"Global Warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists

I apologize, Pro, for missing the last round; the 1 day time limit affected my ability to post in time. 1. Re: Eco-Terrorists The problem with your analogy of relating "anti-life" people to "eco-terrorists" is that it can be argued that "anti-life" people actually exist. While I strongly disagree with the term, those considered anti-life are said to choose the option of Choice over Life. However, those considered eco-terrorists aren't choosing TERRORISM over anything. Vandalism, maybe. To automatically accept the term would be irresponsible. First, arguing over the wording of a resolution is often the key to a victor's success - especially if there are discrepancies with it. Second, that's like saying using the word "Indian" in the resolution is appropriate when referencing a Native American. If the resolution read "The U.S. should pay reparations to Indians," Pro might have a shot if he or she is discussing, say, The Cherokees. However Pro would have a hell of a time winning the debate if it was interpreted that "Indians" referenced the people who live in India. Likewise, it would be hard for Con to defend ANY type of terrorists, let alone ones that do not even exist (hence my argument). 2. Re: Scientific Consensus After making the statement, "While that figure may be true, still the MAJORITY of scientists agree that some form of global warming is, in fact, man-made... While there is virtually UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT in the scientific community that global warming is man-made," Pro claimed that I "conceded to his point" and then over-stated what the scientific community actually believes. This is false. I conceded to the idea that 17,000 scientists might feel a certain way, sure. But then I explained that the MAJORITY of them disagree, i.e. the majority of scientists exceeds 17,000. Additionally, my claim that there us virtually a "unanimous agreement" in the community aren't my words -- I got that idea from a credible source (which I cited). 3. Re: Human Impact Pro has said that he doesn't see the correlation between human involvement and global warming. I mentioned that human activity causes us to emit a lot of carbon emissions and other harmful gases that the plants we have cannot possibly counter via oxygen production (i.e. a problem with the Greenhouse Effect) at the same rate. This is not my opinion, but again a scientific fact. Pro points out that tree loggers plant new trees after they cut some old ones down; however, this is almost entirely irrelevant -- a tree doesn't grow overnight and therefore the capacity to counter carbon dioxide at a productive rate is inconsistent. Additionally, Pro asks, "[Industrialization] caused some bad pollution of water and sometimes air quality, but if these practices affected temperatures (i.e. global warming) then why didn't global warming start to get worse much sooner? It doesn't make sense that this global warming only started in the late 60's and early 70's." Truth be told, I have no idea where Pro got this information. It is not true that global warming began the 1960s or 1970s. It has been going on for hundreds of years. In fact, the very definition of global warming implies that there has been a gradual heat rising in the earth's atmosphere over a LONG period of time (hundreds of years) and supporters note that these temperature increases happen gradually. 5. Re: Arctic Ice Pro claims that the arctic is not losing but actually gaining ice. He offers no proof of this. I have a link to a credible source that explains otherwise: Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces. The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century [1]. Re: ELF I acknowledge that ELF exists; however, I do not believe in their cause. I also think it is wrong for Pro to imply that all environmentalists have the same goals as ELF (to use vandalism - not terrorism) as a means to an end. That's like saying everybody who is Pro Choice wants everyone to have a bunch of abortions. Not true. Re: Evidence Pro states, "There is no credible scientific evidence that man-made global warming exists and that it is not simply a product of the Earth's natural cycle." ... What?! Apparently Pro has been ignoring all of my facts and credible sources throughout this debate. Moreover, he completely IGNORED my argument about the misinformation or rather misinterpretation (which has since been rectified) of the satellite data he mistakenly introduced as an argument in his favor during a previous round. In other words, he realized my point(s) trumped his, and dropped the argument which was completely in my favor and explained how/why there IS credible proof that global warming is REAL (not a lie, as the resolution implies). Re: Economy Finally Pro says that it would be wrong to actually take means to protect the environment, as we would have to spend massive amounts of energy on technology changes, energy costs, etc. This is an extremely narrow-minded perspective, and also one that is incredibly false. As I have already mentioned, it is the goal of environmentalist and green political lobbyists to make the U.S. energy INDEPENDENT, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles (which would actually HELP the economy - especially the car industry) and propel America to invest in the new age technological revolution: The Green Revolution. It's no secret that energy alternatives are the wave of the future. Just as the "dot com" was the last big money making industry, now new, clean Energy alternatives are. Additionally, Pro noted that investment in these areas would raise taxes. What he failed to mention is that the number of jobs created to invest in these endeavors would actually help the economy (get people working again, meaning more taxes for the government, etc.) Re: Goals Finally, Pro maintains that environmentalists want us to return to a primitive lifestyle. This is a blatant use of fear mongering and misrepresentation. As I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this debate, it is the goal of environmentalists to help slow down or reverse the effects of global warming, and to kick start 21st century industries that would make our society more safe, livable and profitable. This includes progressing towards technologies of the future -- not regressing to a primitive lifestyle. Re: Conclusion I have proven that the term eco-terrorism is entirely inappropriate and not plausible, negating half of the resolution. However, even if you consider that to be a weak argument, I have also proven why global warming in general is NOT a lie, thereby also negating the other half (and perhaps the most important half) of the resolution. I acknowledge that I forfeited a round; as I said, the 1 day limit to post an argument impeded upon my ability to write one in time, as I am currently out of state. However, I believe all of my arguments have successfully countered my opponents, and that I have argued my side of the resolution effectively. I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting and thought provoking debate. -- L Sources: [1] http://www.nrdc.org...