Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

"Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts [4]" Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination.(1) Fire frequency increases are likely due to human carelessness through discarding cigarette butts, or vehicular sparks, etc. (2). 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 (3). 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. While his use of the 2007 supreme court case is commendable, critics of the designation of CO2 as a pollutant such as 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. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."(4). The paragraph that my opponent dismisses as a red herring, "A threat to humanity... Syrian Regime. (5)" is actually not a red herring. 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". I'd also like to point out that my opponent's argument "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." is somewhat inaccurate. Granted Water's pH has went down from approximately 8.2 to 8.1 which is in terms of technical semantics an increase in acidity. [However pH is measured from 1-14 with 1-6 being acidic, 7 as neutral, and 8-14 as basic or alkaline. (5)] Also this decrease in pH has been expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report World Group 1, which also states that the oceans are alkaline not acidic. (6) My opponent also contends that marine life would be screwed up because of this decrease in alkalinity. 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.(7). (1) http://www.aaas.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) https://www.google.com.sg... (4) http://www.populartechnology.net... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://www.ipcc.ch... (7) http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu...