Resolved: Co2 Theory is false.

I would like to first respond to my opponents "clarification." of that the CO2 theory implies man-made emissions. The CO2 theory does NOT imply man-made emissions. The CO2 theory is a subset of the Greenhouse Effect, which states that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb heat and thus warm the earth. NOWHERE does it imply man-made emissions. Things other then man emit CO2, and the CO2 theory pertains to all of them. Also, the idea originated in the 19th century and work began in the early 20th century- which as my opponent has pointed out, was BEFORE man-made emissions became a controversial issue. If my opponent would like to debate current man-made global warming, I would be happy to do so, but this resolve specifically states "CO2 theory", and therefore I ask you to disregard all comments made about man-made emissions. Moving on to my opponents rebuttal. "My opponent has missed one big point of this experiment. The experiment was only done on a small scale. Lindzen even said himself it can't be applied totally to the Co2 Theory in that his evidence does not apply to a size of that of Earth." While Lindzen may not have agreed with his evidence, other experiments have been done on larger scales that prove CO2 absorbs heat, and computer models of atoms of CO2 show it can absorb heat. In fact, a study done just this year by a team of Russian and French scientists have shown that CO2 does absorb heat. http://www.greencarcongress.com... For point a)(the way heat is retained by CO2)my opponent said: "This is not proven, as I pointed out in Lindzen's arguments. If it were actually true then why is it that time-periods in the earth's temperature record have been hotter with less Co2 admission." Ok once again, Lidzen didn't agree with his data, but many other scientists such as Michael Chrysos have proven this. Also,in response to my opponents question- my opponent seems to think that the CO2 theory states that the earth's temperature is only influenced by CO2 levels. This is not true, and by saying that there were other times when the temperature was hotter with less CO2 is merely saying that the earth was heated for another reason. Other things affect the climate as well. For my point b)(the great dying and CO2) my opponent said "This only affirms my side. The process is NATURAL, NOT MAN-MADE." Once again my opponent is misstating theories to support his argument. The CO2 theory DOES NOT IMPLY MAN-MADE EMISSIONS. We are debating the CO2 theory, not the theory of man-made global warming! Even if you don't want to believe this (although it is true)then levels of CO2 fluctuate throughout time naturally. That would account for that heating period. Humans are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere at this time, thus causing the same effect that happened then, although on a larger scale. Moving on to my opponents defense: "My Response: Exactly, looking at empirical evidence, time-periods have been hotter then they are now. Human Co2 is therefore NOT DOING IT." Ok here we are again at this idea that the CO2 theory has man-made emissions in it. It does not, that is the theory of Man-Made Global Warming, which we are not debating. I also refer you to my previous statement of how CO2 is not the sole factor controlling the environment and that a number of other factors could have caused the heating. "Lol ok, then I'll provide the medieval warm period (Time with no man-made Co2 Emissions and its the hottest time in the past 1000 years.)" My opponent and I seem to have contradicting graphs here, because the graph I provided clearly shows that the late 20th and 21st centuries are the hottest periods the earth has seen for the past 1200 years. I would like to ask my opponent to provide some information on this " www.trendlines.ca" though, in order to compare accuracy. The graph I provide is at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website "Also, the Holocene Period, the hottest in the past 10,000 years was not hot because of human-Co2 emissions. Its because of a natural cause." I would like to offer a clarification here. The Holocene Period does not refer to a period within the past 10,000 years, it refers TO the past 10,000 years. Once again, my opponent tries to attack my case by confusing the CO2 theory. Also, the hottest period within the Holocene Period, as can be found on the graph I provided, is the late 20th-21st centuries. Also my opponent dropped all attacks I made on his second contention,"The ice-core data is frequently cited as principal evidence to argue that CO2 is the earth's main climate driver," therefore acknowledging he made faulty assumptions in his case. You can negate right here and now because nearly my opponents entire case is based on a false assumption- that the CO2 theory revolves around man-made emissions. As I have shown, it does not, that is the Man-Made Global Warming theory. The bulk of my opponents' arguments are non-resolutional. Therefore, my opponent has yet to disprove the evidence I have provided, as he as only offered one scientists opinion against it. He has based his entire case on faulty assumptions, i.e. CO2 is the only factor in the climate. It is not, and any account of the temperature rising in the past not caused by CO2 does not disprove the CO2 theory, but rather shows a time when the climate was altered by another factor. There has been absolutely no scientific evidence offered by my opponent to disprove the CO2 theory. Because of this, and the evidence I have provided to prove that CO2 does indeed absorb heat, the scale falls completely on the negative. *I would like to add, if my opponent would like to debate me on Man-Made Global Warming, I would be happy to do so after this debate.