Human induced global warming exists

"Second, my opponent doesn't respond to my question asking him why temperatures have risen this sharply before with about the same time distance between each sharp rise. Therefore, he is in effect also ignoring my half of the debate, just like he has claimed that I have ignored his half of the debate." Con has not explained why this is a flaw and therefore does not make a adequate refutation. Correlation I have used 447 characters to prove that CO2 and temperature is causation yet it got ignored by my opponent. Therefore I have refuted this claim. My opponent also just misrepresents my entire debate. "CO2 levels are rising, due in part to humans. Temperatures are rising. Humans are causing global warming." The right one is. CO2 is rising due to humans. Temperatures are rising and on graphs it correlates with CO2. CO2 and temperature is not only correlation, but also has been proved to be causation. Therefore humans play a major role/are causing global warming. "Voters: If you are voting, do not be blindsided by any studies that you have heard on the news. Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link." If it links, there will be a CHECK. http://en.wikipedia.org... Confirms that Co2 levels are higher than any point in the past 800 thousand years. CHECK http://ossfoundation.us... and http://www.grida.no... Are charts that do show the correlation which is what I said in my argument. CHECK www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html The site does talk about the amounts of CO2 emitted per source, and that is what I proved it using. CHECK Let's see my opponent's sources: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov... It does confirm that the Maunder Minimum was caused by decreases in Solar Flares. CHECK " It takes time for Earth's atmosphere to cool down after decreased solar flare levels." NO CHECK. The closest thing I can find on it to it is: "The latter half of the seventeenth century experienced a decades-long stretch of minimal solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum, which many scientists suspect may have triggered the Little Ice Age"a cold spell that chilled the Northern Hemisphere from about 1650 to 1850. " Note the fact that it says decades, which is plural. " Look at his arguments, and see if they actually link." I have proved three. If I did all I would run out of room. Conclusions My opponent has ignored over half my arguments and then criticized me for not responding to something that is not told by con to be a flaw in my contention. Later he says that voting for PRO is "agreeing that firefighters, no matter how heroic they may seem to the public eye, actually cause more damage in terms of fires than they prevent." Which is irrelevant as I already adequately addressed the Correlation-Causation claim. My argument from R3: (sources in round 3) "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting the infrared at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."[5] Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect[6], which causes global warming.[7] I also have proven that humans emit lot's of CO2 in round 1. In conclusion, CO2 is emitted by humans, causes global warming and correlates with temperatures." This also proves that Con was not reading my arguments at all. Later he uses me dropping an argument as an excuse to not address my following arguments: Methane Co2=Causation All other arguments because he said: "none of his arguments actually prove that global warming is human induced." Now that you see the flaws of Con's arguments, like falsely accusing me for posting irreverent sources and actually all my arguments are baseless claims, which is obviously false as he told voters to "just look at his arguments" instead of telling where it does not link.