Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

In this round I will be refuting my opponent's arguments and I will be resupporting my own arguments My opponent stated"First my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist."But what my opponent fails to realize is that quoting the pope is not an argument, an argument needs evidence, the quote from the Pope is not evidence of climate change, rather it is only a claim followed by my opponent's warrant. You can't just quote the pope and call it an argument, thus you have no first argument. The Pope's statement does not further your case (unless he was a climate scientist, then it would)So, because the pope is not a climate researcher I really don't even need to refute his statement but I have done so by showing that the Pope is not a climate scientist. In his first rebuttal my opponent stated that"science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases", but he shows no specific evidence of this occurring. Then my opponent quotes the EPA "The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels" However, if this were true then how come the decade long decrease in CO2 was seen, even as fossil fuel combustion increased (In the US alone 3 billion more barrels were used per year). In fact, my opponent conceded that point when he said "Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain", so my opponent has conceded my first point. My opponent stated in rebuttal 2"Argument two is cherry picking."But he shows no evidence of how it is cherry picking... Thus, this statement ought not to be considered, however I will prove how my second argument was not cherry picking... The definition of cherry picking is "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld." [1]However, I have not cherry picked evidence because of the fact that I offered the statistical analysis of two major climate research satellites which have had their results peer reviewed by the scientific community and been found to be accurate. In fact, if I had cherry picked this evidence it would not show the .2 degree warming trend that it did...What is even more ironic is that my opponent goes on to say "El Nino was responsible for the height of the graph." But even I conceded that the warming trend was there, in fact my opponent just contradicted his entire case by calling the warming trend that was apparent on the graph; El Nino, a regional, natural phenomena, that has nothing to do with Global Climate Change. So, if El Nino caused the warming trend on the graph, then Global Warming is a hoax because all warming trends over the period of the graph can be explained by El Nino (He said it, I didn't). My opponent in rebuttal 3 stated "First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence."By definition if the phenomena is not experienced GLOBALLY, then GLOBAL Climate Change is not occurring [1] (simple definition 1)"Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."If this is true then how come one of the biggest proponents of Global Warming said that the poles would be ice free by 2013 [2], Leon Penetta once said [while talking about Global Climate Change] "The melting of the Polar Ice Caps" [3]. There seems to be a consensus among scientists and Global Warming Theorists that the Ice caps will melt when Global Warming occurs. Then How did my opponent find contradictory evidence? He found such evidence because he quoted a man with 0 climate science experience. His sources 4,5, and 6 are written by Coby Beck "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." [4] So, any quote by him ought to be ignored because it offers no expert value or value of any sort. In fact, my opponent is not even quoting the credible science in some of Beck's blogs, my opponent is quoting Beck's opinions which hold no value. My opponent in his 4th rebuttal quotes the same man again... and his statement ought to be ignored but in another one of my opponent's contradictory statements, he says "temperature moved first [in relation to CO2]", but if this is true, then how come the IPCC said that CO2 caused temperature to move? Which one is it? Either way my opponent has contradicted Global Warming theory as we are debating it and has negated his own refutation. My opponent's graph is quite interesting. The graph appears to show a correlation between CO2 and Temperature, however there are several occasions of temperature and CO2 acting independently, one major example is 400k years before present when the temperature increased dramatically for a (relatively) short period while CO2 decreased, and then again around 380k years ago where temperature decreased dramatically while CO2 increased. So, my opponent's chart, however intriguing, shows once again, that temperature and CO2 act independently from one another. Now I will Strengthen my original cases1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidMy opponent has conceded this point (see above for more details)2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on recordI have shown my opponent's rebuttal of this claim to be false, and his claim of a logical fallacy to be false, however I'd like to strengthen this point more. USCRN the largest and most advanced climate research network in the US has shown a decade long cooling trend. While the trend is statistically 0, it still shows no evidence of global warming. If the entire world is warming, (definition of Global Warming, see above) then how come the United States isn't? [5] s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="1005" height="551" />Furthering my point, A large integrated network of Argo ocean buoys operated by the British Oceanographic Data Center in combination with satellite-enhanced data reveal no statistical warming. Again I posit the question, If the world is warming, then how come the US AND Britain (and the surrounding ocean) are not. [6] 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theorySeeing as my opponent's refutation of this point was insufficient, I do not feel the need to strengthen this point. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesAs I have refuted my opponent's statements about this point I'd like to point out that my opponent has neglected to mention both of my charts for this point, both of which show an obvious independence between CO2 and Temperature, even over the time span of millions of years of data. Judges, seeing as my opponent has not fulfilled his BoP at this point in the debate you would be required to vote in favor of the Con. I look forward to reading my opponent's next argument, and I'd like to say that I'm enjoying this debate. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.cnsnews.com...[3] http://www.brainyquote.com... [4] http://grist.org... [5] https://wattsupwiththat.com... [6] http://www.newsmax.com...