporting them, e. g. . http://goo.gl...Anyone can make a graph about anything, true or false. Unless we have reason to believe a graph actually represent reality and is accurate, it is useless. EPI'S R2 "FACTS"Introduction The first link is to a graph which provides no evidence for being real or based on real data so can be ignored. The second link though is really interesting because in the entire round this is almost the only link that actually goes through to a source that actually provides evidence and information to back up its claims and unfortunately (for him) Epi shoots himself in the foot here. Although the link[1] mentions the possibility of cosmic rays effecting cloud formation it points out:- Even the members of the team conducting it do not say their experiment proves this is happening and they will need to conduct more research to find that out- It states that the consensus is that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming that is happening. Epi tries to deny this in R3, so why do his R2 sources contradict him. - As is pointed out by "Chris Folland, a climate researcher at the UK's Met Office" in the link, the effect this would have could be negative or positive because high altitude clouds have a warming effect while low altitude clouds have a cooling effect. As it's not known if this theory is correct where the clouds would tend to form, it's not known what effect it would have even if it's significant. This is doubly important as in R3 Epi tries to claim clouds have a cooling effect, while here his own link says they can have a cooling or a warming effect. Basically the only source that he provides in the entire debate which offers a solid evidence based view actually contradicts him about basically everything and supports my argument!1 As shown in my R2, Global Warming is the change in global mean surface temperature, not the temperature in the atmosphere. The atmospheric temperature is therefore irrelevant. His position supported by 3 links to graphs which are backed up by nothing. The 4th link's claims can be summed up as "the hotspot at the top of the tropical troposphere, is missing from the only data we have (Figures 1, 2, and 7). Therefore the signature of increased greenhouse warming has not been found. " However this has very much been found, for instance this study[2] which finds "tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly. .. a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. "His link is a non climate specialist (an electrical engineer and mathematician) pretending that no evidence exists when the evidence exists and he simply refuses to acknowledge it.2 Unsourced and irrelevant. There is nothing to suggest that even if true that 7% isn't enough to alter the temperature of the climate by a couple of degrees which is all that is necessary.3 Illogical and the part about it being harmless unsourced. Just because the Earth and non-human creatures existed hundreds of millions of years ago when there was higher levels of carbon, that does not mean humans and human civilisation can exist or exist without suffering greatly.4 Backed up entirely to links to graphs which don't have any details necessary to assess whether they in any way represent reality or are truthful. No evidence, point must be ignored.5 Same as above.6 Again, nothing but baseless graphs with no data or sources to back them up.7 Obviously hasn't thought this one through. Average global temperatures are based on the mean average of readings from across the globe. [3] If regions of the world temporarily cool due to seperate manmade factor (Sulphates), then this of course reduces the mean temperature in the same way the mean of 8, 10 and 12 is 10 but would be reduced to 9 if the 8 suddenly dropped to a 5 but the other numbers remained the same. Temperature changes do not need to be global to effect the global average. This is basic mathematics. R3I'm short on characters, but pretty much everything here can be dismissed based on being a graph with no evidence and being contradicted by his R2 introductory statement. I will highlight his first link though, which is to a blog post which claims to have '97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”'. Only 3 of the 97 are actual scientific studies. If you click the first link and check the full study rather than the abstract, you will see that this study accepts that the scientific literature does ‘overwhelmingly supports’ AGW. Epi has been taken in by poor quality propaganda that is obviously false if you spend 5 minutes looking in to it. [1] . http://goo.gl...[2] . http://goo.gl...[3] . http://goo.gl...