The Earth is currently going through a global warming phase.

First, I will address his comments, then I will point out the un-contended points that I made last round. This will be broken into numbers to make it easier to follow. 1)"Thus the difference according to his sources can be as high as 22ï¿½F, not 5.4ï¿½F as he claims. " I would ask all readers and my opponent to re-read the quote that my opponent pulled out. While it does say "In the evening, the difference can be as high as 12 degrees C. " It should be noted that this is an extreme difference at only a single point. It clearly says "the annual mean air temperature… can be 1 – 3 degree C. " Since the global warming debate is about the average temperature, that is the only data that matters, the rest is just a red herring. 2)My opponent's pictures I am a little puzzled at why my opponent would source a link that is so clearly bias (referring to the [1]) when he also links to surfacestations. org which where all the pictures originate from [2]. I will venture a guess that it is because the first link is presenting these pictures as if they are a random sampling and thus accurate representations of surface stations, while surfacestations. org calls them "odd sites," which is a list of only the most severe cases of temperature contamination. My opponent then links to a map, claiming that it proves that many of the sites are "contaminated. " It should be noted that these errors are based on plus or minus, and not just plus. As such, some of the stations may be getting error reading the other direction, and surfacestations. org (being an honest site), considers all issues, not just the ones that raise temperature. One of the requirements is that the station not be in shade when the sun is greater than 3 degrees. If the sensor is in shade when the sun is greater than 5 degrees, it automatically receives an error of 3 (between 3 and 5 degrees is an automatic 2). This particular error would cause a drop in the recorded temp. I will go more into this when I get to the unaddressed points. 3)"I will also like to point out that 2 of the 3 charts my opponent used is 11 years out of date" I find this odd for my opponent to make, since in the first round, he also used charts that stopped at 2000 and 2005. This seems like a double standard, however, only one of my charts is out 11 years, one is out 6, and one is out 3. The one that is out three, my opponent claims is out 11, because the x-axis stops at 2000, however that data continues until 2008. 4)"This is typical of all charts presented by Global Warming Alarmists. They either crop the dates, or cook the books. " This is a Red Herring and Poisoning the Well fallacy. I am not a global warming alarmist and this debate is not about any negative consequences of global warming (so there is nothing to be "alarmed" about, as far as this debate is concerned). Now, if I starting talking about increasing hurricanes and droughts and whatnots, then my opponent may make that claim, but until then, it has no part what so ever in this debate. I will address the "cropping of dates" in my "un-refuted" section, since this is actually what my opponent is doing. 5)"If you look ay Tree ring Data from 1982-2006, you would see a decline in temperature after the year 2000, and again after 2005. " This is faulty data. Tree rings do not give direct measurements of temperature, but of growing conditions. Notice that the chart that he gives has the y-axis of "width of rings. " In too hot of environments, trees will not grow, other factors are rainfall, and cloud cover. Temperature is merely one component, and it is not a complete direct correlation. If we also go to the site of the link, we will see that it has nothing to do with temperature, and is actually using the tree rings as a form of dating measurement, not temperature measurement. Now to address the many un-refuted and un-challenged points of my last round and how they impact my opponent's arguments. 1) La Nina of 2008 This is probably the biggest single dropped point that my opponent leaves. My opponent claims that I am cropping dates to paint a bias picture. However, in my argument, I pointed out the 98-99 El Nino (refer to my section talking about his "graph 3" in this source [3]), I also pointed out that it was followed by a La Nina, and that there was another La Nina in 2008 [4]. No of this my opponent contended. His data, (which conveniently end in 2008) shows the temp drop from the La Nina, and he is attempting to draw from that, that we are in a cooling phase. He also is using a chart from only 1 atmospheric range, which was addressed in [3] (and un-refuted by my opponent), that El Ninos and La Ninas effect the atmospheric temps more than surface temps. So the effect of the 2008 La Nina is exaggerated in his graphs. We even see, looking at it, that it clearly shows that the 2001 – 2007 range is greatly warmer (remember that the drop at the end is not from global cooling, but from the La Nina), so his own graph is agreeing with my side of the debate. 2)Atmospheric temps line up with surface temps Another aspect completely dropped by my opponent is that over the last decades, surface temp and atmospheric temp have been very closely aligned. This means that while some ground stations may have "contaminations" they are not having any significant effect, and the contamination from heating, is significantly offset by contamination of cooling. Since my opponent has already stated (and continues to support) that satellite temps are accurate, this shows that surface temps are also fairly accurate. 3)Atmosphere is complex, but still warming I brought up last round that the atmosphere is measured in 4 zones, and that 3 of these 4 zones are showing warmth (with 1 of the 3 warming only slightly warming). This was brought up because of the selective graphs that my opponent has been using. Rather than address this, he continues to use graphs that only address 1 portion of the atmosphere (namely the ones that give him the results he wants). In conclusion my opponent has flooded this debate with a great number of graphs, several of which have absolutely nothing to do with this debate, and the rest being selective in their data. None of the criticisms that were levied against his first round graphs were addressed except for providing locations for the pictures. Thank you [1] . http://scottthong.wordpress.com... [2] . http://www.surfacestations.com... [3] . http://science.nasa.gov... [4] . http://www.sciencedaily.com...