Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is Correct
First round is acceptance, round 2 is for arguments, 3 is for rebuttals. 4 is for defense of your arguments, any further rebuttals, closing--attempt to not bring up new arguments in the last round.
I do not deny that there has been an increase of temperatures since the mid 1800’s, nor will I deny that CO2 emissions have increased over the same period. What I do take an issue with is the claim that the increase of CO2 emissions is the cause of the warming in the last 100 or so years.
1. Climate sensitivity
The direct effect of CO2 on warming has been demonstrated in laboratories time and time again. The fact is, the greenhouse effect is real and that an increase in CO2 will lead to some warming, the question still remains: how much.
The direct effect from CO2 is not significant. CO2, which has a logarithmic warming effect, becomes less potent per each molecule of CO2 emitted each molecule that is created. All in all, the direct effect of CO2 leads to insignificant warming amounts. AGW proponents claim that there are positive feedbacks--i.e. amplifiers. The small added warming from the CO2 causes a chain of reactions and the warming increases exponentially, causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Generally, alarmists claim that doubling CO2 with the added effects lead to about 3.3 degrees C of warming, whereas skeptics claim it will be much less: with some estimates around 1 degree C, others at 0.5-0.6 degrees C . If alarmists are correct, CO2 likely caused the majority of the 20th century warming. If skeptics are correct, CO2 has played a negligible role in the recent warming and will continue to play a negligible role in the future.
Now, what does the data argue on this issue? Alarmists base their predictions on climate models. Climate models model temperature based on data that climate modelers--who are not always scientists--put inside the computer. The issue is that this method of data is flawed. How do we get these alarmist predictions? A lot of climate models exist. They all meet together--all the modelers--to compare their data. Some models produce little warming, others produce a lot. They then claim the real answer is in between, they choose one of the middle answers. However, this may not be the correct answer. The fact is, the answer could be any of the models, or none of them at all, however they merely claim it must me the middle answer, which as you can see, is a flawed approach to such a complex system.
The above statements can be evidenced by a simple fact: the models are wrong. The vast majority of models produce too much sensitivity, and the average ‘middle ground’ is significantly above observed temperatures . There is significant scientific evidence published in the peer reviewed academic research that argues the sensitivity predicted by the alarmists is incorrect, and that we should expect minimal warming from doubling of CO2 emissions .
2. Climate predictions have been wrong for the last decade
A theory is as good as its predictions. You make a hypothesis, predict what you think is going to happen, and compare the actual data. If your predictions are off, you need to change the hypothesis. The fact is, AGW predictions have been off and need to be corrected to claim the effect of humans is much smaller than once thought.
Warming in the last decade has been far below the expected temperature increase. There has been either no warming, or even cooling . During this period, the IPCC high, low, and ‘best’ estimate all were higher than what was observed. Using AGW theory, this was not predictable. However, believing that oceanic cycles , or the sun , caused significant warming in the last 100 years, this change in temperature is wholly reasonable. Therefore, at least for the last decade, the natural causes of climate change correlate better than the anthropogenic ones.
Another very important prediction is the existence of a tropospheric hotspot. Models significantly overestimate the tropospheric hotspot. When you look at the actual data, there has been minimal warming in the troposphere . Further, on nearly every altitude, the actual data show the atmosphere significantly cooler than predicted .
3. Possible Natural Causes
The natural cause I will be supporting in this debate is the solar cause. The sun causing climate change makes sense: it is the sole source of heat on this planet, the other sources have either unknown causes or merely amplify the suns effect. The sun, however, directly and indirectly causes climate change.
The length of the solar cycle has been correlated to temperature throughout the 20th century. Direct sunlight, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, short and long term solar cycles, all easily explain--and contribute--to climate change . As geologist Bob Carter notes, “the argument advanced by the IPCC… [that] the sun cannot play a major role in global warming or cooling trends--is incorrect.” Recent research by Willie Soon and David Legates, using new and improved TSI (total solar irradiance) measuring techniques definitively conclude that the sun causes the majority of recent climate change. Further, they correct their previous research, and answer the ‘missing link’ question which was formulated in Soon, 2009. Their conclusion states that there exists strong evidence of a solar to climate relationship, and argues that models need to include the possibility of a strong solar forcing . A summary of recent research argues that “[t]he Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more. … IPCC models do not incorporate important solar factors such as fluctuations in magnetic intensity and overestimate the role of human-related CO2 forcing.”
