man made causes of warming are probably significant, refering to global warming

Before I get started on this debate, I have a couple of comments. First of all, I want to thank my opponent for creating this debate because I've debated it several times and to this day, this is by far the most knowledgeable opponent I've gone against. Also, I hope that people that watch this debate vote on the facts, who is a better debater? I've debated this topic before and my friends and I only can come to the conclusion that I lost because EVERYONE disagreed with me, not because I'm a worse debater. With that I will move on to the debate at hand. I just want to get a couple of things straight. First of all, so this doesn't become an issue, my opponent does agree that solar flares account for approximately one third of the Earth's warming, therefore I only need to account for the other two thirds. Second, my opponent states that mankind's effect on global warming is "probably significant" and I have two things to say on this. 1. The word "probably" implies doubt and thus my opponent isn't even sure in what he's arguing. 2. As the con, I must prove that mankind isn't significant, not that we have absolutely nothing to do with it. Finally, so we're once again on the same playing field, I do not consider global warming to be a hoax, just that mankind didn't play a great role in it, therefore, I'm not "idiotic" as my opponent so politely put it. Moving on, on the volcanoes argument, I'm not going to make this a big figure in this debate, but I do want to get one thing straight with my opponent. Although the exact figures are unknown, volcanoes are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, not much, but some. I also think that my opponent is misunderstanding the number of volcano eruptions in the world. Everyday, hundreds of volcanoes erupt each day, mainly in the Pacific Ring, known to some as the "Ring of Fire." There just haven't been any major eruptions for quite some time; however, that doesn't mean they aren't happening. Volcanoes do have an effect on global warming, but as I will prove later, CO2 emissions do not have a great effect on global warming. Once again, clarification is needed. The idea of global warming has actually been derived from the theory of global cooling. When the temperature rises to a high enough temperature, the Earth needs to regenerate itself by entering an Ice Age. When global warming is being discussed, three different terms are used, climate change, climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. Climate change has rarely ever been used until recently, being as it means human caused changes. Those who believe global warming is affected by humans have begun using this term to scare those they educate into taking drastic measures. The next term is climate variability which means natural changes in the Earth's temperature. Most historical records of global warming, all the way up to the 1970's, use this term because many believe the Earth changes itself. The final term is anthropogenic climate change which ultimately is the same as climate change, the only difference being that anthropogenic is human-induced changes. Rarely will you find this exact term in any scientific literature because no stone-cold evidence has been found to support the theory. The term climate change has been used very loosely in recent years and is sometimes quoted in support of climate variability. All of the information has been posted on websites from Stanford teachers, students and experts on the topic. Now moving on to the CO2 argument. About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative eight degrees Celsius to about one degree Celsius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last great era of warming about 115,000 ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have ever been recorded. This evidence can lead to only one appropriate conclusion; no or little positive correlation can be found between carbon dioxide and global warming. This information has come from www.clearlight.com, a site approved by world known climatologists and those who have studied core samples regarding temperature over the past 400,000 years. I believe, if you need more proof, that most of this information also closely relates to the information given by your beloved Al Gore, or I'm at least to assume you are willing to back him up as the main proponent of mankind's effect on global warming; however, Gore doesn't know how to tie facts together. Therefore, since CO2 only has a slight effect on the Earth's climate, another source must be found to make up for the majority of the two thirds I must prove mankind isn't responsible for. As I mentioned before, the Earth has natural changes/phases that it experiences. This is the only logical explanation for such changes. The Earth's greatest climate change was mentioned before, warming 9 degrees Celsius in just a couple thousand years. We haven't even experienced a change that drastic in this day and age and we believe that everything is all our fault. That is why I took up this debate, to educate those who have been mislead. The only question that remains, why would Gore and others do this? Among people like me, the only explanation is the immense gravy train that has submerged. Al Gore, although he advocates carpooling, is riding around in limos, wearing the most expensive suits, and even receiving great prizes, just like the Nobel. It's not as far fetched as my opponent claims. All of the pieces fit in the puzzle, even the motive of those trying to work against us. Now, the debate at hand doesn't specifically deal with Gore, but since he's the main proponent of my opponent's cause, I feel that he is essential in this debate, even if all he says is wrong. Therefore, since I've proved that mankind is quite insignificant and provided for most of the two thirds that my opponent is asking for, the con has done all that's necessary to win this debate. I await your rebuttal and hope this proves for an interesting debate. Thank you.