Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is Correct

1. Greenhouse EffectThe argument that you seem to consistently use argues largely against the idea that the majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. That, I do not dispute. The issue is not whether or not the greenhouse effect's human contributions cause warmth, but whether they cause active warming. The greenhouse effect has been around since practically the beginning of time on Earth. Therefore the Earth remains largely stagnant in it's temperature; or else, it should. While most of the warmth on Earth from the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, the same is not true for the warming of the Earth. You previously stated that you attributed warmth to sun flares; "The natural cause I will be supporting in this debate is the solar cause." [1]. I previously cited a source that reliably stated that the climate was actually more sensitive towards CO2 due to positive feedbacks than it was towards solar causes. [2] Many sources cite positive feedback trends, and this graph too supports the thought, in demonstrating that as time has gone on, and CO2 has become more prominent in the atmosphere, the temperature of the ocean has risen in response to feedbacks, which are largely caused by the ocean. [3] "Climate feedbacks are processes that change as a result of a change in forcing, and cause additional climate change. An example of this is the "ice-albedo feedback." As the atmosphere warms, sea ice will melt. Ice is highly reflective, while the underlying ocean surface is far less reflective. The darker ocean will absorb more heat, getting warmer and making the Earth warmer overall. A feedback that increases an initial warming is called a "positive feedback." A feedback that reduces an initial warming is a "negative feedback." The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback that has been included in climate models since the 1970s." [3] As for no evidence of CO2 causing warmer temperatures... In fact, as CO2 in the atmosphere becomes more prominent, clouds form more slowly and less. [4]When the climate is highly sensitive to CO2, that is precisely what you are arguing. The IPCC has released a report regarding the inaccuracey of their predictions. It states several reasons why climate change is so unpredictable, and therefore possible reasons for why they were wrongs; forcing agents applied to the climate, geographical and vertical distributions, nature, the magnitude of feedbacks, and the mean climate state, among other things [5]. As these things are not solidly predictable, it's not exactly rocket science. It's a bit like the local news weather anchors, you see. 2. Added emissions True, true due to Monsanto & friends, and agreed. I hope we can also agree that they don't need the government's help. I personally believe it is, and that we will be drastically affected. I, simply put, do see how that is negative. There are certain things. I spent the entire day today sitting in my garden on a lawn chair, reading, drinking tea, and watering my plants. I spend the summer hiking, swimming, running through the woods. I take naps on a broken generator in the middle of my raspberry patch, surrounded by lilacs swooning over the blooming patch watching bright blue Colorado sky. Call me crazy, but I have no intention to deny the future generations this leisure. It may make it easier, it may increase our efficiency, but really, are we creating a world that you WANT to live in with that? I think that would be a world closer to F451, a haunting book that hits too close to home. Dropped Arguments Sorry, I guess I did. I sort of created my own arguments on the grounds that your argument didn't really affect my argument. I have absolutely no doubt that natural causes do contribute to climate changes in a sense, and do certainly speed it up, but they are not as pronounced as human changes. According to this, the natural changes would have created a much cooler environment than we are experiencing at the moment : Failure to predict something doesn't make the theory wrong in all counts. Saying that the weather man got something wrong doesn't make meterology completely false. Conclusion Anthropogenic global warming is a case supported by 97% [6] of scientists, and by all reasonable accounts. My evidence has demonstrated positive feedbacks, and poor supports for natural causes. Several false predictions do not discount an entire, nearly universally accepted theory; nearly as true as evolution. AGW is a completely valid and most definitely true scientific phenomenon. [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com......[3] http://ossfoundation.us...[4] http://www.mpg.de...[5] http://www.ipcc.ch...[6]