Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

"...other variables such as water vapor, soot, solar radiation and other green house gases.”Water vapor isn’t a forcing agent. It’s a “feedback loop” as when CO2 levels go up, more water vapor gets in the atmosphere [1]. Soot (A.K.A black carbon) is only in the atmosphere for days to weeks, but CO2 is there for centuries.“Short-lived climate forcers – methane, black carbon and ozone – are fundamentally different from longer-lived greenhouse gases, remaining in the atmosphere for only a relatively short time. Deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions are required to protect long-term climate, as this cannot be achieved by addressing short-lived climate forcers.”[2]“The source also doesn't explain how global warming is a threat to humankind, nor does it imply global warming to be a threat either.”It wasn’t suppose to. There are some positive effects yet the negative outweigh these. The negative effects areDecline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures [3]Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts [4]Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin [5]Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems [6][7][8]Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever [9]and so much more [10]“My opponent also follows the EPA designation that CO2 is an air pollutant that directly harms humans. “The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. [11]This is a much broader definition. Also Title 1, Part A, Section 7408 states"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [12] (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."Greenhouse gases including CO2 fit the Clean Air acts definition of air pollution. Furthermore Encyclopedia Brittanica defines pollution as"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." [13]Increasing CO2 levels have direct affects to our environment. Such as, the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, leading to acidification which messes with marine ecosystems. Clearly it’s a pollutant.“A threat to humanity and the stability of geopolitics is the current hyped up rhetoric between Iran and Israel over Iran's nuclear program which could result in the creation of a nuclear warhead. With Israel threatening military attacks on Iranian nuclear enrichment plants. (3) Another economic threat to the world would be Iran's threat to attempt to blockade the straits of Hormuz if UN sanctions severely cripple its oil economy. (4) An even more obvious threat to international stability is the possibility of the chemical weapons stockpiled in Syria could fall into the hands of terrorist groups as the Syrian Civil War invites third party jihadists on the sides of either the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian Regime. “OK, I don’t see what this has to do with global warming, but OK. Bit of a red herring here. If this truly is a threat, then we should deal with both.[1] http://www.nasa.gov...[2] Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone; United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org..., 2011[3] http://www.pnas.org...[4] http://www.pnas.org...[5] http://www.agu.org...[6] http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr...[7] http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org...[8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[9] http://www.decvar.org...[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[11] United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) [12] http://www.supremecourt.gov...[13] http://www.britannica.com...