Global Warming should be taken more seriously.

Depending on how much effort my opponent might want to put into defending his proposition the debate may end up being extended, and surely the subject matter is quite a complex one certainly requiring at least four debate rounds and 10,000 words in my opinion. I'll try to sum up my objections as tersely as possible. I'll start by rebutting the premise. If we are to take man-made Global Warming seriously then there should be a track-record of where deniers like me have got it wrong and corollary where proponents were right in their predictions. There should be a wealth of evidence and support for the theory that without any serious doubt points to global warming being true. In fact neither of those necessary prerequisites are met. Beyond actual flaws in several climate change predictions, of which some are quite staggering, as with the case of the LEAKED scientific report from IPCC by top scientists which showed that the warming only occurred at quarter the alleged rate spouted by IPCC (. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) there have already been cases of deliberately misleading figures advancing the theory of the terrible cascading events of man-made global warming. An example would be all the fuss about polar bears becoming extinct while they're in fact booming (. http://wattsupwiththat.com...) while scientists investigating the matter described the numbers they cited as ""A guess to satisfy public demand" (. http://www.americanthinker.com...). Hence there have obviously been cases where data and evidence have been tampered with and falsified, later to be used in climate forecasts that by media and politicians is proclaimed as true. We all know there are vested interests in maintaining the narrative of man-made global warming alive and if one could remove the monetary and political interests from the actual science then we could go a long way in putting the appalling manipulation of scientific data to a halt and thereby preventing more spurious "facts" from entering the scientific as well as the political realm. The scientific connection to politics in many aspects is troubling in the sense that science becomes to politicised, hence many scientists have voiced their concerns over the poking noses of the state into the sciences. Caesar's wife is not above suspicion. Perhaps this has more to do with whether or not one trusts the state since it's first and foremost incumbent on the state to take measures to battle man-made climate change. Now I'm the first to admit my bias and I think there are all kinds of reasons to suspect that the state does not always have the best intentions at heart and I think history is definitely proof of that. That is of course irrelevant to the question of whether man-made climate change is real or not, but the ever increasing presence of governments influencing sciences with regards to climate change research makes me at least raise a red flag about the legitimacy and the scope of the purported problem deceitful means must be employed to propagate the agenda. I know there are sciences who genuinely believe it wholeheartedly and who've conducted honest research, but on the same side of that political aisle you have mendacious people who end up hurting the decent scientists by distorting facts to fit their own agenda, thereby truly not giving a damn about the true science which is still debated by real, honest scientists. That must be reason enough to throw some doubt upon the matter and have an open-mind rather than want to have us believe that we ought to take it more seriously. Another reason to remain suspicious is the adamant rethoric by proponents of climate change that want to elevate it as "fact" as if the jury is out. "Trust the scientists" they say, As a matter of fact, there are many scientists who don't concur with the established saga of man-made global warming. The frequently cited 97% figure imply that 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change while in fact the dubious questionnaire they used to arrive at this figure don't really tell us anything about whether they believe in man-made global warming (. http://www.wsj.com...). And that's just another troubling piece of evidence which really isn't any piece of evidence other than that of an agenda whose supporters clearly have no compunction to produce forged statistics to deceive the public. The debate as to the extent humans have on the climate as a whole is still hotly debated. Perhaps my opponent is more interested in going into the actual science of it all and reject the shady misrepresentations going on which undeniably has occurred. I gave you only a small peek into the fiddling of facts and the perfidious nature of many elements of this climate change industry. I don't think there is substantial evidence to suggest that humans are causing a massive warming of the planet (in fact, I'll argue that humans have little to no effect with all things considered) It would be very unwise to not look into the shifty nature of the industry before leaping to the conclusion Pro wants us to make. I beg to differ.