The recent warming trends are not due to man made Co2 emmisions

Thank you for posting a good argument, it has been hard to get people to debate me on this topic. Also, you are right about the technical terms, I just didn't think that people would understand the concept of negative feedback so when I titled this debate I didn't include it in the title. Rebuttals: Scientific consensus: My opponent states that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. There are multiple consensus's but my opponent makes a quote from the IPCC so I will explain the manipulation behind that one. The IPCC put in their report that 2500 of the worlds top scientists agree that global warming is man made. This is not true because not only did they not ask people if they wanted to be part of the consensus or not, the majority of the people they listed are not climate scientists. Many of the people in the consensus didn't want to be part of it and yet they were shown as someone who supports man made climate change. Here is a list of articles explaining why other consensus's were wrong: http://climatechangedispatch.com... My opponent then says that the surface temperature is warming. This is true, but in itself disproves man made climate change. If greenhouse gasses were causing the warming, we would expect to see warming in the atmosphere first, not the surface. Skeptical science, the most used global warming alarmist site I have seen used, says, "Climate models predict, that as a consequence of global warming, the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) will warm about 20% faster than the Earth's surface temperature" Troposphere warming: https://upload.wikimedia.org... Surface Warming: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com... Total atmospheric warming: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... As you can see, troposphere warming matches surface warming, it is not warming any faster. In addition to this, the entire atmospheric temperature trend seems to have stayed constant for 20 years. My opponent then says that Co2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore would be expected to cause warming. As I pointed out in my argument above, I believe the climate system responds to this warming by dampening it and making it insignificant. In fact, I even have historical proof to back up my claims. If Co2 amplified itself (even global warming alarmists agree that the direct warming effect isn't enough to have an impact, 2/3 of the IPCC climate model predictions of rising temperature are due to amplification effects) then, in the past, when would this amplification stop? To answer my own questions, Co2 would only stop amplifying when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic which we have only seen once in the last 25 million years. This shows how, in the past, Co2 has not amplified itself because the oceans only rarely become abnormally basic. pH of ocean: https://www.manicore.com... Co2 amplification is described by skeptical science as, "as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released" My opponent then says, "The results have consistently shown that global warming is occuring and will continue to occur due to CO2 levels...Predicitons made based on models which predict climate change have been shown to be accurate - even beyond our increasing temperatures. For instance following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo "Climatologists predicted global temperatures would drop as a result of that global sulfate infusion. They were right..." Firstly, yes, the models show that warming is occurring but they show way to much warming. They are not even nearly accurate to the observed warming trends. This is because scientists overestimate the effect of Co2 on the atmosphere. Models Wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Models Wrong 2: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Models Wrong 3: http://c3headlines.typepad.com... Secondly, scientists were also right about the sulfate infusions from the Mount Pinatubo but this aerosol has completely different effect on climate than Co2. It is much easier to predict the effect of sulfate aerosols on climate because we already know how cloud cover effects climate (cooling). Sulfate aerosols just cause more clouds which then reflect more sunlight off the earth causing cooling. Sulfate aerosols are much more understood and there are not many feedbacks effecting them. In conclusion, I have now debunked everything my opponent has claimed and proven that Co2 does not amplify itself. I have shown how, yes, the surface is warming, but that in itself disproves man made global warming. I have shown how the consensuses have been manipulated and how almost every single IPCC predictions has been wrong. Overall, I have now proven that climate change is not man made and that everything happening now is natural and out of our control, whether the rate of warming is fast or not.