Anthropogenic global warming is a threat

It is unfortunate that my opponent is resorting to plagiarism to bolster his claims that anthropogenic global warming is a threat to human kind. My opponent's source four states, "As ocean waters absorb CO2 they become more acidic. This does not mean the oceans will become acid. Ocean life can be sensitive to slight changes in pH levels, and any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment. The acidity of global surface waters has increased by 30% in just the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems. Endorsed by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) stated the following. "The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer." - The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009 As surface waters become more acidic, it becomes more difficult for marine life like corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them." While my opponent states, "When ocean waters absorb CO2 they become acidic. That doesn't mean that oceans will become acid. Ocean life is very sensitive to even slight pH level changes. Any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment. The acidity in global surface waters has increased by 30% in the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected to the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems. Agreed upon by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) said "The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer." - The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009[3] When the surface waters become more acidic, it becomes much more difficult for marine life such as corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them. [4]" For proof of plagiarism check http://www.skepticalscience.com... According to plagiarism.org, my opponent has committed the plagiarism type, "The Too-Perfect Paraphrase" in which the writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. (In this case close to it.) Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information. http://www.plagiarism.org... Citation 3 is from source 4 with the "June 2009" statement leading to the link http://www.interacademies.net... . Also my opponent does not effectively refute my arguments in the case of Desert expansions, to which my opponent claims, "Inappropriate agriculture and drought are results of warming temperature as shown in the previous round." That is incorrect as inappropriate agriculture would include slash and burn agriculture which was extensively practiced throughout history well before anthropogenic global warming. http://geography.about.com... For the contention of the causes of fire, and decreasing water supplies, my opponent pulls the straw man argument by stating, "As I said global warming would contaminate the water. There"s nothing to dispute here as it"s not a rebuttal. This doesn't mean a majority of fires are by this nor that warming temperature isn't a threat. If a town is harboring escaped murders and death rates are increasing do we keep harboring murders because people can still die from car crashes?" Pro has not referenced any contamination in human water supplies in the previous rounds, and pro does not properly refute the contention of causes of fire by not providing logical causes to fire instead opting for the red herring an appeal to emotions. This in turn results in the straw man fallacy as my opponent believes that he/she has sufficiently refuted my arguments when in reality my opponent has failed to do so. My opponent engages in semantics while accusing me of semantics by stating, "Encyclopedia Brittanica defines pollution as"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." And, "CO2 does make plants grow, however it also makes plant defenses go down[1]. Plants can"t just grow solely on CO2, as the nitrogen won"t keep up with this CO2 causing harmful affects[2] Even if CO2 is good for plant growth this doesn"t mean it"s good or we should have more of it. I am unable to find exactly how the GNP will rise with warmer climate. Even if CO2 isn"t labeled as a pollutant this doesn"t mean it"s good or not harmful. As it"s just semantics." Pro also attempts to justify his use of semantics by stating, "Webster"s definition isn"t very broad. Even then it"s defined as "environmental contamination" which I have shown CO2 causes. Therefore I strongly urge a con vote.