Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions.

It would seem that the consensus among academic institutions worldwide would be enough to persuade most people that global warming is real, that it is a problem, and that it is a direct result of human-produced carbon emissions into the Earth's atmosphere, but many are still not convinced. The skeptical argument seems to be that the Earth is so vast that mankind could never be any real threat to it, and / or all of the evidence presented by the world's most prominent scientific minds only points to naturally occurring events and warming cycles.

The problem with the skeptical side of this argument is that the skeptics lack the knowledge necessary to view the argument objectively, from all sides. Skeptics fail to understand the concept of chronic vs acute when considering whether the source of harmful carbon emission levels are man-made, or naturally produced.

Scientists have taken into consideration the significant amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere naturally by contributing factors such as volcanoes and organic decomposition. The difference is that manmade sources perpetuate a consistent or chronic flow of carbon emissions across the planet, which maintains the enhancement of the greenhouse effect, and as a result causes the exponential rate of unnatural warming our planet is experiencing. Significant natural sources of carbon emissions do occur, but they are acute and subside after a period of time, and therefore do not intensifying the greenhouse effect for a period long enough to perpetuate an accelerated warming trend.

Scientists have been able to map natural warming trends over the course of several hundred thousand years through analyzing ice core samples taken from Antarctic glaciers, as well as through other methods. When comparing the rate of fluctuation between natural carbon and temperature cycles and the cycles being witnessed today, it is clear that excessive manmade carbon emissions are causing an accelerated warming trend at such a rate that our global ecosystem cannot adapt to in a non-catastrophic fashion.

I would ask that my opponent keep their argument rational, and leave their emotions at the door.

Let me first say that I believe in global warming and I am doing this to see if I can win even against it.

You say that the Earth's temperature has been rising because of CO2 produced by man, but this a normal cycle and there have been tons of other times when we have freaked out about it.

(http://icecap.us...) Go to this link and look at the bottom graph on page six, which is the average temperature from 1895-2007. Not only do I not see the temperature rising too far above normal, I see it falling sharply around today. This is in complete contradiction to your claim that the earth is warming and that it is different then it has been.

Now go to page 7 of the link. There you see that CO2 and temperature have no link.

The sun can have a big influence on the earth's temperature and it has been more active lately as proved by page 3 of my link.

There have been many times in which the world has worried over a global cooling. In 1895 the New York Times was reporting an apocalyptic story, not on global warming, but on global cooling saying "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again".
Later, in the 1920's the earth warmed by half a degree and the New York Times started talking of an apocalyptic warming.
Then, in 1975, the New York Times reported that "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." The cover of Science News showed a worrying picture of the earth being enveloped by ice and many people panicked.
Now, its reporting warming again and this time its different? I don't think so.

It is not just the Times that has spread global warming, in 1975 Newsweek worried that the earth was cooling dramatically.

Everyone is taking minor temperature changes as apocalyptic predictions.

(http://www.geocraft.com...) Here it says water vapor is responsible most for the greenhouse effect and most other sources are natural.

In the medevil warm period, people were able to grow grapes in England and they can't grow grapes there today.

Not to mention we are just recovering from the Little Ice Age, which may explain why we feel a bit warm.

The arctic ocean, which if the ice is melting, should be falling, is rising according to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite

Even the hockey stick graph, which is used to prove global warming is scientifically invalid.

All in all, it water vapor that has the most effect on global warming and even if it didn't there are still many reasons for why it is false and not caused by man.

Thanks for continuing. You seem to have a firm grasp of the skeptical side of the argument. Since there are several claims to refute, I'm going to reply to each refutable claim one by one. Any of my claims can be referenced to "An Inconvenient Truth" or www.climatecrisis.net. If you feel this is not a credible source, there are plenty of scientific journals on google scholar you can look up that support the same theories.

llamallama : "look at the bottom graph on page six, which is the average temperature from 1895-2007. Not only do I not see the temperature rising too far above normal, I see it falling sharply around today. This is in complete contradiction to your claim that the earth is warming and that it is different then it has been."

- Though the average global temperature may not have risen too far above normal, the concern is how average temperatures differ at different locations on the planet. While the temperature may have stayed the same, or even dropped in certain locations, the average temperatures in the coldest regions of the world have risen at an alarming rate. The proof of this can be seen, not only in recorded temperatures by climatologists, but in the way that glaciers and ice caps have decreased significantly in size. In fact, the largest ice sheet in the Arctic Circle has broken in half.

llamallama : "Now go to page 7 of the link. There you see that CO2 and temperature have no link."

- The oil industry spends billions of dollars annually on lobbying and advertising campaigns aimed at making global warming appear as a non-issue. It isn't hard for scientists who are funded by the oil industry to make a compelling case to the layman with evidence that contradicts the findings of the global academic community. There is ample evidence that shows the two are indeed directly related.

llamallama : "The sun can have a big influence on the earth's temperature and it has been more active lately as proved by page 3 of my link."

