Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

Correlations My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change. Arguing the correlation exists does not win the point, as I agree it exists, but the correlation is not strong enough to mean it is the “main” factor in climate change, therefore unless you prove the correlation is significantly high (like PDO) you cannot win this debate. And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph. The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data. Nearly all satellites show little to negative warming in the last decade. And, as stated, the correlation in the last decade was only 0.02. Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t. The correlation is therefore broken and the minute correlation shows human CO2 emissions likely cannot play a major role. My opponent continues global warming is a problem, I agree with him I never denied its existence, but we differ on whether CO2 is the driving factor. And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures. The facts where presented, the current correlation since 1880 was not strong enough to mean CO2 was a large factor, as it was under a .5 R correlation. The PDO (a natural forcing) had higher correlations by factors of two. And the suns correlation was higher by .10 R points. In other words, this point was not refuted. To the naked eye the graph is appealing, but to one that can actually read statistics presented in round two the correlation is extremely weak. So the facts show CO2 is not the main driver of climate. Examine my opponent’s graph. I made it easy: I suck at photo editing so I just threw on some paint. Every place I put a line is where correlation broke. Look at it. We see 3 – 4 (depending if you slur the first one together) areas where correlation fails! So even using my opponents eye appealing data, its flawed. And when you use the facts, its flawed. Either way, its apparent CO2 is not a main driver of climate. I also could have added even more as the rise in temperture in the 30s-40s was faster then CO2. So its another break in correlation. It's a very weak correlation is what it gets right down too. My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point. Other factors You are arguing the main factor in global warming is CO2, which you have failed to do. I offered many other factors, which together can explain for all of the warming, occurred. This is blatantly obvious. I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. Clarification was not needed, at all. I have shown CO2 logically based on science is not the [main] driver of climate and that other natural forgings are much stronger then man-made emissions. In reality, I extend arguments here as you have failed to prove that the PDO, with a stronger correlation, cannot account for the warming or the sun, with a stronger correlation and as the only heat source of our planet could not cause the majority of this warming. My opponent’s case My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate. Conclusion: I have done a few things: Proven a CO2 correlation is extremely weak, and the correlation it has is not sufficient to prove it’s the main factor in the current climate I have shown, using my opponents data nonetheless, that the correlation is not as perfect as he makes it out to be and that the correlation in the last decade is almost zero – in other words no match at all. I have shown natural forgings have correlations sometimes of over twice the amount of CO2, and that this means it is likely a larger player in climate then CO2 is. Basically in sum: the debate is over whether or not CO2 is the main factor in the current warming, and my opponent has failed to prove it is the main factor, and has failed to prove why natural forgings cannot explain the rise. In that case, by logic, Con wins. You know and my opponent having the BOP and not having a case… that means I just win by default as he has not fulfilled his burden.