warming good utnif 2012

7/31/2019 Warming Good UTNIF 2012

1/53


2/53

***File Notes********cites for that card= Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth,

University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the InternationalJournal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism,Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member,National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; WilliamKininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen,professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia TechnicalUniversity; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; BurtRutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of theWorld Federation of Scientists, Geneva.


3/53

***Strategy Sheet***Don't run the "AT: Tipping point" if you're running the "Past the Tipping point" argument, theycontradict.

Be careful- some of the cards that you read on one portion of the flow may say something like "warmingis real but it's going to kill us all anyway" which would clearly contradict "warming is fake". So make sureyou read the cards first.

Also, some climate change not exist/not anthro cards can be found in the author indicts section:actually, each of them makes at least one warrant as to why global warming isn't real.


4/53

Warming


5/53

Not real also AT Scientific Consensus(most of the indict cards have diverse warrants on why it's not real, use those for 2NC evidence.)

The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly against climate alarmism: 31,000 scientistsprove- (Also answers model bias)

Snyder, Nov 6 2011 (Neil Snyder earned a Ph.D. degree in strategic management fromthe University of Georgia, and he taught leadership and strategy at the University of Virginia for 25 years. He retired from UVA in 2004, and currently he is the Ralph A.Beeton Professor Emeritus at UVA, "Green Energy: Damn the Facts, Full SpeedAhead!" ,http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/green_energy_damn_the_facts_full_speed_ahead.html)

In 2008, a group of more than 31,000 scientists signed a petition dissenting from the position of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) that [hu]man-made CO2 emissionsare destroying our planet. More than 9,000 of them have Ph.D. degrees in fields like atmosphericscience, climatology, earth science, and environmental science . That's fifteen times more Ph.D.scientists than are involved in the IPCC campaign. One of the group's leaders, the late ProfessorFrederick Seitz, said: The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that wouldration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some otherorganic compounds. ... This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climatechange do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is goodevidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. Seitz was a first-ratescientist who served as president of Rockefeller University and president of the U.S. National Academyof Sciences. Seitz was also a recipient of the National Medal of Science. The agreement to which hereferred is the Kyoto Protocol. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, resigned from theAmerican Physical Society because of its position on global warming. So did University of Californiaprofessor Hal Lewis. When Lewis resigned, he said that the global warming movement was a "scam"and a "pseudoscientific fraud." Even so, our government is imposing strict controls to reducegreenhouse gas emissions in hopes of staving off global warming even though earth's atmosphere iscooling . Meanwhile, the cost to you and me is higher energy prices, higher inflation, a lower standard of living, and fewer new jobs, since every product we buy has an energy cost component. Under ordersfrom the president, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving ahead aggressively withregulations to reduce CO2 emissions. President Obama's misguided effort to stay the course by fiat or byexecutive order is very expensive, and it's a price that we can ill afford to pay -- especially now, as our

economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession. Global warming alarmists have resorted tofixing data, hiding data, and other things to keep people from learning the truth . They are motivatedby blind faith in a theory that isn't supported by the facts. It's a perfect example of anti-science atwork in the scientific community . To deny that our climate is cooling, you have to ignore a mountainof hard data, and the facts are mounting year by year. For example, it was comical to watch theparticipants at the December 2010 U.N. Global Warming Summit in Cancn, Mexico dress for winter astemperatures plunged to a 100-year record low. That kind of thing is happening all over the world, andit's not anecdotal data . It's a global trend that only die-hard global warming alarmists refuse to
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/green_energy_damn_the_facts_full_speed_ahead.htmlhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/green_energy_damn_the_facts_full_speed_ahead.htmlhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/green_energy_damn_the_facts_full_speed_ahead.htmlhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/green_energy_damn_the_facts_full_speed_ahead.html


6/53

accept. Did you know that the number of global weather tracking stations has been reduced, anddisproportionately, the eliminated stations are in colder regions ? Global warming alarmists havecontinued to report data showing global temperatures rising despite the fact that colder locationshave been taken out of the data set , and they haven't bothered to divulge that fact. If you take coldreadings out of the data set, average temperatures rise, but it has absolutely nothing to do with theclimate . Similarly, if you included the temperature inside my oven in the data set, averagetemperatures would rise...but it would be an act of fraud. The climate is cooling, and it's been coolingsince 1998. Eventually, the truth will prevail, but in the meantime, President Obama continues to retardprogress at great cost to the American people. The only people profiting from global warming hysteriaare global warming alarmists who are selling a pig in a poke. President Obama is firmly in their camp. Infact, he is their champion.

Global Warming is fake: earth stopped warming in 1997

Todd Jan 24 2012 (Sam Todd is currently studying Economics at Dartmouth, he is an avidpolitical writer and he quotes WSJ scientists, "A Really Inconvenient Truth: GlobalWarming is Not Real", http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-not-real)

Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science . This has not been getting the attentionit deserves because politicians (looking at you Al Gore) are frankly embarrassed to admit that they arewrong about the phenomenon known as global warming. Not only has our planet stopped warming,but we may be headed toward a vast cooling period. New data shows that in fact the Earth has notwarmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and theUniversity of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations aroundthe world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997 . The report suggests we are headedtoward a new solar cycle , Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be significantly coolerthan Cycle 24 which we are in now . This data largely contradicts the accepted theory among the publicthat carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we are actuallyheading toward global cooling. I share the same frustration in the political and scientific communitythat the sixteen scientists express. Why did we all hop on board the global warming bandwagon startedby politicians when the scientific community didnt back it? Since 1998, 31,000 scientists have signed apetitionagreeing with the fact that there is no scientific evidence or consensus that man-made globalwarming exists while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) has the support of only2,500 scientists . Yet, for some reason it is accepted that global warming is scientifically undeniable.


7/53

Not anthro

IBT, September 1 2011 (International Business Times citing quotes from leaders of CERNs

CLOUD project,"Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Chane:CERN",http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206879/20110901/global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-al-gore-alarmists-cern-experiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htm)

Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for NuclearResearch , in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsiblefor global warming , isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now. CERN, which created andoperates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates theEarth's atmosphere . In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutesdemonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth'satmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler. "Because the sun's magnetic field controlshow many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more itshields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth, "Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment. Theories which said thatsun and cosmic rays are primarily responsible for climate changes were proposed, as early as 1996 , bytwo scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a scientific conference in the UK. Follow us Within a day, chair man of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Bert Bolin, denouncedthe theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible." Henrik Svensmark, physicist, whose research has suggested a possible link between the interaction of the solar wind and cosmic rays, and downplays the significance of CO2 emissions, in global warming,welcomed the new results , saying that they confirm research carried out by his own group. "CERN'sCLOUD(Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds

and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence . The take-home message from this research isthat we just don't understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand theeffects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in theatmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a"significant" one according to CERN," David Whitehouse, of The Observatory said. CERN's CLOUD isheaded by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in theEarth's temperature , which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishmentsprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediatelysucceeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, andwho knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy toallow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate theDanes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.

