Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

It has been fun (and no, you aren't being a jerk. I do it all the time). I'll do the same thing as my opponent regarding the conclusion. This debate comes down to five seperate points: 1. Cosmic Rays 2. The Sun 3. Oceanic Trends 4. Climactic Trends 5. The Greenhouse Effect On to the points themselves: 1. Cosmic Rays: My opponent has never really responded to this argument very well at all. a) He has completely dropped my point on galatic positioning. b) On cosmic rays from the sun themselves, he has also basically dropped this point. He has not disproved that more cosmic rays cause more cloud cover, that more cosmic rays means lower solar activity, and that both of these things have an effect on global warming. c) He has not argued against that cosmic rays are in smaller frequency. Fewer cosmic rays are a significant contributor to global warming. [1][2] 2. The Sun. My opponent here has made erratic, dubious arguments. a) He has never refuted that the sun causes global warming on the Earth. The audience can see the correlation. b) He brings up an interesting point on celestial bodies, that the changes are erratic in effect and that the effect would diminish the further out one goes, however, both are flawed. b. i. ) For the first one, my opponent does not control for the effect that each celestial body is experiencing different internal climatic conditions. Some have more reflective atmospheres, some have less; some are bigger (more radiation), some less. b. ii. ) The total effect might diminish but percentage effect wouldn't too much. Also, if my opponent had read the long list I provided last round, he would see that there is diminishing effect the further out one goes. 2500% down to 40%. The sun is the only body that causes warming on Earth. It is the main cause of global warming. [3][4][5] 3. Oceanic Trends. My opponent is dening the existance of a correlation. There is a strong one. [6][7] a) There is a strong correlation. 4. Climatic Trends My opponent is denying the existance of all the climatic changes I have provided and proved. He is dismissing ice core, tree ring, and soil data from over 10 different, worldwide locations. "Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change " ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea crea- tures. There are also shorter-term proxies " cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies. Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth"s frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). Other substantiating findings followed: ● An ice core from the Antarctic"s Vostok Glacier " at the other end of the world from Green- land " showed the same 1,500-year cycle through its 400,000-year length. ● The ice-core findings correlated with known glacier advances and retreats in northern Europe. ● Independent data in a seabed sediment core from the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland, reported in 1997, showed nine of the 1,500-year cycles in the last 12,000 years. Other seabed sediment cores of varying ages near Iceland, in the Norwegian and Baltic seas, off Alaska, in the eastern Mediterranean, in the Arabian Sea, near the Philippines and off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula all also showed evidence of the 1,500-year cycles. So did lake sediment cores from Switzerland, Alaska, various parts of Africa and Argentina, as did cave stalagmites in Europe, Asia and Africa, and fossilized pollen, boreholes, tree rings and mountain tree lines. None of these pieces of evidence would be convincing in and of themselves. However, to dismiss the evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle, it is necessary to dismiss not only the known human histories from the past 2,000 years but also an enormous range and variety of physical evidence found by a huge body of serious researchers. "[8] And this isn't the only study: [9] Audience, please read source 8. 5. The Greenhouse Effect. I have many times refuted the CO2-global warming correlation. But, to provide even more: [10][11][12] I have disproved the greenhouse effect on various occasions and have proved that CO2 does not trap heat or cause global warming. [13] Conclusion: My opponent basically dismisses my arguments without refuting them very effectively. I have very well proved my case that fewer cosmic rays, the sun, oceanic trends, and the Earth's natural 1500-year climatic cycle, when combined, will create measurable warming. The Sun heavily influences the Earth's climatic cycle. I have disproved my opponent's case by proving that the many stipulations the greenhouse theory has are not holding up (i. e. no significant warming at the poles, no correlation, incorrect atmospheric warming, etc. .). My opponent basically repeats the same arguments after I have already disproved them. Also (this isn't a new argument since you pointed out mine were biased), the IPCC produces flawed ans biased statistics because of publicity, money, and power. Their "hockey stick", "contradicted hundreds of historical sources on the MWP and LIA and hundreds of previous scientific papers with evidence of those major past changes in the Earth's climate. .. In effect, the IPCC told us to ignore the overwhelming historic and physical evidence of the MWP and LIA. "[13] As for my studies, they are backed up by real Earth climatic data, historical analyses, and they are not in it for the money (how much could they possibly get compared to the IPCC? I mean if they were in it for the money and bias, they would jump on the IPCC bandwagon). Thanks to my opponent for the wonderful debate. I have enjoyed it. Sources: [1]:". http://www.sott.net... [2]:". http://wattsupwiththat.com... [3]:". http://www.news.harvard.edu... [4]:". http://www.theregister.co.uk... [5]:". http://wattsupwiththat.com... [6]:". http://www.drroyspencer.com... [7]:". http://www.smh.com.au... [8]:". http://www.ncpa.org... [9]:". http://www.cgfi.org... [10]:". http://www.freerepublic.com... [11]:". http://www.americantraditions.org...(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm [12]:". http://junkscience.com... [13]: Singer S. Fred and Avery Dennis T. : Unstoppable Global Warming