Global Warming

To start my part of round 2, I would first like to point out that Smarticles only specifically rebutted one of my attacks, and even then that was a simple clarification. So we can assume that all of my other attacks on Smarticles' contention stand as accepted fact until Smarticles rebuts them. The rest of Smarticles' argument was directly copy-and-pasted off of one website. http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... http://www.epa.gov... While the EPA is a trusted and unbiased resource, it cannot be used as the entire argument without conclusive summarization. Also, Smarticles attempted to pass off this argument as her own by not citing any part of the argument. This is fundamentally wrong and undermines the fairness of debate. I will look past these flaws for the moment and continue attacking Smarticles' claims. 1. Rising Sea Levels Destroy Habitats Yes, we can all understand that rising sea levels would have adverse effects upon the habitats that are vulnerable to increased water flow. But are the habitats already being affected? For the answer to that question, I turn to www.agu.org, which works in partnership with the National Oceanographic Data Center. "...it is not possible to uniquely determine either a global rate of change of sea level or even the average rate of change associated with the existing inadequate data set.' This evidence is stating that current technology that measures sea level changes cannot determine whether or not the changes in sea level are attributed to global warming or not. Also, it is impossible to determine whether global sea level changes are directly related to climate change. According to www.agu.org, "From these considerations it is clear that simply obtaining a value for global sea level rise in the past, or detecting an increase in the future, is not enough for sea level rise to serve as an unambiguous indicator of global climate change. Global sea level, whether observed to increase, stay the same, or decrease, must be analyzed and understood in terms of all of the factors that affect it for meaning to be attached to it. " It is impossible to assume that climate change is to blame for the tiny changes in sea level, because so many other factors go into sea level changes. 2. Impact on Forests "The effects of climate change on forests in the U.S. and other parts of the world will depend not only on climatic factors but also on stresses from pollution (e.g., acid rain); future trends in forest management practices, including fire control and demand for timber; and land-use change. It is difficult to separate the influence of climate change from these other pressures." This piece of evidence is from www.epa.gov. It was used in Smarticles' last argument. However, it contradicts the very point she is trying to make. It proves that the dire state of the environment is due to a number of factors, not just the relatively new theory of global warming. It is impossible to separate these factors, so it global warming cannot be the culprit of these discrepancies. 3. Impact on Humans To respond to this claim, I will first ask, if something isn't there, then can it hurt you? To use a crude example, I will turn to the Boogie Man, the bane of our childhood existence. We were afraid of the Boogie Man, but of course he wasn't real. So why should we be afraid of something that isn't real? The same logic can be applied to global warming. According to www.heritage.org "Scientific facts gathered in the past 10 years do not support the notion of catastrophic human-made warming as a basis for drastic carbon dioxide emission cuts." Case in point, global warming does not exist. Yes, humans are, and have been for many years, destroying the environment. But are we increasing global temperature? Conclusive scientific evidence says we are not. 4. Water Availability "Furthermore, the global pattern of multi-decadal trends in streamflow that was observed during the 20th Century bears a striking similarity to the average pattern simulated by the climate models forced by estimated historical drivers of climate (both anthropogenic and natural)." -21st Conference on Hydrology This evidence is largely self-explanatory. It states that water availability in the twentieth century followed trends similar to ones exhibited in previous years. This goes back into the most recent point I made:global warming is not a threat nor does it exist. 5. Energy Conservation May I respectfully point out that energy conservation is not directly related to global warming? Energy conservation is a way to preserve our environment, not a cause or effect of global warming. In conclusion, I have rebutted all of Smarticles' evidence that was copy-and-pasted off of one website. She failed to rebut any of my attacks lined up in the first round, so therefore so far I am winning this debate. However, I understand that the true winner of this debate must be determined by the voters and I respect their decision. Thanks again for taking time to follow this debate.