Warming is fake and not anthropogenic: studies prove

Soloman 2007 (Lawrence Soloman was an adviser to President Jimmy Carter's taskforce on the environment Served as executive director of the Urban RenaissanceInstitute, a division of Energy Probe, "Limited role for CO2",
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206879/20110901/global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-al-gore-alarmists-cern-experiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htmhttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206879/20110901/global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-al-gore-alarmists-cern-experiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htmhttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206879/20110901/global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-al-gore-alarmists-cern-experiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htmhttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206879/20110901/global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-al-gore-alarmists-cern-experiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htm


8/53

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0)

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- onlyspeculation -- that [hu]man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming . Even research from the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwideeffort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according tothe IPCC's own findings, [hu] man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we havebeen cooling, not warming, the Earth . Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what [hu]man'seffect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in thefuture. All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases , says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminatingcircumstantial evidence ," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhousegases, he adds, " without other 'suspects .' " However , Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible"other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century'swarming. "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming ," he states,particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strongrelationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmospher e. So much evidence has by now beenamassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."


9/53


10/53

Past tipping point CO2

Can't solve warming: CO2 stays in the atmosphere

Ramanathan and Ramanthan, Dec 2011 (Prof. Veerabhadran Ramanathan is aDistinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Science at the Scripps Institutionof Oceanography and the University of California at San Diego Dr Nithya Ramanathanis a Fellow at the Centre of Embedded Networked Sensing at the University of California at Los Angeles and Presiden Nexleaf Analytics, "An UnprecedentedOpportunity", http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/2011/dec/en/article8.asp)

Rapid and meaningful progress on slowing global warming is achievable if world leaders and policymakers are willing to rethink and broaden their strategy, in view of recent findings. It turns out thatglobal warming is caused by two different types of pollutants . The first is the long-lived gases , whichwe have known about for decades. and which, stay in the atmosphere for a century or longer mostnotoriously carbon dioxide (CO2) released by fossil fuel combustion . Most climate policies havefocused on CO2, but it will take decades and trillions of dollars to reduce emissions significantly . Theworld cannot afford to lose such decades. The planet has already warmed by more than 0.8C and theresulting symptoms are being perceived in rising sea levels , melting mountain glaciers, including in theHimalayas and the Alps, large scale retreat of the Arctic sea ice and warming of the ocean waterspenetrating to a depth of 1000 meters or more, and such extreme weather as droughts, floods and heatwaves. Worse, humans have already dumped enough greenhouse gases (almost 1000 billion tons of CO2 alone ) in the atmosphere to warm the planet by more than 20C . So, even if we were to replacehalf of all fossil fuel use with renewables, the warming will continue to increase for decades, becauseCO2 molecules live for a century or more once released.
http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/2011/dec/en/article8.asphttp://www.unep.org/ourplanet/2011/dec/en/article8.asp


11/53

Past tipping point Geoengineering

Warming inevitable absent geoengineering

Vanke, Jul 16 2012 (Jeff Vanke, Jeff Vanke is a senior policy analyst at the New AmericaFoundation, ""Only Geoengineering Can Save Us Now",http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/16/geoengineering_may_be_the _only_way_to_fight_climate_change_.html)

Even if humanity halted greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, we would already face a devastatingthree-foot rise in sea levels by 2100 or sooner. If todays advanced economies slashed emissions in half (unlikely), and if developing countries skipped current high-pollution phases straight to higherefficiencies at higher production levels (unlikely), carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect wouldstill grow and grow .Since 1850, global warming has caused sea levels to rise some 8 inches (21centimeters), while the atmospher es CO2 levels have risen from some 250 parts per million to nearly400 ppm. Methane and other gases matter, too, as do solar fluctuations, but it is the CO2 that staysintact and aloft much longer, about 2,000 years on average. On current trends, by the year 2100,atmospheric CO2 will reach levels not seen in 34 million years before our current ice caps formed,when sea levels were 200 feet (60 meters) higher than today. Temperature increases and glacialmelting and rising sea levels will take much longer than a century to catch up with CO2 increases . Butcatch up they will if we do too little, if we focus narrowly on marginal gains in emissions reductions .The Kyoto process has been a two-decade waste of time, throwing mere buckets of water on a high-risefire, when high-pressured hoses are the only hope. Yes, we need carbon reductions and zero-carbonenergy solutions. But those will not stop the fire that already rages. Will Oremus finds the prospects of geoengineering terrifying and supports taking s ome more reasonable steps while we still have the

chance. That chance is long past. It is far too late to worry only about reducing carbon emissions. If wecare about defending fertile, densely populated low-lying lands and cities, we must turn immediately togeoengineering as well. Whether through solar reflectivity , for example cloud seeding andamplification, or through permanent and stable carbon sequestration (solids, not gases), or throughother means, we have to do something. Some geoengineering ideas are indeed terrifying, but others arenot. Just like the accelerated Manhattan and Apollo Projects, we will necessarily risk billions in deadends along the way, but the financial savings and the defense of our lands are well worth it.


12/53

Negative Feedbacks

Negative feedbacks solve global warming in the long term: studies prove

NIPCC, Aug 16 2011 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a panelof scientists who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. They are not associated with any government. They are named inopposition to the IPCC and in their last report they featured a petition of over 31,000scientists who had read and approved of their research, "Forsts Find More Nitrogen inthe Soils of a Warming World",)

Authors Melillo et al. (2011) write that " soil warming experiments conducted in a variety of ecosystems , including forests , have shown short-term losses of soil carbon as CO2," as well as

