geoengineering should and can be used in 2016 to combat global warming

Sorry for not having enough time for this debate; I forgot about it. Since we just lost a round, how about we post one round in the comments after the last round. Let me know if you want to do that in the next speech. I'd also like to clarify on something myself. I prefer to say "climate change" instead of "global warming," partially because it is the more-used term now. Forgive me if you don't understand at times, but just understand that climate change is pretty much the exact same thing as global warming. I don't care which one you prefer to use; either one sticks with me. Rebuttal: First of all, I'd like to tell the judges that pretty much all of your first paragraph was copied and pasted. However, I'll debate against your arguments anyway. First of all, your source stated it themselves: "there are a number of known objectives including but not limited to SRM, weather warfare, over the horizon radar enhancement, controlling food production, and probable biological testing. " That means that this aerosol spray that your source talks about is also very helpful. Do you even know who sponsored this aerosol spraying? NASA, one of the most trusted organizations in the world. (. https://www.nasa.gov...)That means that aerosol should be a very trustworthy thing to be spraying in our air. If there were harmful aftereffects of aerosol spraying, then we would have seen them by now. You know why? Aerosol was established a long time ago. "The patent was filed in September 1949 and was issued on March 17, 1953," according to the NAA, the National Aerosol Association. (. http://www.nationalaerosol.com...) The "highly toxic metal nano particulates" that your source mentions is not toxic at all. Do you know what it is? Aluminum. There's lots of reason why we might spray aluminum into our air instead of other substances. "There might be some good reasons to think about aluminum. Aluminum has four times the volume rate for small particles as does sulfur. That means you have roughly 16 times less the coagulation rate, and that the thing that really drives removal. " (David Keith, Canadian Environmental Scientists, President of Carbon Engineering) Maybe your source was just theorizing without evidence. Rebuttal 2: You said, "as soon as we quit spraying those reflective particles into the atmosphere, the Earth will heat up very, very, very rapidly. " Let me tell you why this happens: The carbon dioxide that is breathed by everyone will just make the Earth heated up again. However, this is not true with today's technology. When the scientists did the tests, they had not yet heard of the TreePods(Also known as the Boston TreePods). (. http://www.shiftboston.org...) These TreePods are things that can take in carbon dioxide and store it away safely, and ready to be used. They are to be placed in populated cities, and all the carbon dioxide that is breathed by the people can be stored away, and it won't reach the atmosphere. In the UNLIKELY event that geoengineering is proven to be "unhealthy" for the environment, then the TreePods will clean out the carbon dioxide long before the geoengineering is shut down. But you might be thinking that the TreePods themselves are geoengineering. However, they won't be taken out because they don't have any harmful aftereffects, just like most forms of geoengineering. Besides, do you think that the planet will just stop geoengineering immediately after they discover that there are harmful aftereffects? I doubt it. The planet already knows what will happen if they quit too soon, so they will try and reduce the use of geoengineering slowly. However, as I said before, that definitely won't happen, because geoengineering is very reliable. Rebuttal 3: First of all, the aerosol spraying will not completely reduce the amount of sunlight that is allowed into the atmosphere. It will barely, if at all, affect the agriculture. But the only reason that we have climate change is because we have been using a lot of fossil fuels in the past few decades. Doesn't that mean, however, that people have been farming effectively before the introduction of fossil fuels? Yes, they have! And when we reduce the climate change, we will go right back to farming in the same temperatures from the 1800's, when the fossil fuels were introduced. (. http://www.fe.doe.gov...) In case you're wondering, that's actually a good thing. But let's pretend that what you say is true: it will make the planet "colder. " This will not reduce the water or soil quality, and will in fact make more air. Rebuttal 4: First of all, you are forgetting that geoengineering isn't only about reflecting the sunlight into space. It's also a way to reduce the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Maybe those would be the harmful aftereffects of aerosol, but they aren't completely guaranteed. If they prove to be a problem, then we could always just use another type of geoengineering, like the TreePods that I mentioned earlier. Rebuttal 5: You said "61,000 PPB (parts per billion. )" However, do you know how much that is, compared to 1 billion? That is less than one percent, out of all the snow. However, the aluminum is actually much smaller than most things that we could spray out, and can coagulate. Their rate of coagulation is much higher than other things, according to David Keith. Given the chance, the particles of aluminum would easily become coagulated, and "clotted. " Then they could easily become collected. Rebuttal 6: First of all, I don't believe that geoengineering is the thing that is making our atmosphere shrink. You said it yourself: "very possibly also LINKED," which means that it could be associated with a shrinking atmosphere, and it has a little evidence, but it's not necessarily the thing that's causing these things to be happening. I won't give a rebuttal to your shrinking atmosphere until you give me concrete evidence that it's being caused by geoengineering. Rebuttal 7: First of all, I would like to address your "fungal proliferation. " First of all, it can't be completely linked to the aerosol being sprayed in the air. As I said, it can be associated, but no concrete evidence. But let's assume that what you say is true, and that there is a lot more fungus now because of aerosol. You say "the growth of fungus" like it's a bad thing, but it's really not. In fact, it's really helpful to our economy, and helps us get more food. It also only feasts on dead things, and we have a lot less dead things in our world. They also can't spread very far into different environments, so they can't exactly be counted as an invasive species. Just because things look disgusting doesn't mean that they're bad. If that were true, then your family would be the worst people ever (Joking). Rebuttal 8: First of all, if geoengineering won't be ready by the end of 2016, then let's just assume that the date will be ASAP, despite what you said in the debate title. Anyway, if we were to use geoengineering, then we would have a lot of testing on it, to see how it would be affect the world. We wouldn't just put it into effect immediately, and the aerosol testing is a very clear example of this; we tested this for an exceptionally long time before putting it into use. I will put my later rebuttals and arguments in a later speech, because I have very few characters that I can use left. Once again, I apologize for running out of time on the previous one, and I will make sure that this doesn't happen again. Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.