However, I have mainly been talking about TSI, which does cause a significant amount of climate change. Other, more indirect, sources of energy from the sun do cause climate change. The most well known of these is the cosmic ray hypothesis. Cosmic rays cause climate change through cloud formation. How do cosmic rays cause cloud formation?
Cosmic rays come in from outer space. TSI alone cannot explain warming throughout all of history, it is commonly accepted that it needs a modifier, so, how do cosmic rays modify the sun’s rays? As these rays hit earth, they are something which molecules use to create clouds. The correlation between cloud formation and cosmic rays is clear. The more cosmic rays, the more clouds, clouds as a negative feedback cool the earth, therefore more cosmic rays = cooler earth. The fewer cosmic rays, the fewer clouds, and a warmer earth. So, lets examine this theory. As the sun is more active, a stronger solar wind exists and pushes the rays away, reducing the amount of cosmic rays--a warmer earth. As the sun cools down, the less wind, a cooler earth. Let’s examine this theory :
1) Cosmic rays cause cloud formation: Significant evidence exists of the cosmic ray-cloud formation link. According to research in the early 21st century, there exists a close correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation. The more rays, the more clouds. Cosmic rays, therefore, are related to cloud formation.
2) Cosmic ray-temperature correlation: On a geologic timescale, there is a very strong correlation between cosmic rays and temperature. During the phanerozoic, there exists a near perfect correlation between cosmic rays and temperature.
3) Clouds serve as a negative feedback: Clouds need to be a negative feedback in order for this theory to be strong. The data on sensitivity above already agree with this assertion. Clouds, which is one of the largest feedbacks, is primarily negative.
So, to summarize, cosmic rays cause cloud formation, cosmic rays correlate to temperature, clouds have decreased, clouds are a negative feedback which means more cosmic rays cool the earth, and fewer warm it. Cosmic rays are a viable candidate in the search for a cause for climate change.
Based on the failure to predict phenomena, low climate sensitivity making it nearly impossible for CO2 to have a significant warming effect, and strong evidence for a solar link contributing to the majority of recent warming, I see it unlikely that AGW theory is correct. Climate change happens, whether we want it to or not. The climate is changing, and humans are affecting it, but our influence is negligible when compared to strong natural factors.
8. Robert M. Carter. “Climate: The Counter Consensus”, Stacey International, 2011.
I will argue that CO2 is the largest contribution to global warming, at 72%  of greenhouse gas emissions, and that greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to global warming.
1. The Greenhouse Effect
Nearly all of the temperature increase observed in the past 50 years is due to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases  that cause a phenomenon called "the greenhouse effect".
When sunlight reaches the Earth, a small proportion of it is absorbed into the Earth, and subsequently the Earth is warmed. Most of the sun rays reverberate back into the atmosphere, and usually back out into space. Greenhouse gases, such as methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide absorb some of the sun rays as they go back out into space. As a result, the atmosphere is warmed, and subsequently, the Earth. Much of the cause of the greenhouse effect is water vapor, such as clouds. 
This is not a part of global warming, however, because ever since water existed on planet Earth, this water vapor has been present, and therefore, while it contributes to the warmth of the Earth, does not contribute to the rise in the Earth"s temperature, which in the past 100 years, has gone up about 1.53 F .
2. Causes of Emissions
The majority of emissions is CO2, as was previously stated to be at 72%. Then comes methane, at 18%, and nitrous oxide at 7%. The remaining 3% is other assorted emissions that are not particularly important in this debate.
The biggest causes of the emissions are : 
- transportation fuels, (14.0%). This is indubitably an anthropogenic cause of global warming. If humans were to cease to exist, which, according to recent studies, seems increasingly likely, emissions due to transportation (planes, boats, cars, etc..) would stop going into the atmosphere, making this cause anthropogenic.
- agricultural byproducts (12.5%). This is a largely anthropogenic issue. Obviously if humans went extinct, plants would go on growing, but the issue here is not the growth of plants. It is fertilizer, the amount we have to water, the waste of the obscene amount of food we throw away, etc.. Therefore this cause is anthropogenic.
