Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

Line by Line: <> Really? 225,000 years ago, the CO2 fluxuated, but remained constant around a low level. Same to temperature. As you can see from the second graph in R1, both CO2 and temperature spike at the exact same time, right at 140,000 years to present. Granted, I agree that there are fluxations. As I have said numerous times, there can never be an exact correlation. With that said, the evidence is in. CO2 and temperature have been eerily similar, granted, not the same, for hundreds of thousands of years. History repeats itself, just like this. < > Ah yes, but thanks to my temperature records, we can see that these are the HOTTEST years ever. While I agree there have been cycles, this is making the earth hotter and hotter, even hotter than every other year. Think of it like this: A friend challenges you to eat a 70 oz. steak. Well, I've eaten steaks before, henceforth, I can eat this steak. Wait a minute, no I can't! It's almost comparing apples to oranges. < > Really, because I challenge my opponent to prove that murder rates and global temperature have fluxated at the same rates for 500,000 years. I might even say that his statement was true if he proved that. << Because public opinion is so biased towards the validity of man-made global warming, the scientists will be too. >> What? Why would the public want to blame themselves for ruining the planet they live on and then sponsor millions of dollars towards stopping it? No, the public wants to say that it's a natural cycle, and they don't have to worry about it. I also doubt that thousands of scientists across the globe would change their views to fit the wants of the public. How did anything ever get changed in our world? I'm sure the public does not want to hear the McDonald's they eat every day will kill them, but scientists say it anyway. <> Once again, my opponent has no proof for this claim. I could make up scientific evidence and it would be just as valid as his point. So I'll say, "CO2 came first in all of those scenarios. " Now, the strength of our arguments are matched and you can't vote for CON on this issue. < > Again, I will re-instate that my opponent has misinterpreted this argument. I am not saying we should put all of our trust in scientists, nor am I saying that his argument doesn't mean anything. I am only saying that science and the people that study climate EVERY DAY are much more credible than he is. Thus, my arguments are stronger because they are supported by these people. I will now say why I should get your vote: Over the course of this debate, there has been a lot of debate over which came first, CO2 or temperature. Neglecting the fact that even if my opponent is right it is only a few years, the eerily similar correlation is still there. Furthermore, we can see the CO2 is spiking right now, along with temperature, as per my 2nd contention. So, no matter what came first, they have always been almost the exact same. But that doesn't even matter. I proved that CO2 has always come first. My opponent lacks any evidence saying temperature causes CO2 fluxuations, so my argument is more valid. If you just look closely at my graphs, you can see that CO2 has always spiked slightly before temperature. The temperature argument, as I just explained, is empirical evidence of global warming. CO2 has been at all-time high levels since 1900, and temperatures are reaching those levels. According to the Common Dreams Newscenter article from R1, there is absolutely no way global warming can be caused naturally. They tested and retested, and said the rise in CO2 over the last century has caused ocean temperatures to spike. It is only a matter of time before we see the hottest year ever. Lastly, as I've already stated, scientist are much more credible than ordinary people. Science has evolved us in so many respects, and scientists are to credit for these things. Some of them study climate for their entire life, and they have the facts to tell us that global warming is real.