Global Warming Exists (2)

I'm going to take this piece by piece as my opponent expresses an inability to infer from universals, which is ok he is young and will become familiar with universals at some stage in his life. So, pedagogically I respond in caps not to be in a loud voice but to only distinguish my voice in this limited text forum. Rebuttal I am going to keep this rebuttal as short as possible as I am running out of time. YOU AND I HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF "SHORT." My opponent claims that since there is no direct set of theorems, therefore we should not believe in global warming. I acknowledge this, however if we are to base a hypothesis based on our current understanding of both the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect, it is logical to presume that global warming both exists and that it is a result of human actions. I MADE NO SUCH ASSERTION I MERELY ASSERTED A CORRELATION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED TO SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS OF SKEPTICM. THIS IS SUPPORT BY NOAA HERE "One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a period of near zero sunspot activity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during the Maunder Minimum. So how much does the solar output affect Earth's climate? There is debate within the scientific community how much solar activity can, or does affect Earth's climate. There is research which shows evidence that Earth's climate is sensitive to very weak changes in the Sun's energy output over time frames of 10s and 100s of years. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. The converse is true during minimum sunspot activity. But trying to filter the influence of the Sun's energy output and its effect on our climate with the "noise" created by a complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans can be difficult. For example, there is research which shows that the Maunder Minimum not only occurred during a time with a decided lack of sunspot activity, but also coincided with a multi-decade episode of large volcanic eruptions. Large volcanic eruptions are known to hinder incoming solar radiation. Finally, there is also evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its average 23.5 degree tilt on its axis. Indeed Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. But overall when examining Earth on a global scale, and over long periods of time, it is certain that the solar energy output does have an affect on Earth's climate. However there will always be a question to the degree of affect due to terrestrial and oceanic interactions on Earth. " http://www.crh.noaa.gov... IN OTHER WORDS IF THEY CANNOT "TEASE" OUT THE IMPACT OF THE SUN THEREFORE THEY CANNOT "TEASE" OUT THE IMPACT OF CO2 ON CLIMATE. ADDITIONALLY PLEASE TAKE NOTE NONE OF YOUR SOURCES ARE PROPER SOURCES SUCH AS TO BE FOUND IN CREDENTIALED SOURCES SUCH AS I USE SUCH AS NASA AND NOAA. RATHER YOU USE THE ENGINEERED REMENT OF THE RAW DATA AFTER SUBJECTED TO IDEOLOGY. I ASERT YOU HAVE GIVEN A SINGLE AUTHORATATIVE SOURCE IN THIS DEBATE AT ALL. YOU CONCLUDE FROM MERELY STATING "OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING" THIS IS YOUR SINGLE PREMISE FROM WHICH YOU CONCLUDE "LOGICALL" THAT BOTH GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS AND IT IS CAUSED BY PEOPLE. THIS IS TRULEY REMARKABLE TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT EVEN IMAGINE SUCH A THING CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM A SINGLE PREMISE AND AN INCORRECT ONE. YOU ESSETNAILLY SAID "EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS TRUE SO THIS IS TRUE." I AM TRUELY HORRIFIED AS I IMAGINE THE PUBLIC EDUCATION THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED SUCH DISTORTED THINKING. YOU MERELY SUPPORT YOUR OPINION WITH OPINION HOLDING THIS RELIANCE ON AMBIQUOUS AND UNNAMED AUTHORATIES WILL WIN THE DAY FOR YOU. NO, ALL YOUR PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS ARE SO TWISTED AND ABSENT I DO NOT THINK I CAN REPAIR THEM AND WILL LEAVE THEM AS IS CONFUSING AND CONVOLUTED. The greenhouse effect states that with the increase of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, the warmer the earth will get. Therefore it can be presumed that since there has been a great increase in carbon dioxide, as a result of human influences, the earth will get warmer. If this is an unsatisfactory theorem to you, my prestigious opponent, than I don't know what else is. "THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT" DOES SO STATE BUT I CANNOT FIND WHERE THIS IS EVEN CALLED A FORMALIZED THEORY THEREFORE BY DEFAULT BEING ONLY A HYPOTEHSIS. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HYPOTHESIS FIRST FORMULATED IN 1827 HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN AND ACTUALLY MORE RESEARCH POINTS TO DISCREDITING IT AS UNLIKELY ON EARTH BECAUSE WE HAVE CONTERVAILING FACTORS SUCH AS PLANTS ABSORBING CO2 AND ALSO BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A METHANE ATMOSTPHERE AND THESE TWO PRIMARY ELEMENTS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT POPERTIES IN TERMS OF ADJUSTING THEMSELVES OR EVEN BLOWING OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE OFF INTO SPACE. HERE IS YOUR SO CALLED "THEORY" THAT I BELIEVE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A THEORY IN THE 1820S BUT TODAY IS JUST A HYPOTHESIS. FROM WIKIPEDIA Discovery of the greenhouse effect[edit] In the 1820s Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation. He examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824[12] and 1827.[13] While he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier's consideration of the possibility that the Earth's atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect. SO THIS THEORY LANGUSJHED ON THE SHELVES FOR OVER 150 YEARS WHEN ALL GORE DUSTED IT OFF AND GOT THIS INSANITY ROLLING BY THE SAME MISTRUTHS AND INCOMPLETE DATA MY OPPONENT REFERS TO, I WONDER IF HE HAS SEEN THAT FILM AND BELIEVES IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY? THE WAY YOU PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS IS NOT SCIENCE OR LOGIC, YOU MERELY LINE UP POLEMIC ARGUMENTS ALL ON ONE SIDE AND CHECK THEM OFF LIKE YOU HAVE FORUMATED A PROOF WHEN YOU CLEARLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT A PROOF EVEN IS. YOU EXHIBIT A NAIVE PERSPECTIVE ON SCIENCE AND A CONSIDERATION OF REASON AND LOGIC CONMENSUATTE WITH YOUR TENDER YEARS SO I DO NOT HOLD YOU AT FAULT, RATHER I HOLD YOUR TEACHERS AND INSTRUCTORS AT FALT FOR NOT TEACHING YOU OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUERY. THEY SHOULD BE DRUG INTO THE PUBLI SQUARE AND PUT IN THE STOCKS AND BE PUBLICALLY HUMILIATED FOR SUCH CRIMINAL NEGLECT OF THEIR PROFESSION. CONCLUDE THERE IS NO CAUSUAL LINK AND MY OPPONENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ONE. I CONFESS PROVING ONE DOES NOT EXIST IS THE FAR MORE DIFFICULT TASK SO MY PROOF RESTS ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE ARGUMENTS MY OPPONENT HAS PUT FORWARD. DO NOT VOTE HERE BASED ON THE STRENGTH OF MY ARGUMENT BUT AT THE WEAKNESS OF HIS NOT BENG ABLE TO ESTABLISH MORE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THIS THING HE CLAIMS HAS BEEN SETTLED IN THAT IS BETWEEN ANTHROPOLOGIC MEANS AND GLOBAL WARMING. WHETHER THE GLOBE IS WARMING IS A FUNCTION OF MEASUREMENT AND I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY WHETHER IT IS OR NOT BUT NEITHER CAN MY OPPONENT MAKE A SATISFACTORY CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE CHANGE BEYONG IMAGES OF LINES CURVING THIS WAY AND THAT WITHOUT BENEFIT OF NUMERICAL CORRELATION.