- industrial processes (16.8%). Since this would no longer be an issue without humans, this is anthropogenic.
- power stations (21.3%). Again a clearly anthropogenic cause.
- residential and commercial sources (10.3%) Will cease to exist when we do.
There are many more, but this is over 50%, so I don"t see my listing any more as useful.
3. What kind of effect does a rise in CO2 have?
You brought up that CO2, as more of it goes into the atmosphere, becomes less potent. Indeed, for every time the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere doubles, the temperature will rise the same amount, no matter how much more CO2 is going into our atmosphere. Estimates state that this rise would be 1.5 to 4.5 C . The effects of this would be massive. Already, with the 1.53 F rise that is already in place, we are seeing a drastic rise in sea levels, ice melting worldwide at rates and amounts bigger than ever predicted, some of which we can never regain, less fresh water is becoming available, the only reason our crop production isn"t falling is because of GMOs, etc..  These effects will be much worse the more our CO2 amount rises. An estimate says that even if we limit warming to 2 C, water levels will most likely rise by several meters. 
[1 & 5] http://ih-igcse-geography.wikispaces.com...
[2 - 3] http://timeforchange.org...
1. Greenhouse effect
The greenhouse exists and contributes to some of the warming, that fact is not debated. However, the significance of this effect is.
The fact is, the direct effect from man-made gases cannot, alone, cause climate change. In order to come with the estimates of human induced climate change positive feedback mechanisms must exist. If the response is neutral, or negative, it is very unlikely that added greenhouse gases from man have a significant effect. If there are no feedbacks--an insensitive climate, “this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years”.
So, as argued in my sensitivity argument, the debate is not whether or not there is some impact of CO2, it is not whether or not the greenhouse effect exists, it is a question of feedbacks. If my opponent cannot demonstrate a sensitive climate system, the primary mechanism for AGW theory--the direct effect being amplified to a significant level--AGW is impossible.
Research indicates either a system with few positive feedbacks or negative ones. A study in the journal Climate Research found that climate sensitivity was only 1.8 degrees C, and could possibly be lower . New research done in 2012 found a median sensitivity of 1.1 degrees C , which replicates a study published in Energy and Environment in 2009 . The researchers in E&E claimed that their evidence demonstrated a no feedback climate system with carbon dioxide. Research in 2009 and 2011 in Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science demonstrated negative feedbacks, with mean climate sensitivity of 0.7 degrees C . Assuming negative climate feedbacks, the greenhouse effect is only responsible for one third of the warming since 1979, which is a crippling blow to the theory of AGW .
2. Causes of emissions
I have little doubt that the recent CO2 emissions are in fact caused by man. Although there is some doubt to this theory , I find the doubt not convincing. However, believing that CO2 is mainly emitted by man is not endangering the arguments I have made above.
3. Effects of added emissions
Other than the temperature predictions my opponent claims (and 1.5 as the lower estimate, if true, would actually refute AGW, this is why alarmists generally choose 2-3 degrees C), this section is irrelevant. The temperature predictions are already refuted under my extensive climate sensitivity argument and rebuttal.
But I will refute her other arguments just for fun.
The argument we are running out of water is false. The oceans create water through evaporation every day, and rain gives us enough fresh water every day for a decade. The reason we are ‘running out of water’ is because it is not raining in our reservoirs. Our cities are placed where it rained 100 years ago, which has temporarily made a ‘crisis’. But this is treated by merely shipping the water. The costs of water may increase, but is it not going to run out or be catastrophic. And as the weather changes, as will the rain, meaning certain areas will gain water others will lose it. Further, all coastal settlements, if they actually did run out of water, could merely filter ocean water. The vast majority of sea level rise will not affect food production. Satellite data shows although some regions have seen sea level rise, globally, the trend is insignificant and in many areas nonexistent .
The fact GMO’s are keeping food production normal is actually an argument against alarm. It demonstrated that new technology will cause us to adapt and mitigate any plausible damages from climate change. As the world changes, humans adapt, and make up for the change. Her argument really shows us how brilliant humans are, really. However, research dispels the myth of falling food production. In fact, CO2 and crop yields correlate almost perfectly: more CO2, more crop yields--this is even including the period before GMO’s. And research shows crop yields should be expected to increase as emissions and temperature increases. Rice, depending on the genotype, increases yields from 2-180% at 570 ppm. In areas where agriculture has overused the land, research shows CO2 enrichment can increase plant growth and counter the lack of nitrogen and phosphorus in the soil. And in the case of drought, more CO2 increases plant efficiency and reduces the need for water . These facts show that increases CO2 and temperature will benefit the planet, not harm it.
