we needn't make big changes in our life style to stop global warming

Re: Contention 1- "a) humans are not responsible for global warming" "For the last decade, temperatures have been climbing while greenhouse gas levels climbed. Some scientists would look at the graph and automatically assume that the rising greenhouse gas levels were causing the rising temperatures." The vast majority, not 'some.' "They are wrong. They have not considered the other factors, such as fluctuations in the climate system (e.g. cloudiness, wind currents, ocean currents)." Actually, scientists HAVE considered these other factors. They concluded that greenhouse gases do raise global temperatures by a significant amount, in addition to the other factors. "My opponent may argue that supercomputers predict that greenhouse gases will make temperatures skyrocket, but he must remember that supercomputers are man made and the simulation it produces is affected by the factors that are programmed into it. Adding all the factors in the real world to a supercomputer simulation is impossible with today's technology." All scientific knowledge is 'man-made.' That doesn't shed any doubt on it's validity. And yes, it is possible for supercomputers to add all of those factors together with today's technology. Re: Contention 2- "b) there are other ways to prevent global warming that do not interfere with our lifestyles" "My opponent also states that methane is costly to harvest. He says that clean energy is in high demand, and that anything profitable would be in the private sector. I would like to question these assumptions. If clean energy was in such a high demand, why haven't we all installed solar panels on our roofs? Why haven't we all built wind turbines in our yards? Why haven't we made ethanol our fuel of choice for vehicles instead of petroleum? The answer is that these are all relatively very expensive, not to mention that wind turbines are noisy and solar panels only work on sunny days. Everyone wants to feel like they're protecting the environment, but not everyone wants to have their spending money reduced for that feeling." You missed my point. Currently, 'green' energy sources are not widely used, because of how expensive they are. It would require government intervention, and thus taxes and higher energy prices, for them to become widely used. This negates your statement that "b) there are other ways to prevent global warming that do not interfere with our lifestyles" by showing that the 'other ways' you proposed do in fact interfere with our lifestyles. "My opponent also states that anything profitable would be in the private sector. Methane is not in the private sector, so it must not be profitable. There are organic farms that run on methane. They get all the electricity they need from cow manure. If methane wasn't profitable, why would they use methane for electricity? Not every farm collects and stores cow manure, but if they did, think about how much electricity they could produce." Why do some farms do this? Well, the same reason some people have solar panels on their roof. They want to save the environment, even if it requires a more expensive and unprofitable form of electricity. Because it would require government intervention to be feasible on a large scale, this is not an example of a way we could prevent global warming without 'major' changes. "Some of the changes I listed are relatively minor, I agree, but others can be counted as major changes. Becoming a vegetarian is something that I and all others who love meat would never tolerate. We like to have a variety of flavors. Becoming a vegetarian restricts our menus severely. Having people evicted from their homes so that someone can build a wind farm is an abomination. Al Gore says that global warming will create millions of refugees in the world. His wind farms will create millions of refugees in America. Other changes simply downgrade society. We humans chose to live in a society so that we can have better lives. For thousands of years, the goal of society was to improve the quality of life for each and every individual. We did not develop all this technology just so we can abandon it all out of fear that the world will end. Henry Ford made a car that ran on gas so that everyone could afford a car. Are we about to go back to expensive, tedious electric cars just because some scientists say that we must? Man can adapt to any environment, but that doesn't mean that man should adapt to any environment. Man can adapt to being forced to set his thermostat below 72 degrees, but does that mean he should? Throughout history, great people have struggled and fought to make society better. Now that we are faced with a 'potential apocalypse', are we going to cower down and send society to pre-Industrial times, or are we going to rise to the challenge and find a solution that improves the quality of life for everyone?" This is an argument that we shouldn't make lifestyle changes to prevent global warming. The proposition was that we needn't make major lifestyle changes to prevent global warming, not that we shouldn't have to. Conclusion: My opponent has offered evidence that other factors besides human action effect global temperatures. This does not prove the statement that "humans are not responsible for global warming." My opponent has offered no evidence that suggests that human actions, in the form of greenhouse gases, do not contribute to global warming, thus, the first contention remains unproven. My opponent has offered no other things we could do that would result in a significant reduction in global warming, thus, his statement that "b) there are other ways to prevent global warming that do not interfere with our lifestyles" remains unproven.