Global warming (full resolution in debate)

I. What a greenhouse gas isThis is more of an observation rather than a argument. I agree with you on what these emissions are, but differ on if they are the principle cause of global warming. II. The greenhouse effect Now lets first look on how much heat will be forced to stay. CO2 is like a sheet of plastic, it only absorbed 8% of the radiation. So only 8% is temporarily trapped, ok? Only 1% of the things leaving the atmosphere is heat. So based on simple math we can see these small numbers will unlikely be able to create any major 'unprecedented' global warming.And there is more math that makes it seem impossible that CO2 is a factor. I will make this into a quiz like my source 1 does:The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is [1]: a) over 10%b) 5-10%c) 1-5%d) less then 1%Any wagers? You guessing c? Its "d". Less then 1%. Human contribution to CO2:a) over 20%b) 10-20%c) 5-10%d) less then 5%The answer is "d" again, in a 2-5% range depending on the stats. Now why is this important and actually crippling to my opponents case? Here is why:Carbon is .04% of atmosphere. Lets say humans make about 4% of that. That means .0016%. This means human contribution to the atmosphere in carbon is a mere 16 ppm (parts per million), or 1.6 out of 100,000.So lets assume CO2 can heat to a large extent. But the CO2 in this analogy is people. There are 100,000 people in a room, heating it up. We add 1.6 people or remove 1.6 people. That will have no measurable effects. If I argued it did it would be absurd right? Same with CO2. With the low amount humans are adding it is absurd CO2 is the main cause of the warming. [1]III. "Proof"1. CO2 does trap heat, but as mentioned:a) Not that muchb) 1.6/100,000 will have little effect. 2. My opponent agrees natural factors are some of the warming, but CO2 is still a larger component. My opponent claims we must show CO2 to make an accurate computer model. But in reality that makes no sense. Unless you are trying to get a non-existent correlation. If you look at these models in the past, they actually refute the points that CO2 causes warming. Temperatures may be warmer then today's, but have lower CO2 numbers. That's something the alarmist crowd has been trying to hide. And my opponent claims there has been a correlation of CO2 and temperatures in the last century. But lets look at facts: "In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend (as the UK Met Office and IPCC’s own figures demonstrate). In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today." [2]3. I have already shown the absurdity of this, using facts and numbers that where easy to comprehend. CO2 blocks little and has no/little possible effect. It may be likely other stronger gases are creating this (N2O or methane) but unlikely CO2. Also where the atmosphere is relates more with air pressure. ******Natural cycle My opponent can't really salvage his case, as in reality science is against him. He would have to have to prove unprecedented, as he claims CO2 cannot make all of this heat. Well natural factors did it WITHOUT HUMAN CO2. Here is a graph: As we can see the earth does this all the time without human CO2. So the question that refutes and destroys my opponents case is: Why not now? His only possible arunment is that it is 'unprecidented'. But those argunments are bound to fail. CONCLUSION:Pretty much read II and III. The science is against my opponent. VOTE CON[1] MacRae, Paul. “Alarm: Global Warming -- Facts versus Fears.” Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010.[2] http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com...