"acceleration of nitrogen cycling rates, leading to an increase in the availability of nitrogen to thevegetation (Peterjohn et al., 1994; Rustad and Fernandez, 1998; Luo et al., 2001; Shaw and Harte, 2001;Melillo et al., 2002; Eliasson et al., 2005)," and they state that " the principles of ecosystemstoichiometry (Melillo and Gosz, 1983; Rastetter et al., 1992; Sterner and Elser, 2002) suggest that, inforest ecosystems, the redistribution of a relatively small amount of this newly available nitrogenfrom the soil to the trees could result in a substantial increase in carbon storage in woody tissues. " Ina long-term (seven-year) effort designed to further explore these closely related phenomena, Melillo etal. (2011) measured changes in net carbon storage in both trees and soil in a mixed hardwood forestecosystem in central Massachusetts (USA) in response to a 5C increase in soil temperature imposed ona 30 x 30-m tract of land that was heated by a matrix of heating cables buried at a depth of 10 cm andspaced 20 cm apart, comparing the results from that tract of land with those they obtained on a non-heated 30 x 30-m tract of similar land. The fifteen researchers report that the soil warming of theirstudy resulted in carbon losses from the soil; but they say that it simultaneously stimulated carbongains in the woody tissues of the trees. Altogether, over the seven years of the experiment, theyindicate that "the cumulative warming-induced net flux of carbon has been from the forest to theatmosphere," but they note that " the magnitude of the flux has diminished over time as a result of theincrease in tree growth rate in the heated area ." And they state that in the seventh year of the study,"warming-induced soil carbon losses were almost totally compensated for by plant carbon gains inresponse to warming ," which phenomenon they attributed to " warming-induced increases in nitrogenavailability." Melillo et al. conclude that "although warming has resulted in a net positive feedback tothe climate system, the magnitude of the feedback has been substantially dampened by the increase instorage of carbon in vegetation." And if their study were to continue , and if the trend established overits first seven years were to continue, one could expect to see the sign of the feedback change from

positive to negative , perhaps as soon as the next year or two, and to grow more negative from thatpoint in time, with the long-term climate feedback ultimately proving to be negative , demonstratingthe extreme importance of long-term studies of this nature.


13/53

Carbon sinks solve: negative feedbacks

Serrie Jul 10, 2012 (Jonathan Serrie is a Fox News correspondant who graduated from

Emory University with Bachelor of Arts degrees in political science and English,""Answer to Speedty Tree Growth Lies in Air Pollution, Auburn University StudyShows", http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/10/answer-to-speedy-tree-growth-lies-in-air-pollution-auburn-university-study/)

As the scientific community worries about greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, anew Auburn University study suggests the Southeastern U.S. absorbs more carbon than it produces. And, at least in the short term, air pollution may actually be helping to speed the growth of young,carbon-absorbing forests in the region. Our study actually showed that Southeast carbon uptake ismuch faster than other regions , said Hanqin Tian, a professor at Auburns School of Forestry andWildlife Sciences, and lead author of the study published in the journal Ecosystems. This area has trees

that are very young and the growth is very fast . So, they uptake more carbon from the atmosphere. While earlier studies have examined the effect of individual factors on carbon storage and climatechange, Tian developed a computer model that takes into account multiple natural and [hu]manmadevariables such as land use, climate and pollution over the past century. The model suggests thatmoderate amounts of air pollution , in the form of carbon and nitrogen, had a fertilization effect onyoung forests . Many of these new trees appeared on abandoned agricultural land during the mid-20thcentury. In the short term, it could increase the carbon uptake , Tian said. But thats not guaranteedfor long.


14/53

Climate = Cooling

Climate is cooling: hydrocarbons and research data prove

Snyder, April 22 2011 (Neil Snyder earned a Ph.D. degree in strategic management fromthe University of Georgia, and he taught leadership and strategy at the University of Virginia for 25 years. He retired from UVA in 2004, and currently he is the Ralph A.Beeton Professor Emeritus at UVA, "The Climate is Changing Alright, But It's GettingCooler" ,http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_climate_is_changing_alrigh.html)

I'm not a Republican or a Republican Party apologist. I'm an ordinary citizen who's interested in thefacts, and the facts about climate change tell a tale that Mr. Hiatt and people of his ilk can't or won'taccept. The climate is changing alright, but it's getting cooler - not warmer . At this point, the only wayto have missed that fact is to have bought into the liberal progressive lie that global warming isdestroying the planet so completely that you refuse to even consider evidence calling it into question . For example, consider this information: Signs Of Strengthening Global Cooling Global cooling GlobalCooling In March Is the Atmosphere StillWarming? One statement in particular stands out in Mr.Hiatt's op-ed piece. He said, "Climate science is complex, and much remains to be learned. But if youasked 1,000 scientists, 998 of them would say that climate change is real and that human activity -- theburning of oil, gas and coal -- is a significant contributor." Of course, he's referring to climate change in awarmer direction because climate change per se is a given. Earth's climate has been changing since DayOne. If that were not the case, then try explaining the Ice Ages and the warming periods betweenthem. Mr. Hiatt's assertion is troublesome because it's wrong, and dangerously so. In 2008, a group of more than 31,000 scientists signed a petition dissenting from the position trumpeted by the UnitedNations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . More than 9,000 of them have Ph.D. degrees in

fields like atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, and environmental science . That's 15 timesmore Ph.D. scientists than are involved in the United Nations' campaign to convince the world that[hu]man-made CO2 emissions are destroying our planet. According to the petition, the scientificevidence leading some people to believe that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, and othergreenhouse gases is causing or will cause ruinous warming of the earth's atmosphere is notconvincing . One of the group's leaders, the late Professor Frederick Seitz, a first-rate scientist who onceserved as president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and won the National Medal of Science ,said , "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration theuse of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organiccompounds .... This treaty is , in our opinion , based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climatechange do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good

evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." The agreement Seitzreferred to is the Kyoto Protocol. If you are writing for one of the nation's leading newspapers, youshould make an effort to get your facts straight. In this case , Mr. Hiatt is presenting his unsubstantiatedopinions about climate change as proven scientific fact that only crackpots refuse to recognize, andhe's not alone . Liberal Progressive politicians and journalists do the same thing every day, andcontradictory hard evidence is either foolishly ignored or willfully covered up no matter what itssource. This is a serious matter that concerns all of us because our government is in the process of imposing strict controls to reduce greenhouse gases in hopes of staving off global warming even though


15/53

earth's atmosphere is cooling, and the cost to you and me is higher energy prices, higher inflation, and alower standard of living since every product we buy has an energy cost component. Under newleadership, the House of Representatives recently took steps to prevent the Environmental ProtectionAgency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions , but President Obama made it clear thathe will continue to pursue his agenda regardless of the facts. His misguided effort to move ahead byfiat or by executive order isn't just wrong minded. It's very expensive, and it's a price we can ill affordto pay, especially now as our economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession.


16/53

Warming Impacts Neg


17/53

Nuclear War turns warming

Even a limited nuclear exchanges causes global climate change: Nuclear WinterMasters, no month 2012 (Jeffrey Masters, PhD in meteorology, Director of Meteorologyat Weather Underground, "The Effect of Nuclear War on Climate",http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/nuke.asp )

Even a limited nuclear exchange can cause a climate disaster Well, it turns out that this portrayal of nuclear winter was overly optimistic , according to a series of papers published over the past few yearsby Brian Toon of the University of Colorado, Alan Robock of Rutgers University, and Rich Turco of UCLA.Their most recent paper, a December 2008 study titled, "Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War",concludes that " 1980s predictions of nuclear winter effects were, if anything, underestimates".

