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

Observation1: My opponent has no case therefore regardless of if he attacks every single piece of evidence I have and tears my case apart 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. Facts>opinion/responses to facts Observation2: you can't provide a case in the final round because it wouldn't be fair. I have no way of addressing it, my opponent should have provided his case in round 3. He is welcome to however attack my case more and address my attacks on his rebuttals against mine Clarification: I will simply attack his rebuttals attack on His rebuttal 1: first points out all my first paragraph is copied and pasted (that's why I put the link dude) thus my opponent gains no leverage from that argument since I have the source and I am generously giving credibility to the owner. He claims that because NASA sponsors the spraying it is trust worthy but that's not true. Ironically the same NASA he supports contributes to the space trash junk problem.http://www.bbc.com... Thus this proves that just because an organization is great doesn't mean it will focus on pollution management. He is making the claim that just because a organization is big and powerful and is good at what it does it will not cause environmental issues but that argument as I show is flaud. Also my opponent assumes the method isn't harmful but I provide evidence showing this can detriment crop growth, cause horrific weather patterns, and determine the climate. attack on rebuttal 2: My opponent states geoengineering is very reliable but still hasn't told me or you viewers why. While I have shown you how this method can be very unreliable. Next he brings up tree pods and there are a ton of problems with this. I will provide a attack that orderly takes down this "solution" 1. I looked up the source and this article he used to back up this method was made in 2010 2. We can imply this method has been out for a decent amount time. 3. In his own words he states my test are not true because , "they had not yet heard of the TreePods" 4. This method has been out since at least 2010 and no one has heard of it. 5. Not even the scientist who actually care about this stuff have heard of this. 6. This means this method isn't being considered for 2016 and this tree pod isn't a CAN resolution factor 7. This isn't going to be a so called "back up plan" as my opponent puts it for geoengieinering. Conclusion: my opponent is back to square 1, my contention suggesting this method cannot be stopped still stands since there is no official backup if the resolution proposed method goes wrong therefor we can apply it SHOULD not be used. Thus I still of course uphold the should part of the resolution. Extra: 8. I look this up and the most popular result is actually a tree pod to use dead bodies to generate clean air (not 2016( 9. The dead method far fetched is ironically more popular then the one my opponent suggest my attack on Rebuttal 3: The 2nd most ironic rebuttal of all (after number 8) my opponent states this, "But let's pretend that what you say is true: it will make the planet "colder." This is funny because I am responding to my opponents arguments pretending they are true because they have no sources and they are all formulated by my opponent himself. Also I provide sources... http://www.theguardian.com......... https://www.washingtonpost.com...... you can also look to the new scientist. The fact of the matter is I don't even need thee sources to prove to you this is real evidence, you can look up harmful affects of this method and you will get a ton of results. This is a popular considered view point on geoengineering while my opponent is making up stuff or using his general knowledge of arguments to formulate arguments with possible skewed information. I hope this is considered in the voting. attack onRebuttal 4: cross my argument I made on his 2nd rebuttal to address the tree pods. Next he states this, "Maybe those would be the harmful aftereffects of aerosol, but they aren't completely guaranteed." He literarily concedes to my case. Why? well his statement at least for my contention 1 and 2 is true. These are possible harmful effects that have a lot of evidence support, but that's not even the main reason I win this. The main reason is because that is what a evidence based prediction is. It's a highly possible aftereffect from a method. For example meteorologist predict the weather and sometimes they are wrong but it doesn't mean you should ignore them. Also again my contention 1 states we can't stop this method if we start it on a big scale so why not wait until 2025 or so and get rid of the possible side affects? attack on Rebuttal 5: he claims the level of aluminum is normal but my evidence clearly states this "This level of aluminum in the snow is tens of thousands of times anything that might be considered "normal background" contamination." Also again he's using a claim or his own personal understanding as a response rather then facts. He's essentially making anecdotal arguments. rebuttal 6: You wanted evidence here it is 1.http://www.shiftfrequency.com... Also consider my opponent has no concrete evidence this method is safe and CAN or SHOULD be used in 2016. Rebuttal 7: Again contradiction claiming I need more and more evidence when his side has more burdens which he leaves unproven. Rebuttal 8: He makes this statement "First of all, if geoengineering won't be ready by the end of 2016", I guess it wont since you haven't proved how it will. Next this method is being tested and readers my opponent seems unsure of himself now. An anaology for this "dude I have the best product it will help us get that girl you like." "Dude I have to test it to see if it works though. He is implying basically that he is unsure if this method will work/should be used thus it needs testing. He concedes Also more proof that Temps could rise if the technique is stopped and why we must wait beyond 2016 According to the UW study, global temperature increases could eventually double if SRM is implemented for a period of decades and then stopped suddenly -- in relation to expected temperature increases if the technique is not implemented at all. The scientists utilized a global climate model to demonstrate that if an extreme emissions pathway -- RCP8.5 -- is followed up until the year 2035, which would allow for temperatures to rise 1"C above the 1970-1999 mean, and the technique is implemented for 25 years and then ended suddenly, global temperatures could rise by 4"C in the following decades. Such a rate of increase, which would be caused by the resultant buildup of background greenhouse gas emissions, could grow beyond boundaries experienced in the 20th century, the scientists said. "According to our simulations, tropical regions like South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are hit particularly hard, the very same regions that are home to many of the world's most food insecure populations," said lead author of the research, Kelly McCusker, from the University of Washington. "The potential temperature changes also pose a severe threat to biodiversity." "The primary control over the magnitude of the large temperature increases after an SRM shutoff is the background greenhouse gas concentrations. Thus, the greater the future emissions of greenhouse gases, the larger the temperature increases would be, and, similarly, the later the termination occurs while GHG emissions continue, the larger the temperature increases," continued McCusker. "The only way to avoid creating the risk of substantial temperature increases through SRM, therefore, is concurrent strong reductions of GHG emissions." http://www.naturalnews.com...# Conclusion: I win vote me.