Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, and welcome once again to our debate! I deeply apologize (as said in the comments section of this debate) for posting my opening arguments when Mr. Adams clearly said that first round is for acceptance. I hope the audience doesn't vote against me for this, as I am hoping to offer a fruit debating, and learning experience with Mr. Adams here today. I would also like to thank Mr. Adams for acknowledging this in his last round and wish him luck in further rounds of this debate! :DREBUTTALS To begin, I would like to clarify a few definitions in order to make a lot of the previous round make sense.Correlations: Statistics-the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.http://dictionary.reference.com... In this specifically we are talking about how much influence C02 Emissions have an effect on our global climate change." So, what is the CO2 correlation? Not surprisingly, it is under the .5 marks. But if CO2 was the main driver of climate, it should have a fairly high correlation, shouldn't’t it? It’s impossible for something to have a causation effect if it has no correlation."I am going to argue, to the full effect, that any correlation found in C02 emissions is harmful. My job as the Pro stated in the opening round, is to prove that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Period. My opponent admits in his own arguments that some correlation between climate change and C02 emissions does occur. Technically, this is all I need to win the debate. It seems that we can't deny that climate change is effected directly by C02 emissions. "data from respected scientists that point to a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature rises over the past 800,000 years. Similarly, advocates for the contrary argument of solar variation causing climate change rely on data that points to correlations between solar activity and changes in temperature. In both cases, correlations exist;" http://www.nowpublic.com..."Correlations for other factors, though, seem a lot more promising. The correlation with the solar irradiance shows a much better correlation then CO2. Its correlation to surface temperatures is relatively strong, .57 (r = 0.57). This means the correlation is rated between “fair” and “good” "The problem I have with this is that this argument stems global warming from natural causes, where as clearly you are advocating warming is caused by human emissions. Again, my goal here is to prove that C02 in correlation to human emissions of C02, adversely effect the climate in some way. Even then, all I have to prove is the C02 emissions provide global harms. "The scientific paper then examines data within the last ten years, the results? A CO2 correlation is no match at all. The correlation is only 0.02. (r = 0.02). IF CO2 was the main driver of climate, then why isn’t the correlation higher in the past century, and so low within the last decade?" I do have a problem with this information as it seems to be un backed by any source of logical entity. In fact I looked up the source my opponent cited, and found this on C02 emissions effecting global climate changes. The result is striking to say the least. This information is cited in the source by the carbon dioxide information analysis center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov...No matter how much my opponent would like to deny the information presented, the stats speak for themselves. Global warming IS a problem, and C02 Emissions, whether man made or natural made, are contributing. The entire point to this rebuttal is no matter how much C02 emissions effect the climate, my job is to prove that they do in fact, effect the climate. My opponent provides plenty of information from a source that seems to have a questionable logical entity. I have conflicting results to his r2= .44 theory from Government sites. It seems Mr. Adams entire argument here prays on the validity of the source. But even then, the source strictly contradicts his goal in this debate! I thus ask the readers to deem this argument irrelevant. OTHER FACTORSAgain we are seeing another completely irrelevant argument. The entire point of this argument from my opponent is to prove that their are other causes to global warming, and that the position of the galaxy is a leading cause. I agree that there are other causes for global warming. In fact, if my opponent were to clarify in the opening round that I would be arguing purely that C02 emissions were the ONLY cause for global warming, I myself would not have accepted this debate. Thus I ask my opponent and the audience what the point to this argument is. I have no rebuttals to it, because I agree with it! But absolutely NOTHING in this argument, argues anything to do with lack of C02 being a prime factor in global warming. Moving on. ConclusionI am concerned as to my opponents motives in this debate. I offer him the utmost respect when I say this: pretty much the entire case is just a bunch of thrown around sources and graphs, mixed in with irrelevant arguments. I honestly have no clue where he was planning on going with his previous arguments. None the less, feel I have upheld my burden in this debate. My burden is to prove that C02 has an effect on climate change.I have the burden of proof, and have fulfilled that burden of proof several times throughout the debate.I can find hundreds more sources that go to prove my point, and so can anyone else by simply Google searching the subject. But in order to get the most accurate information, I have cited 2 government cites, just to be sure that the information presented isn't faulty. On the other hand, my opponent has won this debate for me! His sources, his arguments, they all say that C02 has an effect on climate change. While we have dis-parraging results from each other, nonetheless, my opponent cannot admit that even C02 alone wouldn't cause an adverse effect on the climate, say 100 years ago. Even with his arguments being taken for face value, we can assume that in thousands of years, global warming can and will occur simply from C02 effects on the atmosphere. I thank my opponent for responding, and look forward to the next arguments. Thankyou for reading audience!