- The Earth's temperatures are directly related to energy provided by the sun. This is commonly known. Though solar activity fluctuates from time to time, this increase in activity as stated has been more active lately. The warming period in question takes place on a much larger time frame than the increases in solar activity are occurring.

llamallama : "There have been many times in which the world has worried over a global cooling. In 1895 the New York Times was reporting an apocalyptic story, not on global warming, but on global cooling saying "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again".
Later, in the 1920's the earth warmed by half a degree and the New York Times started talking of an apocalyptic warming.
Then, in 1975, the New York Times reported that "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." The cover of Science News showed a worrying picture of the earth being enveloped by ice and many people panicked.
Now, its reporting warming again and this time its different? I don't think so.

It is not just the Times that has spread global warming, in 1975 Newsweek worried that the earth was cooling dramatically."

- There's a major difference between what a hand full of people thought in the period between the late 1800s and 1975 and what the global academic community is claiming. In addition to a global consensus, the science of today is far more advanced than in earlier periods.

llamallama : "Everyone is taking minor temperature changes as apocalyptic predictions.

(http://www.geocraft.com......) Here it says water vapor is responsible most for the greenhouse effect and most other sources are natural.

In the medevil warm period, people were able to grow grapes in England and they can't grow grapes there today.

Not to mention we are just recovering from the Little Ice Age, which may explain why we feel a bit warm."

- Water vapor is a key component to the greenhouse effect, which is a key component of our global climate, and is therefore a good thing. When the greenhouse effect is intensified to the point that it traps more infrared radiation than it's supposed to is when it becomes a problem. The intensification of the greenhouse effect is caused by a consistent worldwide flow of CO2 emission into the atmosphere. It is true that the vast majority of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is from natural sources, but A) this is where the difference between chronic vs acute mentioned in my round 1 argument comes into play, and B) much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet. There's a great PBS documentary about global dimming called "The Dimming of the Sun" that can most likely be accessed online which I would recommend to anyone that would like to improve their understanding of the climate crisis.

llamallama : "The arctic ocean, which if the ice is melting, should be falling, is rising according to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite"

- This statement is false. If the ice is melting, then it would cause the sea level in the Arctic Ocean to rise, much like cubes of ice dropped into a glass of water will cause the water level to rise in the glass.

llamallama : "Even the hockey stick graph, which is used to prove global warming is scientifically invalid."

- Which hockey stick graph would you be referring to?

Great response! I'm glad that there is such a strong arguer for global warming on this site.

You said: "much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet."
If you say CO2 cools the planet then how can we be warming the Earth?
How does that CO2 differ from our CO2?

With water vapor causing most of the greenhouse effect and the little bit of CO2 that influences it being mostly natural, how can the comparatively miniscule amounts of CO2 we emit make any difference?

As for the arctic sea level, for some reason I wrote falling in the place of rising and vice-versa. Sorry, I checked it over, but I guess I didn't notice it. This is what I meant to type down: According to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite the Arctic Ocean's sea level is falling, which if the ice were melting should be rising.

The Hockey Stick Graph is the graph that show the average world temperature spiking up at the end (today) so that it looks like a hockey stick and that graph is scientifically invalid.

The sun has at least some control over the temperature and Mars's icecaps have also decreased over the past 3 years.

The hype over global warming may be more prevalent now because media is more wide-spread and can hammer in the idea of global warming more.

"You said: 'much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet.'
If you say CO2 cools the planet then how can we be warming the Earth?
How does that CO2 differ from our CO2?"

- The difference in CO2 that you're asking about is a matter of a solid vs a gas. CO2, or gaseous carbon, traps infrared solar radiation that would otherwise be reflected back into space when it is perpetually emitted into the atmosphere at the current rate. Solid particulate matter that is emitted into the atmosphere actually reflects solar radiation.

"With water vapor causing most of the greenhouse effect and the little bit of CO2 that influences it being mostly natural, how can the comparatively miniscule amounts of CO2 we emit make any difference?"

- As out of control carbon emissions trap infrared solar radiation and warm the earth, there's a significant increase in the amount of evaporated water in the atmosphere, which intensifies the greenhouse effect.

"According to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite the Arctic Ocean's sea level is falling, which if the ice were melting should be rising."

- I'm not sure about that one. I cannot attest to the validity of ERS-2 observations.

"The sun has at least some control over the temperature and Mars's icecaps have also decreased over the past 3 years."

- The climate crisis is due to occurrences that have taken place over a period of longer than three years. Even if Mars has retreating icecaps, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is due to solar activity.

"The hype over global warming may be more prevalent now because media is more wide-spread and can hammer in the idea of global warming more."

There is a degree of truth to this, but that's not to say that it's a good thing. People need to be aware of our impact on the environment. I do not believe, however, that the media should try to terrorize anyone about global warming. When people get scared it inhibits their ability to rationally deal with the problem at hand. There are a lot of ideas floating around that there needs to be international enforcement of environmental regulations. To me, an international government is a very scary thing.

The arctic ocean defiantly is falling and that does not fit with global warming, especially if you say its warmer up there.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk...)
(http://www.physorg.com...)
(http://seattle.craigslist.org...)
The facts do not come together and there is a lot of hype, but little concrete evidence that global warming is something to be worried about.