"Global Warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists

Let's begin. Pro argues that the "eco-terrorists" want us to believe that the entire scientific community agrees that global warming is man-made, and that there are over 17,000 scientists who disagree. While that figure may be true, still the MAJORITY of scientists agree that some form of global warming is, in fact, man-made. Additionally, my opponent's cited source (www. oism. org) is merely a link to the Oregon Institute of Science -- It's not a credible source of any information validating his claim. While there is virtually UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. In other words, it is undeniable that human activity has contributed negatively to the environment, meaning "Global Warming" is not a lie as suggested by the resolution. You don't need to be a scientist to figure this out; it's common sense. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. THIS IS UNDENIABLE. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. These gases persist in the atmosphere for years; one must only know simple science to understand The Greenhouse Effect and how this issue impacts the earth's heating and cooling [1]. My point here is that to claim human activity has nothing to do with global warming is just non-sensical. Our endeavors have led us to produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat emission. Simultaneously, we have implemented continuous deforestation. .. meaning we rid of the trees and plant life that help balance out our carbon emissions. .. so obviously there is going to be an impact. My opponent's next contention is that satellite readings show no sign of global warming. This is FALSE. The New York Times presented an article which confirms that while orbiting satellites have suggested that the lower atmosphere is cooling, this evidence has been distorted by the inevitable decay, or lowering, of the satellites' orbits as they encounter atmospheric resistance. Once this error is corrected, the scientists report that the satellite record shows the atmosphere has actually become warmer. Dr. John R. Christy - an originator and keeper of the satellite record - acknowledges this discrepancy and said that other corrections involving things like the east-west drift of the satellites and instrument temperatures have also been made. The net result of all the corrections shows warming in the lower atmosphere [2]. In other words, the arguments put forth by Pro are outdated and false. The data has been corrected and said satellites now indicate that global warming is not, in fact, a lie. For his last argument, my opponent claims that "a little global warming would be good for the Earth and humanity. " He notes the Vikings settling Greenland between 800 and 1200 as 'proof' of this phenomena (even despite the fact that we have already settled most of the inhabitable world). Anyway, I NEGATE. Some repercussions of global warming include - but are not limited to - Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters; The growth of deserts can cause food shortages in many places; More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans (which obviously affects the entire ecosystem and food chain, including humans); Hundreds of millions of people will live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities, i. e. destruction; Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water, etc. [1]. I fail to see how ANY of those repercussions are good for the Earth and humanity. On a final note, Pro dropped my entire argument regarding the existence of so-called "eco-terrorists" in the first place. Thus if eco-terrorists do not even exist, then clearly they can not be responsible for spreading the "lie" of man-made global warming. I also dismantled the position entirely about these so-called terrorists having a goal of trying to make people return to a primitive lifestyle. That is a ridiculous premise with absolutely no basis; proof is the fact that Pro has not even attempted to prove it -- he merely made this outlandish assertion and expects the audience to believe him. This is a logical fallacy. Additionally, even if global warming WAS a lie (which I have proven it is not), activists intentions are positive to humanity, i. e. improving fuel efficiency, cleaning our air and water, etc. The resolution has been negated. Sources: [1] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [2] . http://www.heatisonline.org...