The human effect on global warming is significant.

When reading this speech, remember the burden. That the affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of GW. Global Warming= GW [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3ï¿½ C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts." 1)Actually 3* temperature increase is due to all green house gas emissions in total. From CO2 only it is a 0.095 degree increase, not even one degree. 2)But what is important is that it is not a question of how much of an effect but how much of a relative effect. Because my opponent has the burden to prove that CO2 from humans is the largest contributor to global warming, and because CO2 is still only 3-4% compared to water vapor being 95%, my opponent still does not fulfill the burden. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect." 1)The article is considering the amount of CO2 stored in the ocean which is more than the CO2 from humans. Thus the amount of the gas stored in the oceans is enough to amplify the effects to a significant point not the CO2 from humans. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "[The percent cause of CO2] more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase." 1)No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming. a.My opponent essentially did ((390-300)/300)*100, which comes to 30% 2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase." 1)Yes, I agree human emissions are the cause of part of the CO2 increase, yet even if humans were 100% of the increase, because CO2 contribution to global warming is so small, it is still insignificant. And the opponent's burden is to prove GW is mostly caused by humans, not to prove humans are the cause of the CO2 increase. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%." 1)You have conceded to the fact that CO2 emissions are around 4%. 2)Net emission (the inclusion of CO2 emissions from other sources) is irrelevant as my opponent has the burden to prove that humans are the main cause of GW not other sources. 3)My evidence factors in all CO2 sources and in total (including CO2 from non human sources) the percentage is around 4% [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies. " 1)Saying that because most of society and scientists believe GW is caused by humans then you should win this debate is simply ground limiting. Debate is supposed to convey the view of both sides not the opinion that is already considered in society. Saying that because many people say its true is not debate; that is just taking opinions and putting them together. Debate is about seeing validation as to why something is true. It is not an opinion poll. 2)If society and scientists already believe this, then how are we debating this resolution. A resolution is debatable when there are coinciding views. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever" 1)Though I have stated that opinions do not matter, to refute this specific point: They actually found a substantial amount of data. One piece is that since 2001, the air temperature did not rise at all while CO2 emissions were on the rise. Thus they found no correlation of CO2 to actually global warming. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source." 1) No, there was a 30% increase in CO2, that does not mean CO2 is 30% of global warming. a.My opponent essentially did ((390-300)/300)*100, which comes to 30% 2)If we consider the 30% increase in CO2, CO2 will still be 4.703 % of total Green House Gas emissions. Thus still miniscule. 3)The scientific paper is true in what it said, that CO2 increased by 30% NOT CO2 is 30% of global warming. 4)Monte Hieb is the person who made a website and HOSTED the graph. The graph is made by Stuart Freidenreich, a scientists at the Princeton University Geophysical fluid laboratory. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies." 1)If you just say that you win because more scientists believe in my side is not debate. That is an opinion poll. A debate is about exploring why something is so on the two sides of a debate not an opinion poll. This limits ground as the affirmative can then say that more scientists believe me, thus I should win. That means the negation could never win as the amount of people saying something is indefinitely true. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] "Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2]." 1)The counter evidence is that CO2 is 30% of global warming. I have refuted this point two times above. 2)The evidence addresses an increase in 30% of CO2 not a 30% cause of CO2 for GW, thus this is not counter evidence. [=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] {-Closing-} The negation should win this debate at this point for 6 reasons 1) My opponent does not give counter evidence to my evidence that water vapor is the main cause of GW not humans. 2) My first contention, that water vapor is 95% of GW, flows through as there is no counter evidence against it. 3) Therefore my opponent does not fulfill the burden. 4) My opponent's first contention is based on his assumption and is countered by my direct evidence. 5) His second contention limits grounds, is not debate (rather an opinion poll), and thus is fallacious in this debate. 6) He has conceded that CO2 is around 4% of GW.