geoengineering should and can be used in 2016 to combat global warming

First of all, I would like to address your first Observation. You stated: "my case is the only thing in the round, thus the only thing that can be looked too. I have a fact-based case with evidence. " First of all, I have given my own arguments in my rebuttals; you just have to look for them. Just because I don't give my arguments their very own space does not necessarily mean that I have refused to give my arguments (lack of space/character limitation). I believe that this also addresses your second observation as well. I'd also like to address the fact that you won't be the definite winner of the debate just because of a single rule. If my opponent says that he automatically wins, don't listen to him; that's just his desperation and realization that I am the better debater. I'd like to address your first attack on my rebuttal: You stated that NASA is not a very reliable source, considering the issues that went with space junk. However, that doesn't have much to do with the aerosol spraying, especially since it's a different subject; if you still think that NASA isn't credible, you could use another source, like the organization that is entirely dedicated to aerosol spraying(. http://www.nationalaerosol.com......) You also stated that aerosol spraying would be detrimental to crop growth and other things, but I'd like to quote you on your source: " Based on available data, there are a number of known objectives including but not limited to SRM, weather warfare, over the horizon radar enhancement, controlling food production, and probable biological testing. " This means that aerosol HELPS the things that you mentioned, instead of harming them. Therefore, the statement and your source contradict each other completely. That argument should go to me. You also said that you would show evidence, but you never did. I can also provide evidence why geoengineering is still quite reliable, despite your neatly organized list. 1. If it was made in 2010, then that means that we have had 6 more years to study it, so that it is very reliable, due to testing during this period of time. This contradicts your second number as well. 2. Perhaps it has not been heard of, because they are still testing it. However, if you look on the CNN page, it shows that it is going to make an appearance very soon. 3. All your arguments for why geoengineering is unreliable have all been based upon the Boston TreePods, but you fail to state why other forms of geoengineering are reliable. 4. Aerosol is reliable because it coagulates and makes for easy removal, as I said before. It also does not have any harmful effects, both on space or on Earth. 5. Therefore, since your list has been proven to have hardly made a difference in my arguments, and you clearly cannot use your reasoning as to why geoengineering is reliable, then your conclusion is wrong. 6. I did mention the fact that they use carbon, not the dead bodies. I am sure that you can actually read what I wrote, so what I said did not refer to the dead-body TreePods. Rebuttal 2: First of all, reducing climate change has been proven to reduce the greenhouse gases. Forgive me if you did not see my source; I thought that most educated people knew that. Therefore, I am not making things up, and I did not realize that I needed a source. I also don't need these sources to prove to you that greenhouse gases trap heat, because you should already know this. Your science teachers taught this to you; I am sure of it. Rebuttal 3: I believe that you misunderstood my statement: You said that these were the aftereffects of aerosol, but I said that they would not be completely guaranteed. Also, your last statement makes no sense at all, just because the background effects don't fade away. Rebuttal 4: First of all, I highly advise you to not make these stupid comments such as "He's essentially making anecdotal arguments," against your future opponents. I have evidence, but you are simply unable to see it. You are essentially being a hypocrite, by giving this statement without further research. Also, I noticed that you have failed to see that I put " That is less than one percent, out of all the snow. " That is my evidence, and you don't need a source to realize how I got my answer. Rebuttal 5: The source that I checked from you was only restating what you said, but it never gave evidence. Just saying. I also gave concrete evidence, but, once again, you fail to notice it. Rebuttal 6: First of all, you said that "This will not even be ready by 2016. " That is why I put the "if" in my statement, not because I had doubts. I said this because it was an unfair debate, and I was resetting the burdens of the debate. Also, you said: "Also more proof that Temps could rise if the technique is stopped and why we must wait beyond 2016. " First of all, the temperature is going to rise if we don't do anything about it, so that's why we should employ geoengineering to help with this issue. I believe that I have argued against all of your points successfully, while you slander and say that I have no evidence. Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.