The human effect on global warming is significant.

From Contention 1 "For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels remained in the 180 to 300 ppm (parts per million) range [1]. But as of 2007, CO2 levels were at 390 ppm [2]. The environment was relatively stable for hundreds of thousands of years, so why the sudden change? Human emissions can only be responsible." I'm not going to try to tell anyone that CO2 levels aren't going up. Indeed they are. However, they do not really matter. A. Warren Miller. A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming. August 3, 2007 "When they first measured the [ice cores], their time resolution was pretty course, so the two lines looked to move together. However, with better laboratory procedure, the ice core analysts began to find something funny. It turns out that for any time they looked at in the ice core record, temperatures actually increased on average 800 years before CO2 started to increase. When event B occurs after event A, it is pretty hard to argue that even B caused event A." So does CO2 even matter? Apparently not. If anything, the higher temperature later causes higher CO2 levels, NOT the other way around. From Contention 2-II "The 928 papers were divided into six categories... Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." None? Really... out of 928 papers searched, none were found? What kind of search was this? Until this question is answered, on how exactly the search was conducted, I see no reason why we should believe this outrageous claim. To try to say that a respectful and truthful search was done, and they could find a SINGLE article against the issue, seems unreasonable. However, here are some mentions of articles that say otherwise... feel free to read them entirely. If you need more exact sources, I can provide them. A. Climate Skeptics are Being Ignored. Denver Post - Dec. 26, 2006 "There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that the century's warming trend is neither critical nor man made. For their audacity to take on the status quo, THEY HAVE BEEN CENSURED, EXCORIATED AND LABELED AS LACKEYS FOR THE OIL COMPANIES. B. Thousands of Climate Scientists Dispute Global Warming Claims. James Inhofe (U.S. Sen. from Oklahoma) Senate Hearing - Jan 30, 2005. "It seemed like some hysteria was setting in, because one by one, different scientists were coming out and saying, 'No, it is not anthropogenic gases that are causing climate change,' as we once thought might be the case. We had the Oregon Petition that came long. That was 17,800 scientists who made the statement, 'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gas is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic global warming.'" C. Many Scientists Disagree with Anthropogenic Global Warming. Fred Singer (Research Prof. @ George Mason U.) and Dennis Avery (Sr. Fellow, Hudson Institute) - 2008 "In 2003, Bray and von Storch again surveyed climate scientists around the world. This time the survey found 44 percent disagreed with the statement, 'Climate change is mostly the result of man-made causes.' with more scientists answering 'strongly disagree' and 'strongly agree'. Only a third said that 'climate models can accurately predict the future of the climate,' while 18.3 were unsure and nearly half disagreed." D. The Number of Scientists that Disagree with AGW is on the Increase. James Inhofe (see above) - Jan 30, 2007 You had 60 Canadian scientists who had recommended to the PM back in the 1990s that they sign onto the [Kyoto] Protocol, and they did. And then after they started studying over the next period of years, just recently came our and they said, "If back in the mid-1990s we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary." So... now we can understand why there weren't any sources for my side of the debate in that 928, they were being ignored. Furthermore, we now know that not only are there thousands upon thousands of climatologists that disagree with AGW, but that that number is on the rise because of new evidence. I can see nothing other than the observation now that the idea of a 'scientific consensus' has been blown out of the water. In regards to her Third Contention... I fail to see how this has anything to do with the resolution. While she does mention a few 'facts' in there, those statements have already been argued against in my previous posted articles. Please disregard this contention as it holds NO value to either side of the resolution we are here to debate. While the topic of the harms of Global Warming (if it was happening) would be a good discussion, that isn't what we are here for. We are here to debate whether or not AGW is happening, not the solutions of its effects. Now, with my last 2,772 characters, I shall present a one new contention of my own. _____________________________________________ Neg Contention 1: The Earth Hasn't Been Warming at All _____________________________________________ Here, I will show to the readers that in fact, the Earth hasn't been warming at all. And furthermore that land data that has been used to argue for AGW or any form of GW is false, and cannot be trusted. A. Weather Satellites Have NOT shown warming for the last 10 years. Nationals Post - March 4, 2008 "We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban hear islands and by poor distribution of land based observing centers [To be discussed later my Bishmaster]. Date from the oceans are also subject to uncertainties. The only true global observations come from weather satellites, and these have not shown any warming trends since 1998. B. NASA his Inflated Surface Temperature Trends. Patriot-News - March 4, 2008. "NASA has acknowledged is accidentally inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the US beginning with the year 2000. They now show 1998 falling to second place behind 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, and 1953. C. Generally Speaking, Surface Temperature Readings are Haphazardly Collected. Christopher Horner (Sr. Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute) - 2007 "Further, to claim 'global warming' with any degree of accuracy one must be referring to an increase in the measured global mean surface temperature -- a quantity that has never actually been measured. Surface temperature is not measured globally but rather haphazardly, wherever measuring stations have already been placed. As noted, coincidentally enough the number of measuring stations changed drastically immediately prior to the "hottest decade on record." This is why one scientist says, 'global mean surface temperature means as much to him as global mean telephone number.'" D. The Urban Heat Island Effect Artificially Inflates Data. Fred Singer & Dennis Avery (see above) "The temperature station in Orland, California, has been in the same location for more than 100 years and shows no evidence of being affected by nearby development. It shows a declining temperature trend from 1880 to 2007. But the temperature station in nearby Marysville, California has been surrounded by development in the form of as asphalt driveway, the base of a large cell tower, and air conditioning units in nearby buildings. This station shows a warming trend. As watts' team finds more and more stations like this one, it is becoming clear that U.S. temperature record shows more warming that has actually occurred." So even if CO2 did cause Global Warming, even if Scientists did agree that it could cause it. It doesn't matter, because the temperature of