The human effect on global warming is significant.

"The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate." I disagree with this conclusion. Importance in effect or meaning does not imply that it is 50% or more of the cause. Something can be under 50% of the cause and still be a driving force. If a cause is important, it means that the outcome would have been noticeably different had that cause not existed. "The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor." My opponent claims that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. I do not think this is so (and my opponent cites no source). If 3.502% is a correct figure, there should be some relevant results when I Google search "3.502%", but I did so and got no relevant results. But that's not the main point I want to make. My point is this: though water vapor is prominent, CO2 is where the real problem arises from. Though water vapor is more prominent, the increase in CO2 triggers a positive feedback effect [2]. Temperature increase leads to increased levels of water vapor. And the greenhouse effect increases temperature. So when CO2 levels are rapidly and unnaturally increased, temperature increases. Water vapor levels increase, and temperature increases further. The relatively large recent increases in CO2 have led to a positive feedback effect, magnifying the severity of the warming. "S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming." I looked on Friedenreich's website and could not find this chart. Could my opponent provide a link to it? ***** "2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other." For several hundred thousand years before the 20th century, CO2 was in the 180 to 300 ppm range. But in 2007, CO2 levels reached 390 ppm. What could be responsible for this incredibly unlikely increase? The only variable in recent decades is human emissions. "1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair." In what way is a democratic scale biased? "2)Scientists are not always right." This is correct. But they are right more often than anyone else. If so many scientists agree on something, it is probably correct. Sure, scientists have been wrong before, but when choosing who to trust, the safe bet is to side with the scientists. Should I instead trust the deceitful pseudoscientific producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle? Additionally, it is not just that the scientists are more likely than not to be correct. It is that these scientific societies have advocated for global warming. They have reputations to uphold. If they turn out to be wrong, it will put a dent in their reputations. They would only advocate a view if they were very sure of its validity. "3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea "have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so." (quote from a scientific article)" This is not from a scientific article. I searched for the quote on Google Scholar, and did not find the quote [3]. In fact, the quote is from a blog [4]. And it's not even a scientist's blog; it's a PASTOR'S blog. This is simply not a very credible source. By claiming that it was from a scientific article, my opponent has blatantly deceived his audience. I ask the judges to please give me the conduct vote, due to my opponent's deceitful intent. In response to the actual statement, it is not very accurate. Plenty of people listen to global warming skeptics. The Great Global Warming Swindle was widely popular and was aired on national television. Many websites such as junkscience.com openly disagree with global warming. Plenty of other people (such as my opponent) debate publicly on the issue of global warming, without worrying about their reputations. Others have televised debates on global warming (for example, [5]). "scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum" A scientist who provides evidence for a controversial viewpoint will receive a great deal of attention, and will likely receive more grant money to investigate the new and controversial findings. Additionally, every oil company (actually, every company whose business relies on releasing greenhouse gases) would jump at the chance to support any scientist with findings that deny AGW. "I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic." The articles do not say that humans are increasing CO2 levels. They "explicitly or implicitly accept[] the consensus view" that the human effect on global warming is significant. "Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence." -I gave a relevant explanation of the greenhouse effect. -I explained why my opponent's contention about water vapor is irrelevant. -I gave facts and sources. -My opponent claims that I provided no facts or important evidence, but my opponent has cited literally zero sources. For all I know, he completely made up all of his facts, and I know for a fact that he lied about one thing. "bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true." -Belief of the general population is very frequently wrong. Belief of the scientific population is much more accurate. -It is not that it must be true; it is only more likely to be true, since scientists know what they are doing more than I or my opponent do. "What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts" The only fact that my opponent has provided is that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. I challenge my opponent to find the scientific paper proving this. I look forward to my opponent's response. ***** [1] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [2] http://www.realclimate.org... [3] http://scholar.google.com...'t%20so.&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws [4] http://royalfarris.wordpress.com... [5] http://www.ewire.com...