Humans are the main cause of global warming

Thanks to Ron-Paul for the response. CO2 Correlation The sunspots actually rose after the temperature in 1960, according to the chart from [A]. If my opponent's claim is right, then global warming causes sunspots to rise, which is not the case. The chart from [A] shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, in the short term without apparent lag. Sun "Sun - Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%" Again, my sun argument still stands. Predictions say that Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78. Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare. [B] The sun is not in a period of high activity. "Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious." I have proven this wrong with [A]. Cosmic Rays The most recent IPCC studies disputed the mechanism. The 2007 IPCC reports, however, strongly attribute a major role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ongoing global warming, but as "different climate changes in the past had different causes" a driving role of carbon dioxide in the geological past is neither focus of the IPCC nor purported. [C] PDO/AMO The 10-year correlation record of CO2 is on there, but the 10 year correlation record of PDO/AMO is not on there, therefore this does not prove that CO2 has less influence. "There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. " The PDO/AMO does not have a 10 year chart to compare with CO2, the sun is refuted in earlier rounds. The sunspots are lagging behind the temperature. IPCC disputes the cosmic rays and instead attribute the warming to CO2. Position in galaxy (Only a chart given by opponent) Per Ron-Paul's request, this is the full quote: (formatting changed for character count, no changes in content, words taken out in R3 are marked) " To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. [[To achieve this radical restructuring of human society, global warming proponents demand that we give virtually unlimited power to government to control what we eat, how we travel, and how our industries operate, with no dissent or resistance permitted.]] Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. As one environmental activist puts it, Everything modern has to go!" -ISIL Medieval Warm Period "I will keep coming with more. There is a clear correlation." There is no correlation if you give nothing to compare. The data before 1600 was scarce [D], which means that the temperatures can be colder or warmer than now, but the chart at [E] shows that the MWP is colder than the temperature at 2004. The Sun Back in 2008, the solar cycle plunged into the deepest minimum in nearly a century. Sunspots all but vanished, solar flares subsided, and the sun was eerily quiet. As 2011 unfolds, sunspots have returned and they are crackling with activity. On February 15th and again on March 9th, Earth orbiting satellites detected a pair of "X-class" solar flares--the most powerful kind of x-ray flare. The last such eruption occurred back in December 2006. [F] As you can see, the solar activity was unstable. Then we should see many huge dips and rises in the chart at http://ossfoundation.us... , but the sun spots dipped down in 2000, while the temperature still rose with the CO2 with little to none delays on the CO2 part. CO2 correlates more than sun spots on [A]. And [A] is a short term graph from 1860 to 2000, so the CO2 should be delayed like crazy, right? Nope, that is not the case. In Conclusion, my opponent's claims have been refuted. [A]http://ossfoundation.us... [B]http://science.nasa.gov... [C]http://en.wikipedia.org... [D]http://en.wikipedia.org... [E]http://upload.wikimedia.org... [F]http://science.nasa.gov...