Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

Correlations As we can see, my opponent is playing a semantics game in attempt to salvage his defeated case. When looking at the facts, though, we see his semantic attempt is laughable. For example, in debate the resolution is like the constitution, a law of the land, correct? Yes. The wording in the resolution reads “driven”. But the definition is propelled by something [1]. Based on the definition it is extremely clear that the resolution means CO2 is the main cause, based on that fact my opponent already loses the debate. Now my opponent’s quote of myself also proves my point, as cause is defined as to make something happen [2]. The syntax of this also shows cause is usually defined as the “main” thing. For example, CO2 may be a factor, but is not the cause. And it is likely human CO2 can have the effect as it is given by alarmists. And even earlier in the round it is made blatantly clear that Pro would argue that CO2 would cause the majority of warming. Based on the resolution and my position as ‘con’, it means I would be against the resolution. The definitions of CO2 prove: “In other words, it [Co2] is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming.” As con, it is obvious I am against this hypothesis furthering the claim that the debate is about the majority of warming. My opponents semantically driven claim fails. And as he never even touched my facts, I extend the argument. In hopes my opponent returns to the debate, and stops accusations of wrongdoings, which I apologize for if he truly thinks they exist, I will build upon the point I made earlier: there is no significant correlation between temperature and co2; especially within the last decade. My opponent never counters the claim in which CO2 has not a significant enough correlation to be the main factor in warming; as for it to be major the correlation should be in the range the PDO is currently in. In the majority of the time, the CO2 correlation was lacking, however the correlation really only was strong between 1980 – 90, and 1925 – 30. Note that in either of these years the correlation, overall, is extremely weak. The paper concludes, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.”[3] Other then the fact this clearly demonstrates natural factors are a more likely candidate to cause warming let me emphasis the last decade point. If the theory was correct, unstoppable global warming and high correlations would exist that would spiral out of control and we would melt! But as usual alarmist science fails. For something to be correct, it must have the ability to predict phenomena. For example, the periodic table of the elements has predicted what many of the missing elements are/where, and many have been found exactly as predicted. Co2 theory suggests warming should be extremely high… but it was zero. With a correlation of almost zero in the last decade, it essentially proves that Co2 is not a major factor and the science in which it was built is small, and non-existent [3]. No correlation no bang, no bang pro loses. He says many times my source says differently, without direct quotations from it. I have cited it many times, and took stuff out of its conclusions. Let me repeat, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.” You where saying about lying? And what evidence? A graph which I disproved and showed its correlations extremely weak, and that the PDO correlation is impeccable? As we can see, my opponent has offered no evidence other then a graph, which has weak correlation. And the graph is in my source… and the writer shows weak correlation… I prefer not to ask readers to read links, but to prove I am not lying read the summary of the paper here: http://wattsupwiththat.com... Other factors My opponent goes on a rampage. He doesn’t care. See paragraph 1-3 under correlations. He needs to prove these natural factors do not cause the majority of global warming, and that CO2 is a likely candidate. But as he cannot do this he goes into ad homeneim attacks which I have been attempting to avoid in this debate. But the funny thing is a 14 year old with newly found testosterone is keeping his cool more then a fully-grown man… So instead of rebutting this he just dismisses it based on his former semantics. These where rebutted and the point is extended. So instead of attacking my opponent, I will build upon the case already created. Lets first look at solar, a common sense look as it is the only light bulb in the oven. Many studies have come out, with little media attention no less, that make strong cases for solar forgings in climate. Sunspot number is an accepted proxy for measuring the intensity of the suns wrath. NIPCC 2011 As we can see, there is extremely large correlation, and that the sun spot number and climate is extremely correlated. And when broken into the last century, has a stronger correlation then CO2 [4]. PDO is also considered a large factor in the current warming, and its statistical correlation is extremely high and should never be considered unworthy as a component in warming [4]. Conclusions: My opponent threw all his eggs in two baskets: ad homeneim and semantics. Neither where justified, and he has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, which was given to him in round one. This is an obvious victory for con. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010) [4] S. Fred Singer et al., “Climate Change Reconsidered. 2011 interim report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” The Heartland Institute, (2011)