Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity.

ConclusionFinal Defences(A) Climate sensitivityMy opponent attempts to prove that the climate sensitivity is exaggerated, but gives no sources to suggest that climate sensitivity is really exaggerated the way he explains. The source I cited is written by an environmental scientist, who has posted the calculations on how he calculated climate sensitivity. He dismisses them by pointing to the cambrian era, but this is not an acceptable rebuttal. Climate sensitivity is not static. The cambrian era likely had a lower level of climate sensitivity. (B) Man Made CO2I've stated that CO2 "tips the pot" and proved it. Con cedes this. Con says that I agree that CO2 does nothing. This is not true. In my previous arguments, I've stated that although CO2 does have a low GWP, doesn't mean that it is non-existent. My point is not begging the question, as I have argued a point of instigation: when man emitted large volumes of CO2. The majority of CO2 and other misc. GHGS that remain in the atmosphere are man-made, as I proved in my R4 argument. The GWP of CO2 in particular may be low, but it still has GWP. Every fraction of a degree that the temp is raised by CO2 further accelerates the global warming effect by reducing the oceans ability to absorb CO2 (as I stated in my R4 argument). My opponents points, when freshly cross examined with my previous points, can be seen as invalid. Con cedes that Man-made CO2 emissions disrupt the CO2 cycle. This disproves his point regarding the cambrian era (as man was not present, the CO2 cycle would have been in balance). Con cedes that warming oceans have lessened ability to absorb CO2, but claims that this point is begging the question. Pro proves that that point is not begging the question, as the initial warming is instigated by the CO2 (and other GHGs) that man emits that disrupt the natural cycle. The correlation isn't low, as con states. The earth is warming, directly after man disrupts the CO2 cycle. Con may dismiss scientific consensus as an appeal to authority, but it can be argued that if literally thousands of expert climatologists are in agreement that there is sufficient evidence to say that man-made global warming is significantly changing the environment, then they are probably correct. C) TreesCon cedes that Older trees more efficiently absorb CO2, than younger trees. Forward this point. D) Warming OceansCon attempts to disprove this point simply by saying " once the extremely hot Summer season hits the ocean, it would never end. " But this is simply forced misinterpretation of how the ocean is affected by the world temperature. One hot summer does not warm the ocean sufficiently to see a drastic change in its ability to absorb, as the entire planet is hot during one regions summer. Only global rising averages really shift the temperature of the ocean. "Assume it takes 4°c. .. It would take 666 years to reach that, as it took 134 years to see temperature increase by 0.85°c. "This is an interesting point made by con, but totally fails to account for temperature acceleration. This point is only true if one assumes that the rate at which temperature changes is always constant. If one looked at the 134 year period he mentions, you would see that the rate of warming accelerated, and was fastest during the latter portion. Final StatementsMy opponents final argument has boiled down to essentially 2 points.1) CO2 has a low GWP 2) The cambrian era had a ton of CO2, but wasn't as hot as it "should" have been. Both points are easily rebutted by my previous arguments. Point one is rebutted in that I have proved that although CO2 has a low GWP, doesn't mean that it is negligable. I have proved previously that any amount of warming caused by CO2 has the potential to accelerate out of control. Point two is rebutted by my climate sensitivty argument, and my carbon cycle argument. It is rebutted by my climate sensitivity argument, in that the cambrian era likely had lower sensitivity. It is rebutted by my CO2 cycle argument, in that the cambrian era CO2 cycle was not disrupted by unnatural interference. Note: These are cross-examinations, not new rebuttals. These are the points ceded by Con. -Man made GHGs disrupt the natural cycle of GHG emissions and absorbtion. -Man made GHGs remain in the atmosphere, unlike natural GHGs, and can build up in the atmosphere, therefore significantly contributing to the greenhouse effect. -Deforestation contributes significantly to the reduction of the natural absorbtion of GHGs. -When the ocean warms, its ability to absorb CO2 is reduced. -Therefore, warming from CO2 (among other GHGs) has the potential to accelerate the greenhouse effect. Con has zero assertions standing in his argument. The Pro has a multitude of points that all indicate that man is significantly contributing to global warming. The evidence for Pro is overwhelming. The scientific backing is solid. That is the reason why environmental scientists have come to the census that they did. Con has no argument.