Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

“Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination”As I said global warming would contaminate the water. There’s nothing to dispute here as it’s not a rebuttalHuman water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination. Fire frequency increases are likely due to human carelessness through discarding cigarette butts, or vehicular sparks, etc. This doesn’t mean a majority of fires are by this nor that warming temperature isn’t a threatIf a town is harboring escaped murders and death rates are increasing do we keep harboring murders because people can still die from car crashes?“Desert expansion has occurred regardless of human interaction or not, but it is not affected by global warming and is defined as the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture”Inappropriate agriculture and drought are results of warming temperature as shown in the previous round.“I would like to note that my opponent has ignored the merriam-webster definition of pollution and its clarification definition of pollute in R1 in order to bolster his claim that CO2 is a pollutant by introducing the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition instead. “Webster’s definition isn’t very broad. Even then it’s defined as “environmental contamination” which I have shown CO2 causes. S. Fred Singer state, "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. CO2 does make plants grow, however it also makes plant defenses go down[1]. Plants can’t just grow solely on CO2, as the nitrogen won’t keep up with this CO2 causing harmful affects[2] Even if CO2 is good for plant growth this doesn’t mean it’s good or we should have more of it. I am unable to find exactly how the GNP will rise with warmer climate.Even if CO2 isn’t labeled as a pollutant this doesn’t mean it’s good or not harmful. As it’s just semantics.The argument is stated as an example of what a threat is similarly to your usage of "10 Indicators of a Human fingerprint on Climate Change".It still has nothing to do with global warming. Its seems like Con is arguing semantics. When ocean waters absorb CO2 they become acidic. That doesn't mean that oceans will become acid. Ocean life is very sensitive to even slight pH level changes. Any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment. The acidity in global surface waters has increased by 30% in the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected to the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems.Agreed upon by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) said "The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer." - The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009[3]When the surface waters become more acidic, it becomes much more difficult for marine life such as corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them. [4]“However my opponent does not take into account the possibility of bacterial contamination of seawater that could harm marine life. For example, the bacteria, Vibrio tubiashii, is currently known to kill oysters, but it is unknown if Vibrio tubiashii is fatal to other shellfish.”Is this bacteria affecting marine food chains and is this bacteria located in certain places or all over the globe? This fits with the analogy with the murders in the town. Con only touched upon 2 of 5 affects of Global Warming and didn't fulfill his BOP by showing global warming isn't a threat[1]http://www.sciencedaily.com...[2]http://www.nature.com...[3]http://www.interacademies.net...[4]http://www.skepticalscience.com...