Resolved: That Global Warming is a manmade problem.

I'll go line by line down what my opponent has said last round First, he claims that just because CO2 and temperatures follow each other closely he has proven correlation. As I told you, CO2 spiked second at about 225,00 years ago, and in many instances including the examples he listed, CO2 still comes very slightly after the temperatures rise. If anything it shows that temperatures can cause CO2 to rise. Then he again claims that because temperatures are high, manmade GW is real. Again, temperatures have been higher, 325K, 250K, and 125K years ago for example, and again just because CO2 and temperatures are both up, doesn't mean they are necessarily related. That is an example of the fallacy of Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, meaning with therefore because of. It would be like me saying murders caused global warming, because murders are going up now, and so is the temperature. That is absurd, but it is the same logic my opponent uses. Then, he gives the scientist saying that models fit manmade global warming predictions. Pretty compelling, huh? We must look at the validity of this though before we accept it as God's truth. These are predictions, and predictions always have bias in them. Because public opinion is so biased towards the validity of manmade global warming, the scientists will be too. People see what they want to see. I cannot say with absolute certainty that the man is wrong, though, but there shoud be enough doubt placed on this study to discount it, especially as I have shown that CO2 is not the cause of many historical temperature changes. "We also have empiracal evidence from sea levels and temperatures that show that global warming is indeed happening. The earth is warming, and CO2 is rising. CO2 comes from fossil fuels. It's simple. " Yeah, it is simple, a simple Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. I am not denying that CO2 is up as well as temperatures, I am simply saying that CO2 did not cause temperatures to rise, not now, and not ever. I am not denying however that they are correlated in some way, it's just that unless CO2 has time travel powers it can't cause GW, as often it rises 100-1000 later than temperatures, which is hard to see with his graph as it is on such a large scale, but the best example is between 250000 and 20000 years ago, closer to 200000. Also a little after 400000 years ago, you can see that CO2 is up and that the temperatures are down. Finally he says, "Lastly, I'd like to attack my opponent's lack of warrant, reason, and evidence. There is not one peice of evidence in the round by him, and his R2 response merely attacks my sources without showing counter-facts that disprove mine. Right now, I see nothing but a PRO vote based on the fact that I have most scientists and reason behind me. " My warrant came from you guessed it, my opponent's evidence. I showed that CO2 sometimes came after temperature change. My reasoning is that if CO2 came second after temperature change in several instances, CO2 cannot cause temperature change. If CO2 doesn't cause temperature change it can't cause global warming. As CO2 is the substance that man is emitting that many claim causes gw, and it doesn', then I win. Again, it is a argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy to say that simply because scientists say so it is. Why vote CON? 1. It is a fallacy to say CO2 is the cause of GW because it is often correlated with it. 2. CO2 will sometimes occur after temperature change, showing that it could not have caused the change. 3. Scientists are only human and will be wrong.