Global warming exists.

I apologize ahead of time if my arguments are few in number and cover few grounds. I am cut for time at the moment, but will try my best to get the most arguments in. I thank my opponent for their response. 1. Pro still does not fulfill BoP, even if my arguments are declared false or broken apart, this does not immediately make them fulfill BoP, which they still have yet to do. 2. I have more scientific evidence that my opponent did not address. 3. A group of 15 scientists and meteorologists have put forward a scathing rebuttal to the Obama administration"s recent climate report which said the U.S. is already being harmed by global warming. Scientists skeptical that mankind is causing the Earth"s climate to change say that such claims are based on false theories and flawed models. The White House report is a "masterpiece of marketing" that is trying to scare people into action, scientists said. "As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of "Climate Change," however scary, is not proof of anything," wrote the 15 scientists and meteorologists,including Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University and Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency"s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. "Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration"s version of "Global Warming," "Climate Change," "Climate Disruption," or whatever their marketing specialists call it today," they continued. The White House"s "National Climate Assessment" (NCA), released last week, claimed that the U.S. was already being affected by global warming though warmer temperatures and increasing extreme weather events. But the 15 skeptical scientists said the White House is trying to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of the fossil fuels industry when there is little evidence to back up that claim. The Earth"s climate is very cyclical and has gone through many changes in the past, the scientists said, without humans emitting carbon dioxide. "This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes," the skeptics wrote. "As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions." "We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth"s climate by burning fossil fuels," they added. "The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true." The NCA says the U.S. average temperature has risen between 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895, which is causing more extreme weather, like hurricanes and droughts, and harming fragile ecosystems around the country. The NCA also warns that the U.S. average temperature could rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming decades if nothing is done to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The report suggests a slew of regulatory solutions from cap-and-trade to green energy subsidies to mitigate global warming. ""Global Warming" has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred," the skeptical scientists rebutted. "For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend and the Antarctic cooled slightly."[1] I had more info that pro did not address, that had many scientists behind them. [1] http://dailycaller.com... 4. As the Obama administration and Senate Democrats feverishly stoke up hellfire and brimstone global warming alarm to promote a Climate Action Plan, leading voices in green choir robes have abandoned the climate crisis hymnal. Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the activist environmental organization in 1986 after it strayed away from objective science and took a sharp turn to the political left. Testifying on Feb. 25 before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee"s Subcommittee on Oversight, he took issue with the U.N."s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that "Since the mid-20th century it is "extremely likely" that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming." Moore pointed out "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," arguing that "perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record." He told the committee: "When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when carbon dioxide was 10 times higher than today." Moore also noted that "The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910"1942 human influence." Why then, he asks, "does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it has no explanation for nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?" Moore emphasized that there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. On the other hand, there is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent Socialist and a father of Germany"s environmental movement, has become another strong critic of the IPCC"s alarmist global warming doctrine. His lack of trust began while serving as an expert reviewer for an IPCC renewable energy report as the renewable energy division head of Germany"s second largest utility company. Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCC"s climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases. Dr. Vahrenholt concluded: "The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results." And although CO2 may have some warming influence, he believes that the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things. James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, predicted in 2006 that: "Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where climate remains tolerable." More recently, however, he admitted to MSNBC: "We don"t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books . . . mine included . . . because it looked clear cut . . . but it hasn"t happened." The 92-year-old Lovelock went on to note, "The climate is doing its usual tricks . . . there"s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now." He added, "Yet the temperature has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising . . . carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that." Moore, Vahrenholt, and Lovelock are but three within an expanding multitude of scientists who are cooling on climate alarm. When previously asked on Fox Business News who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives are, Moore said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." Moore warns that, "The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it"s not good for the environment. In a warmer world we can produce more food." Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a "pseudoscience" that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis, and "then only looks for items which appear to support it," while ignoring ample contrary evidence. Tragically, that pseudoscience does greatest injustice to those who can least afford it.[2] Pseudoscience is not science, the climate change claim was started by liberals and democrats. It is also supported by those politicians. Let me remind you that NASA is government funded, therefor does what the government wants. [2] Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com...