Man-Made Global Warming is a Hoax

My opponent concedes that man-made global warming is, in fact, real.While at this point I would usually proceed by simply extending my previous arguments until the end of the debate, I feel that particularly poor sportsmanship has been demonstrated by my opponent. Far from constructing baseless ad hominem conjectures against my opponent, I simply deconstructed common mistakes regarding anthropogenic climate change that are made by climategate proponents. My opponent does not genuinely feel disrespected; they recognise that their position is untenable and that the belief that has been instilled in them by their right-wing, science-hating parents does not reflect anything close to observation. You're not offended; you just know you're wrong.My objective is now not to convince you, which I have already done, but to convince our audience.________________________ Rebuttals from first roundMy opponent stated that, "[...]an ice age goes through two phases. The first one is the obvious "freezing" phase and the second phase is a predominantly warm one(see link 1)."While this isn't quite what the source indicates, it's basically right. There are periods of glaciation, and periods of warming. Cooling and warming are not uniform. I'd just like to quickly examine the way you've phrased this, though. Basically you're saying, it gets cold, then it gets warm. Well, obviously. If it stayed cold, we'd still be in an ice age. If it stayed warm, there'd never be ice ages. That's not helpful information.You then say, "[we are] going back into the cold phase." Erm, nope. I mean, we are getting cooler...if by cooler, you mean the temperature is rising.You then said, "At both poles there is rapidly growing ice."Your article goes on a right-wing binge-fest with absolutely no understanding of why that is happening. It makes specific reference to Antarctica. Yes. Sea ice is growing. This is because of strengthening westerly winds blowing sheets of snow and cold air further from the coast of the Antarctic continent(1). The strengthening winds are one indication of climate change(1). Further, while the sea ice spreads in geographic area, global ocean and atmospheric temperatures continue to increase. Looking at the data for a single year (i.e. we hit a record this year) is not indicative of trend. This mistake is confusing weather for climate, and is a common error. You're also looking at a single factor in isolation, and ignoring the rest of the data.Here's an informative video by Veritasium who describes the process and debunks some myths with the aid of some fun animations: The preponderance of the evidenceThe preponderance of the evidence, the consensus of the scientific literature, the data: "The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming" (Knutti & Hegerl, 2008)(2).Once again, if you wish to demonstrate that the models are incorrect, then you must supply the evidence that climate change is not occurring. Your reasons for doubting the science are political. Wanting something to be true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false. Environmental refugeesWe are going to see floods of environmental refugees as a result of rising sea levels. How can one simply ignore this information?- The pacific island nation of Kiribati has just finalised the purchase of land in Fiji to initially grow crops on after their domestic agriculture was destroyed by encroaching seawater, then as a place to relocate once their entire country sinks(3). New Zealand will have to grant the population what functionally amounts to environmental asylum.- Tuvalu is going to sink and the population will need evacuating (4, 5)- This is just the start of implications for changes to the climate.Summing upMy opponent had the burden of proof in demonstrating that global warming is a hoax. This has not yet been done, and if last round is anything to go by, I suspect my opponent will concede defeat. However, it would be interesting to hear his take. So, I ask you the following questions:- What is your evidence for the hoax?- Who initiated the hoax?- Why did they initiate it? What's the motive?- How is it the case that the independent scientific community, meteorologists and government bodies have separately and through peer-review arrived at the same or similar conclusions? If it was false, wouldn't the claims be widely varying?- Who is the chief orchestrator of this grand conspiracy? They must have a leader since all their claims are the same.- Is their really more profit to be found by scientists conducting research, than by massive oil cartels, coal and gas miners, and refiners and importers? Is renewable energy really going to earn more money for solar-cell syndicates than fossil fuels will for the energy industry?Perhaps the conspiracy is, in fact, on the other side. Until next round, if you decide to defend your position._______________________________________________________________________________1. [http://www.abc.net.au...]2. [http://www.iac.ethz.ch...]3. [http://www.gizmodo.com.au...]4. [http://www.motherjones.com...]5. [http://www.nytimes.com...]