Kyoto and Gl. Warm. Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively Proven

"1)Not all regions are expected to warm or warm at the same rate due to several factors. The main factor being melting use cooling ocean currents...."In the rebuttal of your first point, I will interpret your statement as follows:--Climate is still local--Ocean currents are melting, therefore cooling down islands and coastal areas--Greenhouse gases still warm the earth--I agree that climate is local and varies according to many different factors. There is another point that interests me in your statement. Namely, your statement that "Not all regions are expected to warm." This, by our preestablished definition of global warming from round one, basically says that there is no global warming trend. --I do not agree that any ocean currents are melting or that such a phenomenon can even occur and request my opponent's source for this fact. --There is no question that greenhouse gases warm the earth. However, as I have said, CO2 levels have grown only 70 ppm in the past 50 years. I would like to clarify to my opponent and to the voters that that represents a grand total of two-thousandths of a percentage point of the atmosphere, from 0.000054% to 0.000242%(http://www.esrl.noaa.gov......). My opponent claims that these radical changes will cost the world billions of dollars and bring down everyone's IQ. "2)Yes the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before in the past...""3) As I mentioned in number 1. Some areas are expected to cool due to the melting of ice cooling ocean currents. The earth as a whole... http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov...;I will take this to mean that any previous changes in the atmosphere and its temperature are not due to human activity, but today's are. The second statement, although being quite clear, is unfortunately factually wrong.I will attempt to dispose of both of these points at once. According to (www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24) and (http://newsbusters.org...), the top ten hottest years were changed in 2007. Here are four of them: 1934, 1931, 1938, and 1939. Only three of the top ten are since 1998 (1998, 2006, and 1999) . Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006) Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940 The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average. 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998). That considered, it is easy to see that humans and CO2 are not reliable causes of regional warming (as you yourself acknowledged, global warming does not exist) during the period of cooling from 1940-80, CO2 levels were still rising, as was industry. Just look at your sources. Clearly, CO2 does not affect temperature as much as you state. This is a graph located at http://ossfoundation.us...;(use the link to see the image if the image doesn't work) which shows an increase of 1/3 of a degree celsius over the course of 120 years. The US is one of the most rigourously monitered countries. The US temperatures, one of the most reliable in the world, show an increase of 1/3 of a degree over the past 120 years and a downward curve since 1934. "4)Total ice volume in the articcs has been steadily decreasing for decades now..."Pretty self explanatory. To counter this, I will simply re-post a fact I have already presented. "The article found at http://www.daycreek.com... proves that the earth was warmer than it is today during the last four interglacials, dating back 420,000 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org......(2000) references a slight cooling trend over the past 20 years, according to a consensus between satellite and ground stations. Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk used "ice-flow velocity measurements... find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year)." Their findings can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org....... "Climate models generally predict ampliﬁed warming in polar regions as observed in Antarctica’speninsula region over the second half of the 20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming ,our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000...The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 8C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends." http://atoc.colorado.edu...... I would like my opponent to note the second to last point which states that overall Antarctic ice sheets are growing at a rate of over 26.8 gigatons per year. That's over 59,080,000,000,000 pounds a year. "5)A climate model set up in the mid 70's has accurately predicted... .""The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change. " (http://www.pnas.org...) "6)My opponent is not correct. If every country lowered greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels then that effect alone would..."Your sources please."7)My opponent claims that deforestation is not contributing to global warming..."Although my opponent is correct in saying that I underestimated the effect of deforestation, according to http://www.ecology.com... full 80% of atmospheric oxygen is produced by marine algae. "9)Sea levels have been steady rising for the past 130 years. http://upload.wikimedia.org...;So they have. They were also rising at the exact same rate for 6000 years, and even faster than that beginning 15000 years ago. There is no data before that. (http://www.grida.no......) If you are going to tie sea levels to global warming, you may as well claim rapid warming has been going on for 15000 years, completely eliminating any idea of "sudden dire threat." If we haven't suffered yet for 15000 years, there must be no urgency in the matter. For more details, check the website and the previous round, in which I have already made this argument. Also, wikimedia isn't the most reliable source.Now, the increases in extreme weather that you mentioned is very similar to the El Nino event that occurs every four years. A study was done after the 1998 El Nino (http://journals.ametsoc.org...) which, if you look in the abstract, states that the estimated net direct benefits were worth something like $15,000,000,000 dollars. ($4 billion losses and $19 billion benefits)"When you include all the negative health/environmental effects..."The beaurocracy of the coal/oil/gas industries aren't stupid. If alternative energy was cheaper, they would use it and produce energy that way. "13)Other effects of climate change is an increase in tornadoes..."Sources, please. ConclusionKyoto and Gl. Warm. Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively ProvenIn light of these facts, it is clear that global warming is, as you stated, not at all a global phenomenon. Global warming would save just the american people up to $15 billion a season, which is more than the combined GDP of just under 50 of the world's poorest countries combined. I have also demonstrated that if the world sea levels are proportional to atmospheric temperature, then Kyoto is unnecessary and we are scrambling to find suddendly neccessary solutions to an at least 15000 year old problem. Also in view of the fact that antarctic ice shelves are not melting, and with this evidence gone we must conclude that global warming does not exist and Kyoto is an unnecessary waste of resources. As such, this data must be looked at again and both Kyoto and the Global Warming Theory be revised. Looking forward to your response, and981228