1. Greenhouse Effect
In the past 100 years, as this graph quite clearly illustrates, CO2 has at least doubled.
The impact of that was previously illustrated, as being between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. As the temperature in the past 100 years has risen 1.53 degrees F, clearly that sort of impact is completely possible.
I will now explain why.
The climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, contrary to my opponent's argument. Without greenhouse gases, it is speculated that the earth would freeze.  Until the last couple of hundred years, anthropogenic global warming was obsolete; everything was simply climate.
Without taking into account feedbacks, the warming would be around 1.25 degrees C. 
Once feedback is taken into account, it then rises to the now three times stated 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
Feedback is basically saying that as the Earth warms, the Earth (namely the ocean) absorbs the warmth, thereby keeping the Earth in a cycle of warmth, by releasing more heat into the atmosphere  Therefore, even if the effect of greenhouse gases are minimal, at only around 1 degree C, the effect that those subsequent feedbacks have, and then the warmth thereby warming the Earth again creating more feedback, is quite dramatic. 
By arguing that the climate is insensitive to CO2, you thereby argue that the climate, in and of itself, is insensitive. This would make it insensitive to what you argue that it IS sensitive towards; such as the solar irradiance, volcanoes, etc.. While the Earth is not as sensitive as sometimes brought up to be, everything is as obsolete in changing the Earth's temperature as you claim CO2 is.
This figure basically says that the Earth is more sensitive to CO2 than it is to solar instances. I know it's ridiculously hard to read, and to be honest, I have been staring at it for about 15 minutes, and still barely understand it, but that is what it says .
It is also hard to argue climate sensitivity at the level you seem to be inferring towards, when you look at past instances. On average, the temperature changes 6 degrees C through each interglacial period, which is tough to explain when arguing that the climate is insensitive. 
2. Causes of Emissions
I would concur.
3. Effects of Added Emmisons
Perhaps running out of water was a bad choice of words. I would have more aptly said "experiencing water shortages", as "running out of water" implies that water is leaving our Earth, which of course, is impossible except for the water taken to space by astronauts, which is negliible, and rock colliding into other rock, which happens at an obscenely low level.
I therefore won't attempt to refute your refution, because it's entirely valid. I will defend my re-iteration of my statement quite briefly. Droughts have riddled our country  and many others, especially hurting vegetation prices in the U.S.A..  Many crops are dying all around the globe, as stated, and we are experiencing a global crisis of getting people in 3rd world legitimate water. 
I would rather we not get into an argument about GMOs. This is not the topic of the debate, and frankly, one side thinks the other is paranoid, while on the other side thinks the first side is apathetic towards overwhelming evidence. While quite simply, CO2 = more crops, on a more intense level, it only would do so for a backyard garden or irrigated crops. The warming from CO2 is causing droughts, thereby causing, admittedly slightly lower crop productions for non-GMOs. As I said, crop production is NOT falling, however, the only reason it hasn't gone down about 5% is because of GMOs, which have taken it up around 30%.  Severe drought won't help a plant, it will kill it, though I will admit that GMOs and more CO2 will decrease water need (though not to the point where a literal lack of water would not harm it at all).
1. Greenhouse effect
No one denies, let alone disputes, that the greenhouse effect exists and keeps the warm much warmer. What is under dispute is how much of the greenhouse effect, related to human emissions, causes climate change. My opponent keeps claiming that the effect of this is significant, but as I have shown, this is not the case. I have provided multiple studies which refute climate alarmism: high climate sensitivity. About half of the greenhouse effect which alarmists are worried about is due to clouds. If this is not the case, human induced climate change is extremely small. Observational evidence contradicts the positive feedback cloud assumption that the IPCC and others assume, making it very unlikely that greenhouse gasses have caused significant warming in the 20th century . Further, if the climate was so sensitive to CO2, we would see this correlation in the geologic record. However, when you look at the record, CO2 either shows no correlation or lags temperature increases. If CO2 was a large driver of climate, we would not see no correlation in the data. There have been periods where it is extremely warm with little CO2, and periods where it is cold with a high amount of CO2. But how do we know that CO2 is not a significant part of the greenhouse effect? Simple, actually. Even using IPCC estimates, human emissions only account for 0.45% of the greenhouse warming in a particular year, which means humans have only contributed to 0.1 degrees C of warming in the 20th century, or about 1/7th. To put it in other words, 99.55% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with human carbon emissions. How, then, could CO2, without significant positive feedback (which my opponent has not proven) cause global climate change? The fact is, sensitivity is extremely low in relation to CO2, and therefore humans have a very insignificant impact on global warming .
