The human effect on global warming is significant.

"human emissions are not important because if it were non existent, we would have only seen a 3-4% decrease in global warming. Hardly significant at all." 3-4% is plenty significant. It equates to about a 3ï¿½ C temperature increase, which is significant enough to cause some prominent global shifts. "1)No where in the article does it say that it is because of humans that global warming intensified." No, but it does say that because of the feedback effect, an apparently small increase in CO2 can have a significant effect. And since humans are responsible for roughly a 30% increase in CO2 levels, it follows that humans are responsible for global warming. "Rather it states that the CO2 'might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms' " The article uses that as an explanation for why CO2 rises after an ice age, not as an alternative to AGW. The whole paragraph states "So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]" "CO2 from humans is so low, 3.618%" It's more like 30%, as evidenced by the unprecedented 90 ppm increase. "My opponent then states that human emissions must be the cause of global warming because there is no other variable other then human emissions." What I said was that human emissions must be the cause of the recent CO2 increase. "1)...water vapor" Irrelevant, since I meant CO2. "Human emissions do contribute to global warming, yet the effect is so miniscule that it does not demonstrate a significant cause for global warming." Human contributions are around 30%. They are not miniscule unless we rely on [4] for our data, which we shouldn't for reasons I elaborate upon below. It is true that gross human CO2 emissions are around 4%, but net emissions are closer to 30%. This is because over the past hundreds of millions of years, nature has become very good at re-absorbing any CO2 that it emits. Sure, the balance isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. This is evidenced by the continuity between 180 and 300 ppm over the last hundred thousand years. "He is making it seem like 99.9999% of all scientists think humans are the cause, yet that is simply not true." My opponent is right in that that figure is incorrect. It's more like 80% for scientists at large, and 97% for publishing climatologists, according to a study done that included over 10,000 scientists [5]. Besides this study and the other study I referenced, I have named 31 scientific societies advocating AGW while my opponent has named only one (the JSER), and that one has under 2000 members (compared to AAAS with 120,000 members). It's even disputable whether that one is even a scientific society, since they present no original research [6]. It is true, though, that the studies I have cited are more important than the scientific societies. "The JSER (the energy agency of Japan), for example, did an extensive study and found that humans are NOT the cause of global warming." My opponent has not cited a source for this study. My source for this isn't particularly good, but I believe that the study by JSER was not scientific and in fact did not put forth any new data whatsoever [6]. "Because my opponent has not brought any counter evidence to my evidence of water vapor being 95% of the cause of global warming, this point can flow through." The contribution of CO2 is actually more like 30%, not 5%. Given the conflicting reports, I would like to point out that my source is a scientific paper [2], while my opponent's source is a web page written by Monte Hieb. Who is Monte Hieb? Merely some guy who works for a coal plant [3]. Not a very credible source. "1)All of the laws of physics was a consensus among physicists, yet string theory later proved some false." a. Scientists may have been wrong, but they were still more likely to be right than anyone else. At the time, the data pointed to certain laws of physics, and physicists supported those laws. b. I do not think that string theory has proven the laws of physics false. The same logic in my opponent's point can be applied, though, to the theory or relativity or to some other revolutionary theory. "2)There are also scientists that believe that humans are not the cause of global warming." While this is true, they are greatly outnumbered by those on the other side, as evidence by my two studies and list of scientific societies. "1)My opponent still has not brought up counterevidence stating CO2 is the main cause of global warming, Thus his first contention falls." Although true as of round 2, I have now provided counter-evidence [2]. "2)My opponent still has not validated why the scientists saying global warming is caused by humans are supposedly more credible than the Energy department of Japan or MIT." a. The Energy Department of Japan is much smaller than the majority of the societies on my list. b. MIT is not a scientific society, but a university. While still more credible than some, MIT is not as credible as a scientific society. c. I have not only provided a list of scientific societies, but I have provided two credible studies and their sources. While my opponent has provided a study, he has not quoted it or provided a link to it. "Also sorry if you thought I was lying about the quote, but I misread the article and assumed it was scientific, but I will drop that point in this debate." It's all right; I misread articles all the time. I withdraw my statement requesting to be given the conduct vote. [1] http://www.realclimate.org... [2] http://www.atmo.arizona.edu... [3] http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com... [4] http://www.geocraft.com... [5] http://tigger.uic.edu... [6] http://greenfyre.wordpress.com...