Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

It's unfortunate that my opponent decided to write up his response to the contradiction in his data so rashly. Perhaps if he had taken a day to digest the argument he would have been able to come up with a better response.Since this is a long debate I'm going to use this round as a tldr to summarize the evidence, and give my opponent one last chance to attempt to refute the challenges he's chosen to ignore, or breeze past.EvidenceNot Human Caused1) 1970 has more ice than 1870My opponent seems to be unable to read his own graph, Figure 12. According to his own data, which he did not decide to toss out, the Sum total of Ice loss in 1970 was between -300 and -400, and in 1870 it's clearly more than -400. Because it's going with a communalative total this means there was an increase in Ice.Now I gave my opponent, and you the judges lots of leeway to reject the evidence completely. However, he has not, and misunderstands what I was talking about with the change in the number of sampled glaciers. When you add in a large amount of sample like in Figure 7 when the number of Weather Stations goes from about 500 to over a thousand the graph becomes exaggerated. According to Figure 17 that's exactly what happened with the glacier data around 1976 where the sampling nearly double.2) Weather Station data shows no correlation change with human activity in the 115 year range of this debate.This is simply a fact that can't actually be refuted. The truth is that when you do a comparative analysis for weather stations that use the complete set. In other words. they exist at the start, 1900, and exist at the end 2015 you get no noticeable correlation with an increase in temperature. My opponent was even nice enough to find a second source confirming this with a smaller more restrictive dataset.So, why would you want to include a bunch of weather stations from 1970 that have no records going back to 1900 when you want to know what changes in weather can be observed from 1900 to 2015?The answer is simple. Figure 10 shows 1970 as a low point in temperature, and, if Figure 12 is not discarded, is corroborated by the ice data. The several thousand stations added thought the 70's can only show an increase because they started at the bottom, and have no past beyond that, like the high of the 30's, to be compared to. It results in the increase being exaggerated, in much the same way Figure 12 has exaggerations.3) The Pan Evaporation Rate is by far the most important fassett of this debate.The fact that this rate stays relatively constant from 1980 to 2005 corroborates the conclusions drawn from Figure 10. The fact that it changes in late 2010 to strongly correlate to solar cycle 24 which NASA has predicted in 2008 would subject the Earth to an unusually large volume of Solar Storms because of an effect with our Electromagnetic field suggest some important things. Most importantly that is shows changes in the Earth's Energy footprint, and second that the changes that it shows has nothing to do with the actions of man. So if we blame the heat waves of 2012, and the record heat of 2014 on global warming the real culprit is solar storms made possible by a weird effect in our electromagnetic field, and a dual peak, 2012 and 2014, in solar cycles 24.Man Caused Evidence1) Sea LevelsOn the surface it may seem that sea levels support my opponent. However, this requires that he reject his own glacial data. After all if the Volume of Ice is high in 1970 than it was in 1870 where did this ice come from? Then without the dataset to recreate the graph we can't reliably show the CO2 and Sea Levels side by side to see how well or not well they correlate. In my view the bulge of CO2 from the 70's isn't visible the poor quality graph of the Sea Levels, and the source for that dataset has long since taken it down, or moved it. It's even possible that sea levels, and the Ice Data are both correct, but that would require believing something like our pumping of groundwater could have had an impact on the amount of available water, but that's not global warming if you accept that.2) Mixed Methodology Temperature GraphsA good portion of my argument involves a bit of education about how mixed methodologies can warp a graph. The easiest way to resolve this kind of an argument is to separate out the methodologies, and treat each of them separately. I've done this with the weather station data.Now his latest temperature graph does attempt at showing a correlation between CO2, and temperature. However, if we accept the Round 3 temperature graph there are a few problem. First I'm glad my opponent finally has a graph that shows a clear run up in temperature for the 30's unlike his others. However, this exposes that the correlation only exists for about 1960 to 2000 maybe 2015 since it's hard to tell on the edge of a graph if the trend is continuing, or not. In his graph the temperature is noticeably higher compared to the CO2 levels breaking the correlation for the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Then in the early 1900's it's noticeably lower breaking the correlation yet again. Finally in the 1880's it's noticeably higher than the CO2 would imply. If CO2 so definitively correlates for a brief period in the 20's and from 1960 to present why does it deviate so violently in the other periods? It could be that the CO2 measurements in that graph are an over smoothed representation of the truth, or it could be that the correlation never really was to begin with.3) VenusThis is actually a minor point, but I'm aware that some people will look at the example of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and think that it is somehow proof.Fact, even if we burned all the Coal, and Oil on the planet, and even if we were in the orbit of Venus we still wouldn't even approach the temperatures of Venus. The reason has to do with Atmospheric pressure and Ideal Gases. CO2 and O2 are close enough to Ideal Gases that they actually obey the Ideal Gas Laws.When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2. Now we just need to apply Avogadro's Law.Avogadro's Law“equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules”This means that the atmospheric pressure will remain the same at 1 Bar for Earth, but Venus has 92 Bars of pressure, or 9200%. No amount of burning will cause us to add atmosphere. We can only convert it. Now volcanoes can inject CO2 without burning, and that's one of the few ways it can be approached. However, even with the same exact atmosphere we'd still be colder because when our electromagnetic field is working we don't get the additional heat that Venus does because it spins too slowly to have a field large enough to deflect them.This is why the Venus, and Mars analogy is false. It is a gross over simplification of the truth. It neglects that we don't add atmosphere, but rather convert it. It also ignores out electromagnetic field which is the main difference between Earth and Venus, and Mars.Thank you, and I await our final round.