Global Warming Skepticism

However, he is acting grossly unprofessional and has horribly misrepresented my arguments. My Opponent: "You must introduce new arguments in each round. " This is simply not the case. If you read the vast majority of debates on this website, you will find that in most cases arguments are recylced round-after-round. You have not proven my arguments wrong, so therefore there is no reason to abandon them. Though, I must remind the voters my opponent has provided no arguments of his own; only rebuttals of mine. My Opponent: "This is proving that in the past 200-300 years, temperatures reached a global high. " Not the case, as the human race doesn't have any climate data from before 800,000 years ago. Who is to say that the warmest period is earth's history occured before that time, which would statistically be probable. My opponent is making a horrible assumption, and that assumption is that we have record of the warmest year. That is probably not the case. Since was are missing 99.24% of the Earth's climate data, then who is my opponent to say that the "current warming" is attypical. For all we know, the warmest period in the Earth's history could have been 1,000,000 years ago. My Opponent: " Thank you for providing me with evidence that we HAVE affected our climate from coal to gasoline. " I would like my opponent to clarify what "evidence" he is speaking of, as I posted no evidence of that sort. My Opponent: "Starting at the end of the 18th Century isn't adequate. " - What does this mean? " This means that in order to fully grasp the scope of the Earth's climate, we must examine how the climate was before the industrial age. Far, far before the industrial age. The graph that I provided doesn't do that, so my opponent is trying to prove something based off a graph that doesn't encompass the full scope of the earth's history. Actually it would only make sense for global temperatures to rise since the 1800's, as that is when the "Little Ice Age" ended. So, my opponent has proved nothing. My Opponent: "The data that we have DOES show that since fossil fuels started being burnt, temperatures rose dramatically" There is no evidence to show that the amount of CO2 humans release into the atmosphere has anything to do with climate change. My opponent is taking two variables (the temperature and CO2 levels) and assuming that, since they both go up on the graph at the same time, there must be a correlation. This is a fallacy. My Opponent: " Read this: . http://news.nationalgeographic.com....... We can switch to reusable sources and curb the use of fossil fuels. " Wow. I thought my opponent would be above this. The beginning paragraph of that article states: "Humans have the means to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences of global warming, a major climate report released today concludes". Wow. Using this article is what is called "circular reasoning". My opponent is, once again, ASSUMING that human-caused global warming is true to make a point about human-caused global warming, when is reality there is no evidence to prove that humans have any role in altering the climate. My Opponent: "3)Ummm. .. .. .. .. .. .thanks for the. .. .. .. tip. .. .. .. .. .. .. " This is grossly unprofessional of my opponent. My Opponent: "According to this definition, statistics cannot contain bias. " They can if they are faked statistics. Such as a FAKE dog doesn't have to share any charactristics with a REAL dog because the FAKE dog is FAKE. My opponent is probably thinking what global warming statistics are FAKE? In November of 2009 e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwhich, England were made public. These e-mails contained phrases such as "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. " and "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,". Doesn't this shed doubt on the authenticity of global warming data, if it does then the resolution is affirmed. My Opponent: "I will dismiss this. You have said that global warming is destined to happen. Aren't you the one arguing that global warming ISN'T real? ! Technically, you are saying: "Global warming is destined to happen, according to my opinion. " The fact of the matter is this, if global warming is happening, but it is due natural cycles, then any action by humans will be futile. My opponent will probably understand this by analogy. My opponent doesn't want the sun to come up. However, no matter what he does the sun will come up regardless. It will come up regardless because the sun coming up is a NATURAL part of the physical world. Who is my opponent to say that the current warming isn't due to long term cycles that occur has part of the NATURAL physical world. Since when was my opponent a god who knew everything and anything there is to know? My Opponent: "Please start a new debate called 'Global Warming isn't worth pumping resources into', take the pro side and argue that there. I am not entertaining these extra topics. " Firstly, this is pertinent to the debate. I will illustrate why. Using the "sunrise analogy" we can illustrate why this is relevant. If my opponent was to try to stop the sun from coming up, it would require a large amount of energy, time, and resources. However, due to the NATURAL process of the sun rising all resources would be wasted. If my opponent was a logical person, he would take into account this before he statred trying to halt the rising of the sun. If he was logical, he would conclude that the resources that he would exhaust are not worth stopping the sun from coming up. Therefore, he would not waste those resources, if he was logical. This is similar to global warming, people should be SKEPTICAL of calls to combat global warming because it would take a large amount of resources, effort, and time. This effort would be better utilized combating more pressing and proven issues like world hunger, poverty, and terrorism. I hope that the next round will be a tad more interesting.