Further, her argument as to how strong the greenhouse effect is--which is correct--focuses on the wrong gas. In fact, water vapor, not CO2 or other man-produced emissions are the largest cause of the greenhouse effect.
Further, the vast majority of all of these gasses is not man made.
My opponent claims feedbacks are positive, but this is unlikely the case. Clouds, the largest feedback mechanism we know of, decreases the amount of radiation which hits the earths surface, which means that as CO2 causes more clouds (based on AGW theory), the feedback is negative, which often cancels out the warming from greenhouse gasses. Strong evidence suggests that, "[n]et feedbacks in the real climate system — on both short and long time scales — are probably negative."
To argue that the climate system is insensitive to CO2 does not claim that the climate is not sensitive to anything. If specific feedbacks caused by CO2 is negative that does not mean the climate will remain in stasis or cooling. Clouds, a negative feedback, actually support the cosmic ray theory--which my opponent has ignored. The clouds in the case of CO2 will cause cooling, however, cosmic rays create clouds. If the sun is more active, fewer cosmic rays reach earth, and reduce cloud cover. Reduced cloud cover means a lower albedo, which leads to warming. In fact, the climate system is very sensitive to fluctuations of cosmic rays, and cosmic rays are a viable canidate for the majority of the recent warming . AGW theory claims that the decrease in cloud cover is caused by the small warming from CO2, which means more light hits the surface, and more warming. However, they are confusing cause and effect. How do they know that warming caused the clouds to decrease, and not vice-versa? Do clouds cause temperature change, or does temperature change cause clouds? Observational evidence supports the first: clouds cause temperature change. This means that it is a negative feedback in the case of CO2, and a positive one in the case of a cosmic ray flux. Research has demonstrated that the climate is very sensitive to changes in cosmic rays, which amplifies the solar effect greatly .
The graph my opponent has is from the IPCC 2007 report, it attempts to display the different causes of climate change by demonstrating how sensitive the climate is to each forcing, and, therefore, how much of the recent warming was caused by each forcing. However, this graph is based on models which have failed to reproduce observed data. They cannot explain the pause in warming, they describe feedbacks (see clouds) incorrectly, their sensitivity is off, their predictions so far are off, they fail to incorporate cosmic ray flux and other natural forcings, etc. The graph only takes into account irradience. But ignores... Magnetic fields, Earth rotation, cosmic rays, and 1500 year cycles. The argument that solar forcings only affect climae through irradience, or that the sun has little effect, is not supported by the facts . The graph underestimates the effect of clouds which is likely significant, and overestimates the effect from CO2. Further, the graph ignores things humans do to cool the climate (aerosols, for example).
2. Added emissions
Droughts always happen, crops aren't dying they're thriving, and if the third world were to develop proper government systems they would be able to clean the water sources and increase the amount of usable water.
The GMO argument proves my point... If climate change is real and we are affected, humans will adopt technologies to support our society, increase efficiency, and feed the world. I don't see how that is a negative! Further, as I argued with other empirical evidence, increased CO2 will benefit agriculture and reduce the strains which we have currently put on it. Recent increasing crop yields occured regardless of GMO's. The first GMO crop was tested in 1986, and the first tests in America began in 1987 . Therefore it is safe to assume GMO's were not used in crops until the late 1980s or early 1990s. Crop yields have been increasing since at least 1960, and after the introduction of GMO's I dont see a faster increase in crop yields . The fact is, warming will increase agriculture and reduce deaths. Warming, as demonstrated by observations not models, actually increases precipitation and reduces the water crisis--helping crops. Efforts to reduce emissions would actually harm people around the world, not help them .
