Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

If you can't provide a valid alternative theory about why the earth is warming, then yes, there is no point in you continuing.While we're talking about fallicies, however, you created a strawman of my argument:The earth is warmer due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have produced more CO2 recently. Therefore humans are responsible for the extra heat.Close, but not quite. Allow me to correct you.The earth is warmer due to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which include CO2, methane and water vapor. Humans have caused CO2 and methane levels to increase dramatically (CO2: from 278 ppm in 1750 (Source), to 380 parts per million in 2007 (source; Methane: .7 ppb in 1750, to 1.7 ppb in 2007 (same sources)). Looking at ice core samples, we can see that levels of CO2 this high have always been associated with both temperature spikes, and (looking at the fossil record) massive extinction events. In addition, there has never before been a spike in the levels of carbon dioxide this high.In addition, the current warming does not fit with the cycle of warming and cooling that is observed in the ice core samples. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.We also know that all other factors that could be responsible for an increase in temperature, are in fact acting exactly as they always do. The sun hasn't strayed from it's steady eleven year cycle... there haven't been any tremendous volcanic eruptions or seismic activity that could be causing a change in the global temperature. In short, everything is normal but the greenhouse gasses, and, as I stated previously, the most significant factor in changing greenhouse gasses is human activity.Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is humans are responsible for the extra heat.In addition, you seem to think that we must have a definitive proof, however science does not deal with absolutes. There is always a chance that new data will come along and falsify an idea, however in cases like climate change that chance is less than a billion to one. What we have is known as circumstantial evidence. For example if you walked into a room, saw a dead body with bullet holes, and a man, covered in blood spatter, holding a gun with bullets that matched those found in the victim, and no one (other than yourself, the shooter and the victim) was around for miles, the only logical conclusion to make would be that the man shot the victim. You didn't technically see what happened, but there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt... and in fact people are sent to prison for life on much less.In this way, correlation does not "prove" anything, but does constitute one piece of evidence in the "case" of global warming. A case which has long been settled by climate scientists, and only remains open in the public's warped view of the facts.If you are still not convinced after having read this, then maybe I can show you one last piece of evidence that will sway your opinion: climate models.Enjoy the video: