A debate on a topic that I am not mentioning in the topic line.

"Yes, you can say this. However it is different once things become statistically significant. I bet that if you did hundreds of trials and vast research on pirates and global warming, you would find that the results are not statistically significant.' Regardless of statistics, it is still a logical fallacy to say that because the rise of manmade greenhouse gases and rise in temperature coincide that they are causally related. Furthermore, what you bet has nothing to do with this debate. "However, environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming." Ooh, appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, I'm so afraid. 60 years ago, the scientific community unanimously agreed that eugenics was the way to go. You know what eugenics is right? It's killing "undesirables" to prevent reproduction. "Opponents, such as yourself, either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science." I'm actually maintaining the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. So, this is irrelevant. An interesting fact however is that the majority of the scientists opposed to global warming are retired, and are in no need of grants from environmental groups and other parties partial to global warming. The same thing happened with eugenics, which I mentioned earlier. The fact is, scientists will "unanimously agree" because they unanimously want money to pay for their experiments. (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers) "The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion." Appeals to authority, such as this, are logical fallacies and hold no weight in a rational debate. You should stop using them. "Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence." CO2 is considered the main anthropogenic GHG. It is very relevant. If it does not consistently coincide with temperature change, it is definitely not changing temperatures. It is very relevant, and it is a point that you have not refuted at all. "Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. They have issued many reports summarizing the correlation between human industrial activity and global warming." Could you please stop using appeals to authority. They're useless. I'll skip the next two paragraphs, because they are ANOTHER APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!! "Also, Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol." CFCs have nothing at all to do with this. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "-Your evidence was based off of logical contradiction. My evidence is based off of scientific evidence, MASS GLOBAL SUPPORT, multiple worldwide studies, and more." Logical contradiction? Me? Look who's calling the kettle black, Mr. Appeal to Authority every chance I get. Furthermore, what contradictions have I made, I don't see any. "-This is completely your subjective opinion. Please state evidence to support this." I don't know how a sourced statement is opinion. The only part I can think of that you are talking about is the last sentence, which I also derived from State of Fear. "-Obviously this is true. However you forget to account that the poles are ABOVE WATER as well as below. This is not too significant at the North Pole, as it is approx 90% underwater and 10% above. HOWEVER, Antartica is a continent covered in mass amounts of ice. If this ABOVE WATER ice melted into the oceans, they would rise." I would and could debate this, but I won't, because this is irrelevant to the debate. Also, the GISS station in Punta Arenas, the closest city in the world to Anartica, has actually shown a .5 degree Celsius decrease in temperature since 1888, when it opened. So, the ice cap probably won't even melt. "My opponents argument was very unstructured and hard to read, however I believe I have summed it up and negated it very well for you. This so-called "fool-proof argument" obviously had some logical fouls in it." My argument was hard to read, and maybe a little disorganized, but that has nothing to do with anything. You have not negated it at all, except for an irrelevant point on sea-levels. You have provided fallacious arguments yourself, and have shown no "logical fouls" in my arguments, enough of this self-righteous BS. Here's a list of my points that have not been rebutted at all. The globe isn't actually even warming up. Our current temperature increase started 25000 years ago, before man had even began producing these gases. CO2 and other GHG changes often do not correspond with the temperature changes that they should produce if they were responsible for warming and cooling the earth (not including water vapor). Upper atmosphere is not warming as it should if GHGs were to blame. GHG production is not significantly enough to change the world temperature. Points of my constructive that were negated oops, you dropped all of my points Yeah, you negated my argument pretty well, you only dropped 5 major points that I made. My opponent's points that I have refuted. majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming-- I said that this was a logical fallacy in R2, my rebuttal has not been addressed, so you extend my rebuttal to that point. 5 of the lst six years have been the hottest on record-- I said that the record started in the middle of the little ice age, so this is not significant. This rebuttal was also neglected by my opponent, so again, my rebuttal is extended. Artic sea ice is melting-- I said that this has been occurring for over 2000 years, and my opponent again dropped my rebuttal, so my rebuttal is flowed across yet again. sea levels are rising-- I said that sea levels are a disputed scientific question, and surprise surprise, my opponent dropped this rebuttal. I again get my rebuttal flowed forward. ice is melting faster than it is forming-- I said that this is a natural occurrence that often occurs, and has been for 2000 years, again dropped so I get flowed across. permafrost temperatures are increasing-- I said the same thing I said about ice melting, and again, the point was dropped, you know what to do. Opponent's points I did not address in R2-- cricket, cricket Opponent's points that I have not thouroughly rebutted sea-levels would rise if Antartica melts