manmade activity is probably a significant cause of global warming

1. SunMy opponents case here is studies show X, yet seems to ignore the argunmentation and the other studies. To me, personally, it seems my opponent has only seen one side of this. There has been a large increase in skeptic literature, much of it surfacing in 2007 (the year is known by skeptics as AGW "bites the dust"). Now it is true many studies claim solar has had no effect, notably Hansen and the IPCC claim this. But other scientists, many closet skeptics, publish their papers that show the opposite. The difference is you cant find it hidden in all of those skeptical science links (an AGW supporting website.) I would like to note there are at least 450 skeptic studies [1]. Now there have been many frauds within the IPCC, so I view their data biassed and sometimes fraudulent. Many studies have found the warming (and 1995-2012 cooling) due to 15-25 year sola cycles, also explainign much of the 1945-70 cooling. In other words these short solar cycles amist larger ones are the cause for much of the warming we have seen [2].The graph I am taking is from a peer reviewed study (source 3)http://www.debate.org... This is the surface temperture record from 1900-2000. Now based on that 25 year cycle theory we get this graphhttp://www.debate.org... As we can see the solar power controls many of the smaller bumps. And it as also been observed the sun has been increasing in power since 1850, and is closer correlated to tempertures then CO2; noting the correlation is fairly weak [3].2. Temperture increases Me and my opponent agree it is a fact the sun causes [some or all] global warming, and this has been observed for hundreds of years. Where we disagree, though still agree, human caused warming is still a theory. And my opponent is mixing correlation to causation. A fallacy by the way. I would also like to note my opponent is ONLY pulling data from 1850-present, whereas I have pulled data as far back as 600 million years. Now my opponent is basically arguing this correlation is causation, which is a fallacy and is not provable. I would also like to note a strong correlation would fufill the resolution, but the current correlations are weak. As the center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change note:"Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history."[4]In other words a weak 100 year correlation IS NOT enough to hinge evidence on. Meaning my opponent has already lost. ---> Hockey stick?Now creating a fake hockey stick is not hard, as Mann (the creator of the graph) noted:"I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about."[5] That right there refuted the accuracy/validity of the graph my opponent cited. Also note it cut out the medivial warming period which is also existant. Meaning it again is a fraud, see this graph (courtesy of RoyLatham)http://www.debate.org... (I keep getting internal error so I am linking graphs instead)As we can see the hockey stich is easily refutable with previous IPCC (before the bias and fraud) vs. Manns hockey stick. Hence this argunment is deemed null.3. CO2 rising " Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years."[6] In other words, the increased rate of CO2 is a natural cycle and humans have little to do with it. And evn if we assume the humans cause the increase, we must again ask if CO2 is a stronger force (significant) then the sun, PDO, AMO, and the rest. As CO2 is a fairly weak gas it would be hard to prove that. 4. Graph[s]Which graph? I posted 10. Most of them are from wattsupwiththat, a meteorologist made the website and he took those graphs right out of a peer reviewed paper. The other one was from geocraft.com, a geoogist website. And the other from the NOAA. None of them are "suspicous", I am not the one relying on wikipedia. My opponent then criticises one of the graphs for a 10 year trend, agree I am not arguing we are not warming. I am arguing that this breaks the correlation. A weak correlation over 100 years, 10% of that is not correlated, that is like cutting on an AGW's foot. I agree the earth is warming, but I am arguing the 10 year drop off means CO2 is not raising tempertures. CO2 increases – tempertures fall – there is a problem with the theory. I agree the tempertures are rising, but I have shown CO2 did not correlate in 3 places, and the sun correlated in all except one, and the PDO and AMO correlated in all. Meaning natural factors are a better fit then CO2, meaning your point is refuted. "as to your other graphs. you showed temperature since 1995 to now... that's not enough to establish a firm trend. it might have decreased some but overall increased as the other graphs seem to indicate."To push this, this is a strawman. I am arguing not that tempertures are decreasing, rather a CO2 correlation is weak. If it existed we would still be heating. In other words the natural solar cycle is responsible. 5. Ice thickness http://gfspl.rootnode.net... 1980 - present. We see no change in the yearly extents, it rises first, lowers, rises less *continues then you see increase like befre* and if you connect them alone they are equal like this -- Ice extent is not changing. And even if it was, look at this: "The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica."[7]In other words the ice is due to NATURAL oceon cycles...CONCLUSIONMy opponent uses ad authoritum fallacy last round, correlation/causation fallacies the last round, and strawmans this round. Basically most of my opponents case based on that is falsifiedFurther, my argunments prevail. My opponent has the BOP (being pro and instagator) and has not met it. VOTE CON[1] http://www.populartechnology.net...[2] Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West: "Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite" Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 18, September 2005[3] N. Scafetta and B. J. West, "Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming" GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, 2006[4] http://www.co2science.org... [5] http://junkscience.com... [6] http://www.friendsofscience.org...