Furthermore, they assert that even a limited nuclear war poses a significant threat to Earth's climat e.The scientists used a sophisticated atmospheric/oceanic climate model that had a good track recordsimulating the cooling effects of past major volcanic eruptions, such as the Philippines' Mt. Pinatubo in1991. The scientists injected five terragrams (Tg) of soot particles into the model atmosphere overPakistan in May of 2006. T his amount of smoke, they argued, would be the likely result of the citiesburned up by a limited nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs in the region. India andPakistan are thought to have 109 to 172 nuclear weapons of unknown yield. The intense heatgenerated by the burning cities in the models' simulations lofted black smoke high into thestratosphere, where there is no rain to rain out the particles . The black smoke absorbed far more solarradiation than the brighter sulfuric acid aerosol particles emitted by volcanic eruptions. This caused thesmoke to heat the surrounding stratospheric air by 30C , resulting in stronger upward motion of thesmoke particles higher into the stratosphere. As a result, the smoke stayed at significant levels for overa decade (by contrast, highly reflective volcanic aerosol particles do not absorb solar radiation andcreate such circulations, and only stay in the stratosphere 1-2 years). The black soot blocked sunlight,resulting in global cooling of over 1.2C (2.2F) at the surface for two years, and 0.5C (0.9F) for morethan a decade (Figures 1 and 2). Precipitation fell up to 9% globally, and was reduced by 40% in theAsian monsoon regions. This magnitude of this cooling would bring about the coldest temperaturesobserved on the globe in over 1000 years (Figure 1 ). The growing season would shorten by 10-30 daysover much of the globe, resulting in widespread crop failures . The effects would be similar to whathappened after the greatest volcanic eruption in historic times, the 1815 Tambora eruption inIndonesia. This cooling from this eruption triggered the infamous Year Without a Summer in 1816 in theNorthern Hemisphere, when killing frosts disrupted agriculture every month of the summer in NewEngland, creating terrible hardship. Exceptionally cold and wet weather in Europe triggered widespreadharvest failures, resulting in famine and economic collapse. However, the cooling effect of this eruptiononly lasted about a year. Cooling from a limited nuclear exchange would create two to threeconsecutive "Years Without a Summer ", and over a decade of significantly reduced crop yields . Theauthors found that the smoke in the stratosphere cause a 20% reduction in Earth's protective ozonelayer, with losses of 25-45% over the mid-latitudes where the majority of Earth's population lives, and50-70% ozone loss at northern high latitude regions such as Scandinavia, Alaska, and northern Canada.A massive increase in ultraviolet radiation at the surface would result, capable of causing widespread


18/53


19/53

Impacts turn

Turn- focusing on climate change as a violent threat acts as a diversion to catastrophe-

relief and technology.Salehyan, Aug 14 2007 (Indean SalehyanAssociate Professor of Political Science at theUniversity of North Texas and the co-Director of the Social Conflict in Africa Databaseproject Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at UT Austin, "TheNey Myth About Climate Change",

These claims generally boil down to an argument about resource scarcity . Desertification, sea-levelrise, more-frequent severe weather events, an increased geographical range of tropical disease, and

shortages of freshwater will lead to violence over scarce necessities. Friction between haves and have-nots will increase, and governments will be hard-pressed to provide even the most basic services. Insome scenarios, mass migration will ensue, whether due to desertification, natural disasters, and risingsea levels, or as a consequence of resource wars. Environmental refugees will in turn spark politicalviolence in receiving areas, and countries in the global North will erect ever higher barriers to keepculturally unwelcomeand hungryforeigners out. The number of failed states, meanwhile, will increase asgovernments collapse in the face of resource wars and weakened state capabilities, and transnationalterrorists and criminal networks will move in. International wars over depleted water and energysupplies will also intensify. The basic need for survival will supplant nationalism, religion, or ideology asthe fundamental root of conflict. Dire scenarios like these may sound convincing, but they aremisleading. Even worse , they are irresponsible, for they shift liability for wars and human rightsabuses away from oppressive, corrupt governments. Additionally, focusing on climate change as asecurity threat that requires a military response diverts attention away from prudent adaptationmechanisms and new technologies that can prevent the worst catastrophes.

Turn- using "climate change is the root cause of ___" arguments leads to tyranny-

Salehyan, Aug 14 2007 (Indean SalehyanAssociate Professor of Political Science at theUniversity of North Texas and the co-Director of the Social Conflict in Africa Databaseproject Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at UT Austin, "TheNey Myth About Climate Change",

Second, arguing that climate change is a root cause of conflict lets tyrannical governments off thehook . If the environment drives conflict, then governments bear little responsibility for bad outcomes .Thats why Ban Ki-moons case about Darfur was music to Khartoums ears. The Sudanese governmentwould love to blame the West for creating the climate change problem in the first place. True,desertification is a serious concern, but its preposterous to suggest that poor rainfall rather than


20/53

deliberate actions taken by the Sudanese government and the various combatant factions ultimatelycaused the genocidal violence in Sudan . Yet by Moons perverse logic, consumers in Chicago and Parisare at least as culpable for Darfur as the regime in Khartoum.


21/53


22/53

Sea level rise

Sea levels won't rise: Archimedes principle

Ollier 2009 (Cliff Ollier is a geologist, geomorphologist, soil scientist, emeritus professorand honorary research fellow, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences University of Western Australia, "Floating Sea Ice and the Archimedes Principle",http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=312)

Your front-page article states that Peter Garrett claimed the break-up of the Wilkins ice shelf in WestAntarctica indicated sea level rises of 6 metres were possible. His claim includes two basic errors.Firstly, shelf ice is floating, because it is less dense than seawater. When floating ice melts, there is nochange in sea level . This is a bit of elementary physics known as Archimedes Principle. Secondly, the breakup of ice shelves is normal and inevitable . Ice caps grow by precipitation in theuplands, flow at depth, and at the ice front the ice either melts or breaks off as icebergs . The ice neversimply keeps flowing to the equator . Icebergs are produced in both times of climate warming andtimes of cooling, so they tell us nothing of climate change .

