Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

My opponent has admitted CO2 is not the chief cause in global warming, but that it has an effect. I have never denied CO2 has some effect, however I denied that it had a large one. My opponent has not negated this contention, and with it unrefuted it stands that the CO2 effect (and therefore the anthropogenic effect) is negligible, and taking a stand with green technologies would be a waste of money and effort. My opponent has also dropped my PDO argument, conceding that the natural factors cause at least ¾ of the current warming. This only leaves ¼ of the current warming for any man-made forcing, and as stated the sun correlates better with climate. Accepting the fact that sun spot length correlates extremely well with climate, and other forgings such as cosmic rays and our position in the galaxy hint we should be warming, it leaves a small percentage of the current warming for man-made causes [1]. With this in mind, and global warming mainly a natural cycle, my opponent has failed to meet the BOP and prove global warming is man made and should be stopped. 1. Global warming is real and is a threat My opponent has admitted that global warming does not exist. To be honest, I am confused by this statement. Is my opponent assuming global warming has stopped, or that it is mainly in the northern hemisphere? Regardless, it seems as though he has conceded that a global phenomena of global warming exists. I only partially agree. There was global warming in the 20th century, but the rate of warming has slowed and no warming has occurred since 1995 [1]. My opponent then continues saying he thinks warming will continue. This seems like a contradiction from his first point here. No matter, he has conceded multiple times the warming has stopped. So it seems illogical that it will keep increasing if it has already backtracked. My opponent finished by saying our data is biased. Yes, it is. The question, however, is whose bias is correct. I have given, in my opinion, a more compelling case that my bias is correct and my side on the correct side of history. Therefore, biased data is irrelevant, but whose bias is correct is relevant. And I hope the voters, and others reading, can see my bias is correct. My opponent has also dropped (and therefore conceded) that global warming does not cause hurricanes. I have provided many peer reviewed studies denying this effect, proving global warming is not a threat. My opponent has also conceded my point that global warming helps the human race (see round 1 and two). So even if warming is man-made (it is not) then why should we stop a beneficial force? 2. Global warming is anthropogenic My opponent starts with a NASA favorite: records breaking CO2 levels. However, when you look at the ice record, CO2 levels are at an all time low [1]. Interestingly, if we move the data back in time we see CO2 was breaking record in 1750 with 284 ppm, before human emissions where significant. From 1750 – 1875, CO2 rose 10 times faster ten anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It took humans 100 years to catch up with CO2 emissions (new emissions, not the total. We are less then 5% of the CO2 emissions in the atmosphere). The CO2 growth rate, although fast, is not “out of control” [2]. I would like to reiterate my sensitivity argument. Doubling CO2 would only increase temperatures by one degree Celsius. We have warmed .6 degrees Celsius (less using satellite data). We have only increased co2 35%. Therefore, CO2 likely had little effect on the current warming. Now to my opponents data: -- The first data set was irrelevant, it was before the date --The other data was far before the respected time period --Only your last data applied The last data Wikipedia cherry picked as I stated Pearson 2000 documented the carbon ppm 60 million years ago. It said ppm was actually 500 ppm, we agree, but “the oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the "large and predictable effect" of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed. ” Meaning carbon dropped but temperature rose. And the drop was substantial, showing co2 is not a strong climate driver [4]. My argument was that the spike near that time increased ppm to 3000, while temperature fell. The argument has been misinterpreted. We actually agree on the carbon count, but my opponent misses the point that there is no correlation between carbon and temperature. I tried to post this in round one; it didn't work. It is the same point (so I am not bringing up anything new here), it merely makes it visual. CO2 and Global Temp. ? No correlation! And my opponent only speculates on the age of my data. If you read the source (round two, source 7) you see they used ice core data and tree ring proxies, still used in the climate debate and is a widely accepted proxy today. 3. Fighting the problem “We are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy. ” – My opponent My opponent invests his whole argument in faith that it will improve. Although passive solar houses might be a good idea (for those off the grid), my opponents point will always fail: the sun isn’t always shining, the wind not always flowing, the water not always flowing, but the pumps will keep on drilling and the nuclear plants will keep on burning. Fossil fuels should last 200 years, nuclear another 100. These estimates keep growing because we keep discovering new oil every day, not to mention some sea exploration would likely add the oil count by hundreds of years. We really don’t seem to be running out of oil because we keep finding more. Either way, green energy is not a constant or reliable energy source. Fossil fuels and nuclear power is. Take that how you wish; facts vs the faith of my opponent. Conclusion: --Global warming is not man-made, stopping it would be pointless --Global warming is not harmful, and it is beneficial, why should we stop a good force? --Green energy is impractical --My opponent dropped (and therefore concedes as the truth) the: PDO, warming stopped, extinctions are not happening, the harm of global warming, droughts, and the fact that sea levels are not rising Reading the debate (I hope) and my conclusion, I believe the voters should see it logical to vote for CON. 1. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B. C. : Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 2. . http://wattsupwiththat.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.co2science.org...