Global warming is a hoax

Despite the fact that my opponent is the instigator and Pro for the resolution, he has requested that I start the debate. I have no problem with this as long as he acknowledges his burden of proof and presents some arguments of his own, rather than merely rebutting mine. _________ Definitions. My opponent has not provided us with any definitions and I feel that it is imperative that we at least define the key terms in the resolution if we are to have a meaningful debate. 1. Global warming. The issue of global warming can be interpreted many ways as discussed on the DDO fans Wiki page. . http://ddofans.com... Wikipedia describes global warming as "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. " When most people speak of global warming however they are generally referring to the well accepted theory "that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... I can't be sure if my opponent wishes to limit the discussion strictly to global warming or include wider examples of climate change. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Similarly I can't be sure if he's referring to the existence of global warming/climate change or the assertion that its effects are exacerbated or caused by human actions. I will assume that my opponent wishes to discuss human contribution to climate change but whichever of these ideas of global warming he refers to, I believe the word 'hoax' is an inaccurate description. 2. Hoax. There is much less room for misinterpretation with this term. Although some hoaxes may be playful and others more malicious, implicit within every reliable definition of the word is the notion of intentional deceit. . http://www.google.co.uk... ________ I do believe that the planet is getting warmer and that the climate is changing. I also believe it is quite probable that the primary cause of this is human and that human actions are affecting it. However these beliefs are quite irrelevant to the debate at hand. My opponent is claiming that the scientists who believe this (and they are very much in the majority) are not merely mistaken, not merely incorrect and not even merely deluded but that they are wilfully misleading the public and the government with this information. I see no basis, suggestion or motive for the level of conspiracy that this would entail. According to the 2007 UN report "Evidence is now ‘unequivocal' that humans are causing global warming" . http://www.un.org... Even the US government has accepted the truth back in 2002 . http://news.bbc.co.uk... and it is also acknowledged by NASA. . http://www.nasa.gov... The denial of climate change and its human causes is essentially the propaganda of big businesses who don't want to risk compromising their profits for the sake of something as insignificant as sustaining the planet for future generations. It is no secret that major political parties are funded by these companies, yet according to my opponent, it is the mainstream scientists rather than the skeptics with a political agenda that represent the conspiracy. The scientific consensus on global warming is clear. "the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" . http://www.sciencemag.org... "a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. " . http://logicalscience.com... I have no idea what my opponent means by "believ[ing] in carbon footprints" but it doesn't seem to affect the resolution. A carbon footprint is simply a term for the amount of carbon pollution caused by an individual, a company or a nation. It is an abstract concept rather than a tangible object but I don't see how one could "disbelieve" it without also disbelieving in the existence of carbon itself. I will now hand over to Pro for his arguments on how and why "global warming is a hoax". Thanks. Con.