Current data indicates sea levels falling- and, they'll only rise 1 foot every 100 years

Ollier 2009 (Cliff Ollier is a geologist, geomorphologist, soil scientist, emeritus professorand honorary research fellow, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences University of Western Australia, "Floating Sea Ice and the Archimedes Principle",http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=312)

The Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois provides data on sea ice anomalies.On 22 May 2009 global sea ice was 2.6% ABOVE the 1979-2000 average . Satellite data from 1982 to2003 (published in the Journal of the Royal Society) showed that the Antarctic icesheet is growinghigher from precipitation at about 5 mm/yr which would LOWER sea level . Direct studies of sea levelare showing only small rises. You can get sea level data for the United States and a few other countries,from satellite imagery here. Most show a rise of sea level of about 2 mm per year, but there isconsiderable variation. An unusually high reading is from Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, at 6.05 1.14mm/yr. Even this is only 1.98 feet in 100 years, and no cause for alarm. Similar figures are reportedelsewhere, such as Reykjavik, Iceland 2.34 mm/yr; Bermuda 2.04 mm/yr; Murmansk, Russia 3.92 mm/yr.In Scandinavia, which is rising in response to loss of the old ice sheet the sea level is falling: Goteborg,Sweden -1.3 mm/yr; Oslo, Norway -4.53 mm/yr. Two favourites of sea level alarmists are Tuvalu and theMaldives. Sea level measurements for Tuvalu (and 10 other stations) between 1992 and 2006 arEavailable on Fig. 13 on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website. For about the past eight years thesea level seems to be virtually constant. http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60101/IDO60101.200809.pdf Sea level in the Maldives was studied in enormous detail by the doyen of sea level scientists, Niklas Axel-


23/53


24/53

Resource Wars

Resource scarcity doesn't cause resource warsSalehyan, 2007 (Indean SalehyanAssociate Professor of Political Science at the

University of North Texas and the co-Director of the Social Conflict in Africa Databaseproject Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at UT Austin, "TheNey Myth About Climate Change",

First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcityand changing environmental conditions lead to conflict . In fact, several studies have shown that anabundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict . Moreover, even as the planethas warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically . Data collected byresearchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steepdecline in the number of armed conflicts around the world . Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armedconflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If globalwarming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend . Furthermore , if famineand drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that 5 million people inMalawi have been experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawihas yet to experience a major civil war . Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity . Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes inrecent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more toarmed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.


25/53

Disease

Global warming doesn't cause disease: hype

Moore no date (Thomas Gale Moore, senior fellow for the Hoover Institution @Standford University, "Why Global Warming doesn't cause Disease",http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/WarmingandDisease.html)

Even El Nino, our most recent climate scapegoat, cannot take the blame for recent epidemics.The claim that dengue fever epidemics in Latin America in1994 and 1995 were due in part to ElNino is simply wrong. Science quotes dengue experts at the Pan American Health Organization:"The epidemics resulted from the breakdown of eradication programs aimed at Aedes aegyptiin the 1970s and the subsequent return of the mosquito. Once the mosquito was back thedengue followed." Oh, no! Not U.S . The CDC's Gubler also dismisses the idea that thesediseases may spread into the United State s. According to Science, " He calls such predictions'probably the most blatant disregard for other factors that influence disease transmission .'"Mosquito control programs, implemented decades ago, eliminated the insects that had inflictedthese diseases on Americans for centuries. Heat has little, if anything, to do with it. The Gulf Coast states in the United States are warmer now than the Caribbean islands that are currentlysuffering from dengue fever. As Gubler says, "If temperature was the main factor, we would seeepidemics in the Southern U.S. We have the mosquito; we have higher temperatures andconstant introduction of viruses, which means we should have epidemics, but we don't." Evenif the White House ignores WCR's frequent, informative messages on global warming and health, theseofficials should pay attention to the experts on disease . Both the scientific community and themedical establishment say the frightful forecasts are unfounded, exaggerated, or misleadin g. Further,

and more important for policy-makers to note, these rumors of an upsurge in disease and earlymortality stemming from climate change do not require action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As Science reports: " Predictions that global warming will spark epidemics have little basis, sayinfectious-disease specialists, who argue that public health measures will inevitably outweigh effectsof climate ." The article adds: " Many of the researchers behind the dire predictions concede that thescenarios are speculative." The director of the division of vector-borne infectious diseases at theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Duane Gubler, calls those prophecies "'gloom anddoom' based on 'soft data .'" Others attribute them to " simplistic thinking ." These experts agree that"breakdowns in public health rather than climate shifts are to blame for the recent diseaseoutbreaks."


26/53

Ocean BioD

Warming doesn't cause loss of ocean bioD- studies prove fish can adapt within one

generation

NIPCC, Jul 17 2012 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a panelof scientists who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. They are not associated with any government. They are named inopposition to the IPCC and in their last report they featured a petition of over 31,000scientists who had read and approved of their research, "Tropical Fish May be WellPrepared to Cope with Global Warming",)

In the words of Donelson et al. (2012), "ocean temperatures are expected to become adverse for manymarine species within the next 50-100 years because of global warming," and they say that "tropicalspecies are expected to have less capacity for thermal acclimation than temperate species because theyhave evolved in a more stable thermal environment." But is this really true? Speculating that it may notbe, Donelson et al. conceived and conducted an experiment to find out for themselves . Morespecifically, the four researchers "reared siblings from eight wild parental lineages of the tropicaldamselfish Acanthochromis polyacanthus for two generations in present-day (+0.0C) and predictedfuture increased water temperatures (+1.5 and +3.0C) to test their capacity for metabolic acclimationto ocean warming." The Australian scientists report that acute exposure to elevated temperatures of +1.5 and +3.0C, which have been predicted to occur this century, caused a 15% and 30% respectivedecrease in the maximum ability of the fish to perform aerobic activities such as swimming or foraging,which is known as aerobic scope. However, they found that complete compensation "in aerobic scopeoccurred when both parents and offspring were reared throughout their lives at elevatedtemperature ." And they add that " the ability to acclimate and maintain aerobic capacity would also beexpected to maintain performance in characteristics such as growth and swimming ability at elevatedtemperature s." In discussing their remarkable findings, Donelson et al. say that " such acclimation couldreduce the impact of warming temperatures and allow populations to persist across their currentrange ." And they conclude their paper by stating that "the discovery that advantageous offspringphenotypes are produced within two generations could indicate that some tropical marine species aremore capable of coping with global warming than has been suggested and illustrates a potentiallimitation of short-term experiments in predicting the long-term impacts of climate change ."