My opponent has dropped all of my arguments regarding a natural cause. The more caused by nature, the less caused by humans. If nature as I demonstrated has the power to warm the world significantly, and as I demonstrated is a very viable suspect in the cause of warming, AGW theory is thrown out the window. Further, AGW's predictions fail.
The true mark of a theory is without doubt its ability to predict phenomena.– Science and Hebrew Tradition, “On the Method of Zadig,” p. 20 .
AGW failed to predict the warming pause since 1997, cooling since 2001, and all models predict too much warming. If AGW theory cannot predict what has happened, that means the conclusion is false, and should be revised. The fact that it hasn't isnt science, its turned into politics.
AGW theory fails on all accounts. Humans play a very negligible role in global warming. Feedbacks are negative, natural causes much better explain the recent warming, AGW has made false predictions, the pause weakens the case for AGW, and the tropospheric hotspot is gone, it doesn't exist. The fact is, the scientific case for AGW is non-existent.
1. Roy Spencer. "The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists", Encounter Books, 2010.
2. Robert M. Carter. “Climate: The Counter Consensus”, Stacey International, 2011.
6. Carter. “Climate: The Counter Consensus”
Note: if my sources say page not found, delete the / at the end of the link and refresh page, it should work.
1. Greenhouse Effect
The argument that you seem to consistently use argues largely against the idea that the majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. That, I do not dispute. The issue is not whether or not the greenhouse effect's human contributions cause warmth, but whether they cause active warming. The greenhouse effect has been around since practically the beginning of time on Earth. Therefore the Earth remains largely stagnant in it's temperature; or else, it should.
While most of the warmth on Earth from the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, the same is not true for the warming of the Earth.
You previously stated that you attributed warmth to sun flares; "The natural cause I will be supporting in this debate is the solar cause." . I previously cited a source that reliably stated that the climate was actually more sensitive towards CO2 due to positive feedbacks than it was towards solar causes.  Many sources cite positive feedback trends, and this graph too supports the thought, in demonstrating that as time has gone on, and CO2 has become more prominent in the atmosphere, the temperature of the ocean has risen in response to feedbacks, which are largely caused by the ocean. 
"Climate feedbacks are processes that change as a result of a change in forcing, and cause additional climate change. An example of this is the "ice-albedo feedback." As the atmosphere warms, sea ice will melt. Ice is highly reflective, while the underlying ocean surface is far less reflective. The darker ocean will absorb more heat, getting warmer and making the Earth warmer overall. A feedback that increases an initial warming is called a "positive feedback." A feedback that reduces an initial warming is a "negative feedback." The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback that has been included in climate models since the 1970s." 
As for no evidence of CO2 causing warmer temperatures...
In fact, as CO2 in the atmosphere becomes more prominent, clouds form more slowly and less. 
When the climate is highly sensitive to CO2, that is precisely what you are arguing.
The IPCC has released a report regarding the inaccuracey of their predictions. It states several reasons why climate change is so unpredictable, and therefore possible reasons for why they were wrongs; forcing agents applied to the climate, geographical and vertical distributions, nature, the magnitude of feedbacks, and the mean climate state, among other things . As these things are not solidly predictable, it's not exactly rocket science. It's a bit like the local news weather anchors, you see.
2. Added emissions
True, true due to Monsanto & friends, and agreed. I hope we can also agree that they don't need the government's help.
I personally believe it is, and that we will be drastically affected. I, simply put, do see how that is negative. There are certain things. I spent the entire day today sitting in my garden on a lawn chair, reading, drinking tea, and watering my plants. I spend the summer hiking, swimming, running through the woods. I take naps on a broken generator in the middle of my raspberry patch, surrounded by lilacs swooning over the blooming patch watching bright blue Colorado sky. Call me crazy, but I have no intention to deny the future generations this leisure. It may make it easier, it may increase our efficiency, but really, are we creating a world that you WANT to live in with that? I think that would be a world closer to F451, a haunting book that hits too close to home.
Sorry, I guess I did. I sort of created my own arguments on the grounds that your argument didn't really affect my argument. I have absolutely no doubt that natural causes do contribute to climate changes in a sense, and do certainly speed it up, but they are not as pronounced as human changes. According to this, the natural changes would have created a much cooler environment than we are experiencing at the moment :
|Who won the debate:||-|