I refuted paleoclimate, showing that past records...
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin
- kingd breaks two rules in this debate. He breaks #6 -- no K's of the topic -- #7 -- no semantics -- and arguably #5. Based on rule #10, I win the debate. - kingd drops both consensus and sensitivity, conceding them as true. - I refuted paleoclimate, showing that past records actually support AGW and that he misrepresented his sources > showed today was abnormally warm for this recent interglacial cycle > king's graph shows correlation - his whole argument is a semantical ploy on origin and climate change. But is fails. >R1 established "global warming" (synonomous to "climate change" in the literature) was defined to the late 1800s - present. > so the origin of that climate change was indeed mankind > pro wins > king assumes I am talking about change over the past 500 million years. R1 proved this to not be the case. Con's debate strategy is immoral, unfair, and rule breaking. Not to mention incorrect.