Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

I need to urge Pro to read the sources he/she is citing a bit more carefully before just throwing them into a debate. Beyond the fact that I thoroughly disproved his/her contention that their facts are all from Tesla whose stance is one suggesting "Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real", they have actually cited sources that say the exact opposite of what they are trying to prove. The other sources, as I describe below, are simply not valid scientific sources in any sense of the term. Especially given that BoP is on Pro, he/she should have to combat my claims with counterclaims from equally, if not superior sources. Rather, they have utilized highly-contested articles from non-scientific sources, some of which are explicitly labeled "opinions" rather than fact.For example, Pro's first source about "WWII/Greenhouse Gasses" is actually titled: Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming. Emphasis on myths. The article is all about the fact that this argument is in no way true. It specifically states that, "The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artifact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method. The temperature record is currently being updated to reflect this bias." This shows that, not only does Pro's claim have no standing because the statistic is actually a result of changing methodology, but they are actually attempting to cite new sources (since their original ones were copied and pasted from a Tesla forum) which either contradict previous arguments or are based on non-scientific, opinion-based, vastly-refuted claims.The source they cite for the "0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature" is a 13-page long, fairly technical document which I actually took the time to read. The only time the numbers 0.7 and 0.9 even occur is in a section titled, "2. The importance of data quality and consistency when studying extremes." This section states, among other things, "Nicholls (1996) observed that a major problem undermining our ability to determine whether extreme weather and climate events were changing was that it is more difficult to maintain the long-term homogeneity of observations required to observe changes in extremes, compared to monitoring changes in means of variables. Inhomogeneities affecting station records can most commonly be introduced through site moves, changes in instrumentation, changes in local site conditions (through urbanization for example), or changes in observing practices." This section is about bringing into question the integrity of the very data Pro is attempting to cite. Furthermore, this section actually discusses the "Monthly minimum value of daily min temperature" and in no way speaks to the "average global temperature" as suggested by Pro.Regarding Pro's discussion of the myth of receding glaciers, I should point out first that the article is from 6 years ago, second that it is from the Daily Mail as opposed to the actual scientific sources I provided, and third, only covers the change over one year. Even though the artic sea ice may have increased over this one year, it was still at far lower than average levels. Also, the IPCC did not hold the crisis meeting that was alleged. That is a complete fabrication. The IPCC actually directly came out to state how terrible of a source of information this specific article was:"The UN’s climate science body has rejected claims in the Mail on Sunday newspaper that it plans to hold a crisis meeting to discuss the impending release of its latest major report. In an article labelled ‘Global cooling‘ journalist David Rose said that the growth in Arctic ice was proof of a worldwide global warming scam, and that the predictions of the current climate models were “gravely flawed”. Rose said that leaked reports showed that governments were demanding 1,500 changes to the Summary for Policy makers, as it failed to adequately explain the recent “pause” in global warming. As a result, he said, the IPCC was calling a crisis meeting to deal with the “revelations”. “Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting,” it said in a statement. “The IPCC will convene a plenary session to finalize the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, in line with its normal procedures, in Stockholm on 23-26 September 2013. “The session has been scheduled for several years and this timetable has been repeatedly publicized by the IPCC.”Pro's article from TheHill.com stating that there is "no real scientific proof" regarding the rise in greenhouse gases is actually an OpEd piece contributed by a seismologist/volcanolgist. In no way is this an actual corroborated scientific source, nor was it even contributed by the type of expert who could refute the plethora of evidence I've provided.Pro's citation of an article about the sun being responsible for a great share of climate change starts with the sentence "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions." It is an article debunking the exact myth that Pro is trying to perpetuate with their argument. Again, I'm not sure Pro actually read this.Finally, regarding the petition by "scientists", I urge voters to take a closer look. First of all, this petition is over 10 years old. A more "2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans." Second of all, this petition required no actual proof that the signatories had the credentials they claimed. Third, and perhaps most importantly, many of the signatories in no way were qualified to give factual, unbiased opinions on the matter. Surely those who are best suited to make judgments here are climatologists, meteorologists, agencies like NASA, etc. (all of which are the type I provided). Here are just a few examples of the qualifications of those signatories on Pro's outdated petition, for which I have already provided a more recent, peer-reviewed counter:- Wilbur A. Aanes specializes in veterinary and animal surgery.- Ralph F. Abate specializes in bridge design - Ursula K. Abbott is an avian geneticist - Dirk Den Baars deals in the exploring and mining of copper and precious metals- P. S. Gaal works with the transport properties of materialsThese are just a select few of the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who signed this petition who were actually in no way qualified to do so. To restate: This petition is old and outdated I have provided a more recent, peer-reviewed, established petition which directly counters Pro's claim The signatories on Pro's petition are largely unqualified to opine on the matter To summarize this round's argument: Pro initially stated that Tesla was their source for all of their facts. Actually, their claims were all copied and pasted from a forum to which anyone can post. Pro claimed that Tesla's stance was one in line with his/hers, but did nothing to counter my proof that their stance was just the opposite Pro attempted to find new sources to support the points he/she found on the Tesla forum, but ultimately used ones that either proved exactly the opposite of what they were trying to say or were from non-scientific, opinion-based, unqualified sources It is clear that Pro did not read many of these sources as the claims he/she seems to think some of them prove are actually the description of the very myth they debunk