Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

It was very fun as well as informative. (Sorry if I appear to be a bit of a jerk here, it's how I was taught to debate). Since I am giving a summary of the debate so far and simply going over voting issues and I will also be weighing each of our case. I will briefly go over the round and explain why I have won. Note: All evidence brought up is for reference only and none of them are actually new. We need to take a step back and look at the issues as a whole. Here's what they have basically come down to. The Greenhouse Effect/oceanic trends Celestial bodies. History. Da sun. 1. The Greenhouse Effect/Oceanic trendsI have given graphs on current warming trends that show general pictures of what is going on with world temperatures in contrast with what my opponent has done which was look at data on relatively small scales that "prove" the cooling of the planet. A miniscule temperature change between the years 1996 and 2000 is not representative of an overall trend. I will restate my position on the Greenhouse effect and the evidence supporting me. A) I have stated that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is greater than it has been in 650,000 years, thus making historical analysis especially difficult. This argument remains untouched [1]. B) Regardless of whatever the theory is, the surface temperature increase over the last century has corrolated very well with CO2 increase. Since this point remains unrefuted, I win this argument. [2] [3]C) The biggest point in this regard which still remains unrefuted is the IPCC's graphs on this topic. My opponent has not been able to even touch the fact which I have already asserted that if you eliminate anthropogenic factors of temperature change, climate models fail completely to accurately describe the temperature increase over the past century. In fact, as stated earlier, the temperature decrease you describe is not an anomaly and was within acceptable deviations and were described by climate models of this period. This fully covers the oceanic trends argument. [3]2. Celestial Bodies I don't need to win this argument b/c it does not relate to global warming on Earth very well. But as I have already said, if the sun is the main cause of global warming, then we would logically see roughly equal global warming on all of the above mentioned celestial bodies. But at the very least, the farther out from the sun you get, the less effect you would see on that body's climate. Since you have clearly proven that this is not the case, I win this argument as well. 3. History Sure I can deny it. In fact I do. My opponent has still not refuted my sources, you have simply restated your other sources the warrants for which are not good compared to the IPCC. I will repeat what I have said already on this subject: The IPCC's graphs which are based on many different climate models of the MWP (which is more than my opponent has said for his graphs) have disproven this MWP myth. [4]4. Da sun. I'll be brief. I have already refuted this argument successfully without question. The sun has NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on Earth's climate. This point remains unrefuted and I therefore win this argument as well. "The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum. Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said. This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. " [5]Conclusion Looking at the evidence presented, it is easy to see why I have won this debate. In general, my opponent has made a habit of picking data about small, relatively insignificant specifics while I have made broad statements about general trends, which more accurately describe. .. general trends like global warming. In addition, my opponent has neglected to refute the fact that only by including anthropogenic factors of climate change can we successfully describe the temperature changes we have seen according to the graphs I have offered. Finally, the graphs he has offered up are from a variety of sources and various websites with a clear anti-global warming bias. The only bias my sites have is for facts. Thank you, and I hope you have enjoyed this debate as much as I have.1) . http://climate.nasa.gov...2) . http://www.intmath.com...3) . http://www.ipcc.ch...4) . http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...5) . http://www.livescience.com...;