Ocean acidification doesn't cause loss of species- adaptation

NIPCC, Jul 18 2012 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a panelof scientists who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. They are not associated with any government. They are named inopposition to the IPCC and in their last report they featured a petition of over 31,000


27/53

scientists who had read and approved of their research, "The Potential for AdaptiveEvolution to Enable the World's Most Important Calcifying Organism to Cope withOcean Acidification", )

In an important paper published in the May 2012 issue of Nature Geoscience, Lohbeck et al. (2012) write

that "our present understanding of the sensitivity of marine life to ocean acidification is basedprimarily on short-term experiments ," which often depict negative effects . However, they go on to saythat phytoplanktonic species with short generation times "may be able to respond to environmentalalterations through adaptive evolution ." And with this tantalizing possibility in mind, they studied, asthey describe it, "the ability of the world's single most important calcifying organism , thecoccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, to evolve in response to ocean acidification in two 500- generation selection experiments ." Working with freshly isolated genotypes from Bergen, Norway, the threeGerman researchers grew them in batch cultures over some 500 asexual generations at three differentatmospheric CO2 concentrations - ambient (400 ppm), medium (1100 ppm) and high (2200 ppm) -where the medium CO2 treatment was chosen to represent the atmospheric CO2 level projected forthe beginning of the next century . This they did in a multi-clone experiment designed to provide

existing genetic variation that they said " would be readily available to genotypic selection ," as well asin a single-clone experiment that was initiated with one "haphazardly chosen genotype," whereevolutionary adaptation would obviously require new mutations. So what did they learn? Comparedwith populations kept at ambient CO2 partial pressure, Lohbeck et al. found that those selected atincreased CO2 levels "exhibited higher growth rates, in both the single- and multi-clone experiment,when tested under ocean acidification conditions ." Calcification rates, on the other hand, weresomewhat lower under CO2-enriched conditions in all cultures; but the research team reports that theywere "up to 50% higher in adapted [medium and high CO2] compared with non-adapted cultures." Andwhen all was said and done, they concluded that " contemporary evolution could help to maintain thefunctionality of microbial processes at the base of marine food webs in the face of global change[italics added]." In other ruminations on their findings, the marine biologists indicate that what they callthe swift adaptation processes they observed may "have the potential to affect food-web dynamicsand biogeochemical cycles on timescales of a few years, thus surpassing predicted rates of ongoingglobal change including ocean acidification ." And they also note, in this regard, that "a recent studyreports surprisingly high coccolith mass in an E. huxleyi population off Chile in high-CO2 waters(Beaufort et al., 2011)," which observation is said by them to be indicative of "across-populationvariation in calcification, in line with findings of rapid microevolution identified here."


28/53

Amazon BioD

Increasing CO2 increases Amazon biodiversity- studies prove

NIPCC, Sep 3 2010 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a panelof scientists who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. They are not associated with any government. They are named inopposition to the IPCC and in their last report they featured a petition of over 31,000scientists who had read and approved of their research, "The Ever-IncreasingProductivity of Amazonian Forests: Fact or Artifact?",)

Gloor et al. (2009) write that "analysis of earlier tropical plot data has suggested that large-scale

changes in forest dynamics are currently occurring in Amazonia (Phillips and Gentry, 1994; Phillips etal., 2004), and that an increase in aboveground biomass has occurred, with increases in mortalitytending to lag increases in growth (Phillips et al., 1998; Baker et al., 2004a,b; Lewis et al., 2004)."However, they state that this conclusion has recently been challenged by an overzealous application of the "Slow in, Rapid out" dictum, which relates to the fact that f orest growth is a slow process , whereasmortality can be dramatic and singular in tim e, such that sampling over relatively short observationperiods may miss these more severe events, leading to positively-biased estimates of abovegroundbiomass trends, when either no trend or negative trends actually exist. In an effort to bring further lightto this issue, Gloor et al. statistically characterize "the disturbance process in Amazon old-growth forestsas recorded in 135 forest plots of the RAINFOR network up to 2006, and other independent researchprograms, and explore the consequences of sampling artifacts using a data-based stochastic simulator."Results indicated that "over the observed range of annual aboveground biomass losses, standardstatistical tests show that the distribution of biomass losses through mortality follow an exponential ornear-identical Weibull probability distribution and not a power law as assumed by others." In addition,they say that "the simulator was parameterized using both an exponential disturbance probabilitydistribution as well as a mixed exponential-power law distribution to account for potential large-scaleblow-down events," and that " in both cases, sampling biases turn out to be too small to explain thegains detected by the extended RAINFOR plot network."Gloor et al. conclude that their results lend "further support to the notion that currently observedbiomass gains for intact forests across the Amazon are actually occurring over large scales at thecurrent time, presumably as a response to climate change, " which in many of their earlier papers isexplicitly stated to include the aerial fertilization effect of the historical increase in the air's CO2content.


29/53


30/53

CO2 not cause warming -- science

CO2 doesn't affect temperature: science proves

WND 08/20/2007 (World Net Dailey, news organization citing Bryson, chairman of thedepartment of meteorology at U of Wis, and Robert Giegangack, chairman of department of Enviro Science at U Penn, "Sizzling Study Concludes: Global Warming'Hot Air'", http://www.wnd.com/2007/08/43141/)

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwidetemperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, You can go outsideand spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide. Meteorologist Reid Bryson Thatcomment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at theUniversity of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasi ng, but that its got nothing todo with what [hu]man is doing. Of course its going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, beforethe Industrial Revolution, because were coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because were puttingmore carbon dioxide into the air . Anthropogenic ([hu]man- made) global warming bites the dust,declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in thepeer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research. The project, called Heat Ca pacity, Time Constant,and Sensitivity of Earths Climate System, was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist StephenSchwartz. Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollarstrying to avoid a warming o f (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D., Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works Sunday. He was referring to the massive expendituresthat would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol. Previously, I have indicated that thewidely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e.2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase, he added. Brysons

and Wilsons comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, [hu]man-madeglobal warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works. Another leader, Ivy League geologist RobertGiegengack , chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesnt even consider global warming among the top 10 environmentalproblems. In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I dont think itmakes it into the top 10 , he said. *Former Vice President Al Gore+ claims that temperature increasessolely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the suns heat. Thats just wrong Its a naturalinterplay. As tem perature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. Its hard for us to say CO2 drivestemperature. Its easier to say temperature drives CO2. Gore made and stars in a film aboutpurported global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, that won an Oscar. It has bec ome mandatory forstudents in many high schools and colleges. border=0> Former Vice President Al Gore wrote and starsin An Inconvenient Truth However, the studies assembled by Inhofes team said thats not necessarilyso, according to the scientists. If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldnt see theeffects of that for generations , Giegengack said. Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere byvolume (0.038 percent), said meteorologist Joseph DAlea, the first director of meteorology at TheWeather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Societys Committee on WeatherAnalysis and Forecast. Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amountwe emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago . Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus


31/53

0.45 percent per year), he said. We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere . If theatmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent tothe linoleum on the first floor. Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting thefear of [hu]man- made climate changes are playing the childrens game to scare each other . By theend of the (CO2) doubling, i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time Schwartzand others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only a typical fluctuation that occurs within fourmonths and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to , Motl explained. JoelSchwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, theres hardly any additional warming in thepipeline from previous greenhouse gas emissions . This is in contrast to the IPCC , which predicts thatthe Earths average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse g as concentrations stopped increasing, he added. Along with dozens of other studies inthe scientific literature, *this+ new study belies Al Gores claim that there is no legitimate scholarlyalternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartzs re sults are correct, that alone would beenough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCCs scientific consensus, the environmentalists climatehysteria , and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular withthe world s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone inthe mainstream media notice? AEIs Schwartz concluded. The Senate committee assessment said 2007could go down in history as the tipping point of [hu]man- made global warming fears. MeteorologistJoseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said global warming is disintegrating. A few monthsago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientistsconcluded that the real global warming wont start until 2009, Conklin wrote.

