Kyoto and Gl. Warm. Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively Proven

I experienced slight formatting difficulties with this and apologise for any confusion that may result.I'm sure you've heard it all before: rising global temperatures, melting glaciers around the poles, greenhouse gases, deforestation, rising sea levels and advanced mutation of various exotic diseases have all been in the media spotlight at some time over the past decade. Multiple influential politicians like Al Gore have all spoken out in favor of environmental action. However, over the course of my research, I have discovered that most climatologists don't seem to agree. I will refute these phenomena in order by citing facts from various sources. Because this is such a scientifically oriented topic, I have stayed away from emotional statements to the best of my ability and encourage my opponent to do the same.I should break now to define some key terms:Global warming is the theory that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. The Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for "37 industrialized targets and the European Community for reducing GHG [Greenhouse Gas] emissions... By five percent against 1990 levels... [between] 2008-2012. (http://unfccc.int...)."If the Kyoto Protocol is to be quoted in this debate, I request that the copy at http://unfccc.int... be used for our mutual convenience.Back to the arguments (key statements have been written in bold):Firstly, let me refute the "major Antarctic melting sea ice problem" statement. Before I do so, I must establish whether or not we agree on the following statements: that the Antarctic Peninsula encompasses approx. 2% of the continent, and that Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice (http://www.gma.org...). Please reply to this in your response. Now to the refutation: according to a report in the Science Magazine in an article titled "Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change" by Thompson, D.W.J., and Solomon, S., 2002, Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has increased . The link to the abstract can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org... Unfortunately, you have to sign up for the full article, something I haven't done. The article found at http://www.daycreek.com... conclusively proves that the earth was warmer than it is today during the last four interglacials, dating back 420,000 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org...(2000)013%3C1674%3AVATIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2 references a slight cooling trend over the past 20 years, according to a consensus between satellite and ground stations. Ian Joughin and Slawek Tulaczyk used "ice-flow velocity measurements from synthetic aperture radar to reassess the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica... find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year)." Their findings can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org.... "Climate models generally predict ampliﬁed warming in polar regions as observed in Antarctica’speninsula region over the second half of the 20th century. Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming ,our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 8C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends." http://atoc.colorado.edu... Now for the carbon dioxide: Carbon dioxide levels have grown only seventy parts per million in the past 50 years. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...) In the scheme of Kyoto, which decreases CO2 levels by 5% of 1990 levels (17.5ppm), this shows that such implementation would have an insignificant impact on the atmosphere, decreasing levels by only around 3% of 2010 levels (same source). The margin of error for this measurement, according to the same source, is 0.11 ppm. According to http://www.futurepundit.com..., increasing CO2 rates will stimulate plant growth and therefore be beneficial to the human race. Deforestation: Deforestation has not been scientifically tied with global warming. Rising Sea Levels: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is -1.74 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.91 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1964 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of -0.57 feet in 100 years." at that station. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is 0.57 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.42 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1943 to 2009 which is equivalent to a change of 0.19 feet in 100 years." at that station. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov... says that "The mean sea level trend is 1.64 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.80 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1937 to 1971 which is equivalent to a change of 0.54 feet in 100 years." Aside from the abovementioned measurements, It has been scientifically proven that sea levels have been rising at roughly the same rate (10-20cm per hundred years, or 4-8 in. every hundred years) for the past 6000 years, and even faster than that beginning at 15000 years ago. (http://www.grida.no...) This rate has not accellerated and many computer models say this trend will be reversed within the next few hundred years. Rising sea levels are clearly not a currently global phenomenon. It would be counter-productive to the purpose of the debate if my opponent references computer models as these contain errors of up to 300% as seen in their failure to predect the large El Nino of 1998. Computer models of weather rarely predict accurately two days from the time of prediction, so assuming accuracy years from the time of prediction is ridiculous.Conclusion:Kyoto and Global Warming Theory Should be Abandoned Unless Impact on Environment is Objectively ProvenAlthough the politically convenient movement is no longer in the global spotlight, we still spend an enormous amount of money on green energy etc. For instance, Obama invested $535 million dollars in the Solyndra which still ended up bankrupt (http://www.time.com...). Considering that all this money is flowing out of the US to prevent a catastrophe that may or may not exist, it is necessary that an objective review of all the past studies on the subject be conducted and further environmental spending be severely reduced if the outcome is determined by the facts cited above. Also considering the evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, I belive that the Global Warming Crisis is much exaggerated and funding to prevent this Crisis should be regulated accordingly. Clearly, Global Warming Theories and the Kyoto protocol should be respectively disregarded and annulled.I look forward to your response,ant981228