Humans Cause Global Warming

Rebuttals: 1. My opponent claims I have "contradicted" myself. This is untrue. I argued consensus was irrelevant, however according to my opponents reasoning he loses the point because the majority of climate specialists and scientific organizations support my position. If I said consensus is always wrong, my point would be defeated. However disproving your point then arguing its irrelevancy isn't really a contradiction. It's merely extra information. Pointing out that 1) you are wrong and b) the point is irrelevant anyway weakens your point even further. My opponent then claims "more scientists" agree with him. Problem with numbers much? A list of names and a poll are two different things. Take the whitehouse petition. One petition, which has 32,000 signatures, argues Senator Feinstein should be impeached... because she supports an assault weapons ban [1]. However, 58% of the public supports such a ban [2]. A list of scientists and a massive scientific survey are different things. Surveys are more accurate as they include all groups of the population they are polling, lists merely show one opinion (not the other, one sided analysis) making it unreliable. And again, as stated, the vast majority of the signers are not specialists in climate, making the list irrelevant. My data stands on the issue showing a vast consensus from climate experts. Whether my argument, consensus is irrelevant, or my opponents, its the be all and end all, I win this point as I have shown consensus on my side (or) the irrelevancy of the point. 2. Strawman by my opponent. I did not refute his predictions, I merely pointed out the data the predictions are based on is bogus. The predictions are based on the claims of current cooling. I rebutted in two ways: First, I noted a small trend out of a longterm trend is irrelevant showing the same could have been done in earlier decades however the long term trend is up. Secondly, I noted he world isn't cooling at all, nor is it flat-lining. I showed the rate of warming is the same as in earlier decades (1990s, when the warming was exceptional). My opponents argument: "In the last ten years the earth has gone from warming to cooling. The global temperatures are expected to decline for the next two decades. This does not need very much arguing because it is backed by pure fact." I did not jump the gun on anything. I noted the first part of this, the earth is cooling currently, was false. That is based on the 1998 el Nino artificially changing the trend, and when this is accounted for the earth is still warming. If the first part is wrong, the following assumptions have no evidence behind them. Therefore, my opponent has decided to dodge my rebuttal instead to strawman the point: claim I only argued predictions. will reiterate my point: "Studies accounting for many factors, such as the 1998 El Nino, and others, conclude the earth is still warming at the same rate it was in the 1990s." I showed it is still currently warming, I did not focus on any prediction whatsoever. My opponent claims I am dodging the point, which is false, and mostly is a cop-out argument. Anyone who cared to read round two can see that this is false. 3. I didn't dodge anything, this is a pure red herring. I didn't think I would have to use semantics for an obvious point. Lets do this like a first grade teacher so we can all get this. Class, what is the resolution? Humans cause Global warming Mr. Adams. Good. Does the economics of preventing global warming relate to the cause of global warming. No. The economics of preventing global warming is irrelevant to what causes it. Let's use a probably poor analogy but its all I can think of: what causes the battery on my laptop to die? Usage of the device. To fix it, I must charge it. But wait, its bad to charge it because I have to walk!!! (I am not saying you are wrong by making a bad analogy on the costs of charging, by the way). But does the cost of charging it relate to what is causing it? No, not at all. What is causing the problem is an independent variable to the costs of fixing the problem. Many people support the global warming theory because the facts support it, but oppose mitigation due to its effects on the economy. The fix is irrelevant to the cause, and if you read the resolution the cause is what the debate is about. The point is irrelevant. I am not dodging anything, you are landing an argument where its easier for you to argue but is irrelevant to give the illusion you have one (one) of the points made in the debate. Its a red herring. DEFENDING MY CASE 1. My opponent merely argues I have source spammed. Although I usually do, this isn't really source spam. I gave data points and observations from multiple studies showing humans are the cause of global warming. When you present data, is is courteous to cite the source. Source spam would be this. "Global warming is natural" No, its not. Link times 100 I cited the data and the observations in the study. If my opponent wants, I can provide the methodology next round or in a PM so he can ridicule the results. Presenting a study, its results, and, if needed, a short explanation is not source spam. The argument is simple: 1. We emit greenhouse gases (we agree upon this). 2. Natural factors likely don't cause the current warming (we disagree here). 3. Man-made factors explain the modern warming (we disagree here). 4. Therefore, warming is man-made (obviously we disagree on the conclusion). For 2, I showed the sun had no correlation with temperature since the 1980's and said ". Sun Spots, overall, have no trend proving they likely do not cause the modern warming phase. The current sun spot number is like it was in 1913, when it was very cold, unlike this year, again showing the sun- not a candidate for modern warming" Yeah, providing data and a lack correlation is such a weak argument... For three, I provided data points based on multiple regression analysis which happens to be done by many academic studies showing man likely has caused the modern warming. My opponent merely drops my case with no ounce of rebuttal, it's like he is not even trying. I could expand on my argument, with more data and observations. Actually I will, let's hope this isn't spamming. My argument was he majority of data supports my position. I provided data. Instead of refuting it, my opponent ignores it with the cop-out argument of source spam. I showed co2 caused the current warm phase. Let's take another route. CO2 causes the current warming, as shown by many points of evidence. CO2 causes warming, as many measurements have shown. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When more CO2 and methane are added to containers, the amount of outgoing radiation decreases, providing evidence of the CO2 warming effect. The amount of outgoing radiation is falling as temperatures increase, indicating a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. These data points have been shown by surface and satellite temperature datasets. CO2 has caused the earths energy imbalance causing the modern warm period of man made origin [3]. I am low on room, so that is all I can say. Data backing up my assertions can be found here. And last round, but thats somehow spam. ====== Am I really dodging arguments? Are my points of data weak enough to be dismissed because I have sources? Am I dropping points that are irrelevant anyway? Am I missing something on the earth is cooling point by demonstrating it is in fact not cooling, and even if it is that is irrelevant? I will let the voters decide. But really, my case has not beaten defeated and my opponents lack of showing should be noted by the voters. References are here: http://pastebin.com...