Co2 does not cause warming: studies prove

Allegre et al, Jan 27 2012 (Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of

the Earth, University of Paris; ******= see the file notes for the other quals, "No Needto Panic About Global Warming",http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)

The lack of warming for more than a decade indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 cancause . Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat fromwarming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to beascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant . CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled athigh concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do somuch better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations byfactors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved whenCO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties , chemicalfertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of thepast century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html


32/53

Top Scientists agree: warming isn't real

AFP, Sept 15 2011 (AFP staff writers, cites Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever, "", Nobal

physicist quits US group over climate stance",http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Nobel_physicist_quits_US_group_over_climate_stance_999.html )

Norwegian physicist and Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever has quit a major US physics society due to its stance onglobal warming , a spokeswoman for the group told AFP Thursday. " I can confirm he has resigned," American Physical Societyspokeswoman Tawanda Johnson said, noting that Giaever, 82, sent a letter to that effect to thegroup's executive director Kate Kirby on Tuesday. " His reason is that he takes issue with APS's stance onclimate change." The APS, which is a member organ ization of 48,000, adopted a national po licy statement in 2007 which states: "The evidence isincontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." Last year another climate change skeptic, University of California professor Hal Lewis, left the group, claiming global warming was a "scam" and a

"pseudoscientific fraud ." In a statement issued after Lewis's departure, APS said that "on the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputablescientists agree... carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity." Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics for his "experimental discoveries regardingtunneling phenomena in semiconductors," did not respond to an AFP email requesting comment. Johnson stressed that Giaever's position represented the minority in the scientificcommunity, and that while APS is "disappointed" at his departure it does not intend to change its position. "We don't have members resigning in droves or anything like that," she said.


33/53

CO2 not cause warming -- empirics

CO2 has no effect on the environment: empirics prove

Robinson et al, 2007 (Arthur Robinson founded the Oregon Institute of Science andMedicine aswell as a Republican Candidate for Congress, Noah Robinson, Willie Soonis an astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of theHarvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "Environmental Effects of IncreasedAtmospheric Carbon Dioxide",http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php)

While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 hashad no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length. While Figure 1is illustrative of most geographical locations, there is great variability of temperature records withlocation and regional climate. Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records confirm theprincipal features of Figure 1, including the fact that the current Earth temperature is approximately 1C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (11,12). Surfacetemperatures in the United States during the past century reflect this natural warming trend and itscorrelation with solar activity , as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Compiled U.S. surface temperatures haveincreased about 0.5 C per century, which is consistent with other historical values of 0.4 to 0.5 C percentury during the recovery from the Little Ice Age (13-17). T his temperature change is slight ascompared with other natural variations , as shown in Figure 6. Three intermediate trends are evident,including the decreasing trend used to justify fears of "global cooling" in the 1970s. Between 1900 and2000, on absolute scales of solar irradiance and degrees Kelvin, solar activity increased 0.19%, while a0.5 C temperature change is 0.21%. This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth's temperature

would be reduced by 0.6 C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2% (18) Solar activity and U.S.surface temperature are closely correlated, as shown in Figure 5, but U.S. surface temperature andworld hydrocarbon use are not correlated , as shown in Figure 13. The U.S. temperature trend is soslight that, were the temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries tooccur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it. During the currentperiod of recovery from the Little Ice Age, the U.S. climate has improved somewhat, with more rainfall,fewer tornados, and no increase in hurricane activity, as illustrated in Figures 7 to 10. Sea level hastrended upward for the past 150 years at a rate of 7 inches per century, with 3 intermediate uptrendsand 2 periods of no increase as shown in Figure 11. These features are confirmed by the glacier recordas shown in Figure 12. If this trend continues as did that prior to the Medieval Climate Optimum, sealevel would be expected to rise about 1 foot during the next 200 years . As shown in Figures 2, 11, and

12, the trends in glacier shortening and sea level rise began a century before the 60-year 6-foldincrease in hydrocarbon use , and have not changed during that increase. Hydrocarbon use could nothave caused these trends.


34/53

CO2 Turn Food Production

CO2 increase results in increased plant production


During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 increase isattributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Figures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13show, however, that human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases intemperature . The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however , had a substantialenvironmental effect. Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants . Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster andlarger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced .The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the pasthalf-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth.

CO2 increases crop yields: experimental data

CO2Science, April 14 2010 (The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Changewas created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on newdevelopments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic andbiological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. Weekly onlinepublication of its CO2 Science magazine, "CO2 is the magic gas that makes plantsgrow", http://www.churchmilitant.tv/cia/04GlobalWarming/15.pdf)

A little under half (typically about 45%) of the dry weight of any plant is carbon, and almost all that Ccame from CO2 in the atmosphere. No wonder plants love more CO2. Trees and bushes can grow outof cracks in rocks because they suck the carbon right out of the air. Likewise hydroponics is onlypossible because the building blocks come from liquid and aerial fertilizer. CO2 is about the only

pollution you can pump around plants and watch them grow faster, stronger, taller and indeedmore resistant to most of the stresses that normally bother a plan t.The team at CO2science grewseedlings for 42 days in chambers of 450ppm (high) and 1270 ppm ( very high) CO2 concentrations.They document the growth of cowpea plants (Vigna unguiculata) via timelapse photography, and showwhat most market gardeners know: more CO2 in the air makes for taller, stronger, faster growingplants . Indeed CO2 is one of the essential nutrients for plants, and is often the thing that limits theirgrowth. Pretty much all the plants on earth grow faster when CO2 levels are higher. In a cornfield theCO2 levels change in the air above the corn, starting at sunrise, as the plants wake up and start


35/53

photosynthesizing, the levels of CO2 begin to fall in the air over the field. Within an hour the levels startto plummet dropping 25% by morning tea time . Somewhere around 200ppm the plants slow downand struggle to grow. Green the deserts?

