Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

Line-by-line: 1. < > Is it? Hmm... Obviously its not going to be the EXACT level, but the fact that these two things are so correlated is proof enough that the trend will continue. Also, his statement is wrong. Look at the spike after 350,000. The CO2 spikes before the temperature. At 250,000 and 150,000, the temperature and the CO2 levels are exactly the same. Even the most recent spike is mainly in line with the temperature. 2. <> Really? I urge my opponent to show me. 3. < > Yeah, it pretty much does. I showed you that fossil fuels have increased more than they ever have. Thus, temperatures have gone up. It is empircal evidence of global warming happening. Also, this is extremly ironic. I was mainly disproving his second contention is R1. That is extremly hypocritical. 4. < > Uh... yeah. Man caused it. lolz. Let's look at that article: "Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans." "Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming." Yes, it does disprove volcanic and solar warming arguments, but they offer the answer that man is causing global warming. 5. < > Ah yes, but he fail to mention the thousands- no, millions- of other things that scientists have gotten right. I'm not saying we should put all of our faith in scientists, because they are just human, but they have evidence for what they say. My opponent does not have a single citation. Thus, I have my own judgement which matches his, plus thousands of reveered scientists. My arguments are much more credible. As for the geocentrist thing, we today have the technology to show what is right and what is wrong. Geocentrecisim was disproven in the 1600's, before telescopes. Why I win- My opponent drops his whole case. He never shows any evidence or warrant as to why CO2 does not cause global warming, and merely points out miniature trends in my sources. He completly drops his argument about abnormal temperatures, and attacks me simply by saying my facts aren't certain. So, at this point, he has no offense, and if I win one point, I win the debate. Reitorating my CO2 argument, you can clearly see that CO2 and global temperatures are right in-line for hundreds of thousands of years. It is unarguable. Now, with the rise in use of fossil fuels, man has spike the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is only a matter of time before global temperatures spike. We also have empiracal evidence from sea levels and temperatures that show that global warming is indeed happening. The earth is warming, and CO2 is rising. CO2 comes from fossil fuels. It's simple. Lastly, I'd like to attack my opponent's lack of warrant, reason, and evidence. There is not one peice of evidence in the round by him, and his R2 response merely attacks my sources without showing counter-facts that disprove mine. Right now, I see nothing but a PRO vote based on the fact that I have most scientists and reason behind me.