A debate on a topic that I am not mentioning in the topic line.

My opponent and his clever skills in logic have proven me to be wrong. Perhaps I may clarify some things. My opponent claims, "Regardless of statistics, it is still a logical fallacy to say that because the rise of manmade greenhouse gases and rise in temperature coincide that they are causally related. Furthermore, what you bet has nothing to do with this debate." -You are partially right. It would be a logical fallacy for me to make this claim. However, once it is backed up with statistically significant data it becomes a deductive argument. "Ooh, appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, I'm so afraid. 60 years ago, the scientific community unanimously agreed that eugenics was the way to go. You know what eugenics is right? It's killing "undesirables" to prevent reproduction." - Prime example of an ad hominem attack. You claim that my appeals to authority are logical fallacies. However, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. However, you have only stated that my arguments are logical fallacies, and not given any hard evidence proving otherwise. "I'm actually maintaining the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. So, this is irrelevant. An interesting fact however is that the majority of the scientists opposed to global warming are retired, and are in no need of grants from environmental groups and other parties partial to global warming. The same thing happened with eugenics, which I mentioned earlier. The fact is, scientists will "unanimously agree" because they unanimously want money to pay for their experiments. (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers)" -This is a Non Sequitur Fallacy of False Cause. You assume that scientists are wanting money for experiments, which causes unanimous agreement on issues. This is just as much of a fallacy as any I have claimed. "Appeals to authority, such as this, are logical fallacies and hold no weight in a rational debate. You should stop using them." -I am simply stating facts. There is no logical fallacy unless I have made an unreasonable claim based on the appeal to authority I have suggested. "CO2 is considered the main anthropogenic GHG. It is very relevant. If it does not consistently coincide with temperature change, it is definitely not changing temperatures. It is very relevant, and it is a point that you have not refuted at all." -It may be relevant, however I believe "definitely not changing temperatures" is quite the bold claim. Actually, that is a logical fallacy. You cannot make the claim that it is not changing temperatures based on your data there. "Could you please stop using appeals to authority. They're useless. I'll skip the next two paragraphs, because they are ANOTHER APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!" -Description of Appeal to Authority An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: 1.Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2.Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3.Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. OH WAIT. IM QUOTING EXPERTS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD. "CFCs have nothing at all to do with this. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -Great non-factual completely subjective opinion-based claim. "Logical contradiction? Me? Look who's calling the kettle black, Mr. Appeal to Authority every chance I get. Furthermore, what contradictions have I made, I don't see any." -You made just as many logical fallacies as I did. And mine were all legit appeals to authority simply stating facts taken as truth by trained experts. "The only part I can think of that you are talking about is the last sentence, which I also derived from State of Fear." -I hear using one source is a pretty reliable way to gather and present information. Oh wait. It's not. "I would and could debate this, but I won't, because this is irrelevant to the debate. Also, the GISS station in Punta Arenas, the closest city in the world to Anartica, has actually shown a .5 degree Celsius decrease in temperature since 1888, when it opened. So, the ice cap probably won't even melt." -Would've, could've, should've, DIDN'T. How can you assume "so, the ice cap probably won't even melt"? What if it does and all polar animals die out, the lower lying coastlines flood, and hundreds of thousands of people die. This sounds great in theory. "My argument was hard to read, and maybe a little disorganized, but that has nothing to do with anything. You have not negated it at all, except for an irrelevant point on sea-levels. You have provided fallacious arguments yourself, and have shown no "logical fouls" in my arguments, enough of this self-righteous BS." -I could say the same to you? other than the fact that my argument is very structured, I negated may of your points, and I'm not even sure I could find all of your original points in that unorganized wall of text. I debated against your points to the best of my ability. ----------------------- "The globe isn't actually even warming up." -"The solar cycle has dropped temperatures about 0.1ï¿½C in the past decade. ENSO added about 0.15ï¿½C to the 1998 peak. The PDO may be having an effect now but its magnitude is uncertain. If we subtracted out all of that "noise," human-caused global warming appears to be about 0.1ï¿½C to 0.2ï¿½C a decade as predicted." http://climateprogress.org... "Our current temperature increase started 25000 years ago, before man had even began producing these gases." -True, there are natural cycles. But recent increases in temperatures have been much greater than predicted. "CO2 and other GHG changes often do not correspond with the temperature changes that they should produce if they were responsible for warming and cooling the earth (not including water vapor)." -Show me some sort of evidence supporting this claim? Here's some against it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org... Don't claim wikipedia is bs blah blah blah. They list a source for where it came from. "Upper atmosphere is not warming as it should if GHGs were to blame." -The ozone layer traps heat, so if it gets destroyed, the upper atmosphere actually cools, thereby offsetting part of the warming effect of other heat-trapping gases. But that's no reason to rejoice: the cooling of the upper layers of the atmosphere can produce changes in the climate that affect weather patterns in the higher latitudes. Source: http://www.ucsusa.org... "GHG production is not significantly enough to change the world temperature." -Actually, it is and will continue to. As china grows as a world leader and begins burning more fossils fuels, we (USA) will remain as a world leader. We will continue to produce GHG's at a steady or increasing rate, as will the rest of the world as it continues to develop. --- Since burden of proof lies upon the instigator, you had to PROVE that mankind hasn't had any cause in global warming