Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent stated that"First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary" However, my entire case has been in contradiction to the inconvenient truth documentary, as seen when my opponent states "scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth", I have offered scientific in direct contradiction to the scientific evidence in the movie, thus I have negated my opponent's ENTIRE argument. " As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority. "Seeing as my opponent likes to spew out the term "fallacy", I will spew out the term band wagon fallacy which this argument is, because The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. My opponent has admitted to doing this by sating that "climate change deniers are within the minority" In my opponent's (rather short) rebuttal he said that I was cherry picking again (in my first argument) He did show that I chose a time fame that best suits me, but that time frame that best suits me shows a DIRECT INDEPENDENCE between oil consumption and CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't cherry picking because I didn't just show a single year or two of independence I showed an entire decade of data. Not only this, but in my 3rd graph (on my first argument) I showed how CO2 levels has been extremely higher than we've ever seen in humanity's history (in some cases over 8000 PPM well before the industrial revolution). Once again I showed independence between ATMOSPHERIC CO2 and Fossil Fuel Consumption. My opponent doesn't seem to understand my argument that ATMOSPHERIC CO2 has no direct relationship to fossil fuel consumption, he lists the obvious fact that CO2 is released by the burning of fossil fuels, but shows no explanation to why an entire decade (and more) of data shows no relation between fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2, in fact he drops the point in his second argument when he says he cannot explain why this statistic occurred. My opponent's second rebuttal states"My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph. "I haven't forgotten any claims that I have made, however my opponent has not shown anything contrary to my original claim, his only counter argument negates his entire argument when my opponent blames the spike in temperature on El Nino, a climate feature unrelated to Global Warming. But again even I admitted there was a slight warming trend since 1978, but if the El Nino spike is removed from the data the trend disappears, so my opponent admits that Global Warming is not the cause of the temperature since 1978. My opponent's third rebuttal states "The overall tend is hotter. Climate can be difficult to predict, just because not everything predicted came true at the correct time, doesn't destroy the overall premise is false. "However I have shown 3 different examples of a lack of an overall warming trend. My first example being my 1st chart on my first argument, which shows that GLOBALLY the overall warming trend (that there is) is "statistically insignificant" (since 1978). My second example shows that in the US temperatures are cooling over the last decade. My third example shows that in the North and East Atlantic Ocean, as well as, the British Isles have not experienced any warming. My opponent's fourth rebuttal states"The graph clearly indicates that Co2 and temperature show a strong positive relationship. Yes, there are a few anomalies but that doesn't discredit the theory. "My opponent has offered one singular graph showing a relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, I have pointed out that there are events on his graph that shows an independence between the two variables, on top of this, I have offered TWICE as much evidence in the contrary, which my opponent has neglected to mention, showing independence between the two variables even over millions of years. Again I'd like to crystalize my arguments1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalidMy opponent has not other a sufficient refutation for this argument, because this point refutes the definition of Global Warming, it proves that, as we are debating it, Global Warming is not real and thus not a threat.2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record. .. My opponent calls this point "cherry picking" however as I have proven, this is not true, and because my opponent has not offered contrary evidence and because of that this point still stands3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theoryMy opponent's first reputation was to say that the ice caps would not melt if Global Warming occurred, however I have shown that this is false, then my opponent made a refutation that is not in contradiction to anything that I stated, so this point still stands.4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature IncreasesMy opponent has neglected to mention either of my graphs and my opponent's evidence has been refuted making this point still relevant in this debate. Now I'd like to show why I have won this debate My opponent's arguments have been proven false or a fallacy. My opponent's first "point" is the pope's quote which I've shown to be worth no value to this debate, and I have proven it to be a bandwagon fallacy. My opponent's second point is the Inconvenient Truth Movie which posits scientific evidence for the theory of Global Warming, However, my entire case is in direct contradiction to this movie and acts as counter evidence and a rebuttal to the movie. So, because both of my opponent's arguments have been proven wrong, and my opponent's refutations have been untrue and unfounded, and I have proven them to be so, Thus, I have won this debate. .. Judges must vote in favor of the Con because of the overwhelming amount of evidence presented and the lack of evidence for my opponent.