CO2 is helpful: plants

Happer Jul 2011 (William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics atPrinceton University, "The Truth About Greenhouse Gases",)

As far as green plants are concerned , CO2 is not a pollutant , but part of their daily bread like water,sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of severalthousand ppm, many times higher than now . Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at

higher levels . Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase theconcentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm. Wallis Simpson, the woman for whomKing Edward VIII renounced the British throne, supposedly said, A woman cant be too rich or too thin.But in reality, you can get too much or too little of a good thing. Whether we should be glad or worriedabout increasing levels of CO2 depends on quantitative numbers, not just qualitative considerations. How close is the current atmosphere to the upper or lower limit for CO2? Did we have just the rightconcentration at the preindustrial level of 270 ppm? Reading breathless media reports about CO2pollution and about minimizing our carbon footprints, one might think that the earth cannot havetoo little CO2, as Simpson thought one couldnt be too thin a view which was also overstated , as wehave seen from the sad effects of anorexia in so many young women. Various geo-engineering schemesare being discussed for s crubbing CO2 from the air and cleansing the atmosphere of the pollutant.There is no lower limit for human beings, but there is for human life . We would be perfectly healthy ina world with little or no atmospheric CO2 except that we would have nothing to eat and a few otherminor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm . If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2. The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value . It ispossible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productivetoday than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2. Although humanbeings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit thatwe can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of theair we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and nasa (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2 . As a result of these studies , the Navy recommends an upper limit of about8000 ppm for cruises of ninety day s, and nasa recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days , both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable formissions of only a few days. We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm toavoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people . That is a very widerange , and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end . The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about ppm 2 per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would


36/53


37/53

CO2 Turn AT: Disease

Elevated CO2 increases plant's resistance to disease: experimental data proves

Strengbom and Reich 2006 (Joachim Strengbom and Peter Reich, Strengbom is theAssistant Professor at University of Sweden's Ecology Department, Reich is theRegents Professor, Distinguished McKnight University Professor F.B. Hubachek, Sr.Chair in Forest Ecology and Tree Physiology @ University of Minnesota, "Elevated[CO2] and increased N supply reduce leaf disease and related photosynthetic impactson Soilidago rigida", http://cedarcreek.umn.edu/biblio/fulltext/t2097.pdf )

Our results show that both elevated [CO2 ] and increased N input reduced foliar disease incidence,and therefore reduce the negative impact from disease on photosynthesis in S. rigida. Hence , wefound no support for the hypothesis that elevated [CO2 ] should favor fungal pathogens . Insteadboth disease incidence and severity were lower on plants grown under elevated [CO2 ]. In addition,disease incidence, but not severity was also lower on N fertilized plants. S. rigida grown under elevated[CO2 ] had lower leaf [N] than plants grown under ambient [CO2 ], and our results are in accordancewith other studies that have found reduced pathogen performance following reduced [N] in plantsgrown under elevated [CO2 ] (Thompson and Drake 1994). The results are, thus, also in accordancewith studies that have found increased susceptibility following increased [N] of host plants (Huber andWatson 1974; Nordin et al. 1998; Strengbom et al. 2002) and may be seen as support for the Npredisposition hypothesis.


38/53

CO2 Turn AT: Pests

Co2 solves pestsGleadow, Jul 3 2010 (Radio transcript of Gleadow's speech. Dr Ros Gleadow is the co-

ordinator of the core science unit at Monash on the practice and application of science. She completed a BSc (hons), MSc and PhD in the School of Botany at theUniversity of Melbourne, "How Plants Respond to Increasing Carbon Dioxide",http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/how-plants-respond-to-increasing-carbon-dioxide/3031138)

Yes, what I work on is the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants, and plants increase in efficiencywhen you grow them at high carbon dioxide, and that means they can allocate more resources fordefence against pests, and that's really fantastic for the plants but it's not good for the animals that eatthem.Yes, we've tested this on three different species now and we've found it in all of those . So in fact it's the ratio of protein to cyanide that is the crucial factor . So in some cases the cyanide concentrationstays the same but the protein levels are much lower . And so the way you tolerate cyanide is howmuch protein you also eat. So it's the combination of cyanide and protein .We did clover, which is apasture crop, we've done cassava, which is a major source of calories in Africa, and I've also doneEucalyptus cladocalyx, which is among 23 species of eucalypts that's cyanogenic. And I've justremembered, we have done a fourth one, which is forage sorghum, and that is a different type of plantand doesn't show this kind of response.: Because there are not that many species that contain cyanidein the eucalypts (23 among 700 species), that's unlikely to be a major factor. What will be a bigger factorfor things like koalas and possums and sugar gliders is the decrease in protein and the increase in theother types of defence compounds , such as all kinds of phenolics, like the vanilla type of defencecompounds , and they i ncrease . And that's been found for lots and lots of forest trees , so in that casethat will result in leaves that are no longer able to support those types of animals.


39/53

CO2 Turn AT: Draught

Increased CO2 solves draught: water resistance

CO2Science, April 14 2010 (The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Changewas created to disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on newdevelopments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic andbiological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. Weekly onlinepublication of its CO2 Science magazine, "CO2 is the magic gas that makes plantsgrow", http://www.churchmilitant.tv/cia/04GlobalWarming/15.pdf)

When there is more CO2 in the air, the plan ts dont need as much water . They become more drought resistant. From the CO2Science Biospheric Summary: One of the important ramifications of this CO2-induced increase in plant water use efficiency is the fact that it enables plants to grow and reproducein areas that were previously too dry for them . With consequent increases in ground cover in theseregions, the adverse effects of wind- and water-induced soil erosion are also reduced . Hence , there isa tendency for desertification to be reversed and for vast tracts of previously unproductive land tobecome supportive of more abundant animal life , both above- and below-ground, in what couldappropriately be called a greening of the earth. The mass of plant matter in the world today is about6% higher than it was 20 years ago , according to satellites. The deforestation in South America andSouth Asia is about matched by reforestation in North America, Russia and Europe, and extra CO2 ismaking for more biomass per square meter Due to to days higher CO2 levels, plants on average grow15% faster than they did 200 years ago (and some major cereals grow 40% faster). Higher CO2 levelsare a major part of the green revolution, averting starvation for hundreds of millions of thinking,breathing, human beings.


40/53

AT: Yeild Shift/Harsh Conditions

CO2 Increase solves for yield shifts: requires less land

Idso & Idso 11 (Former Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, Botany& Microbiology @ Arizona State University and PhD from UMinnesota and formerresearch physicist for the Department of Agriculture AND PhD in Geography(Sherwood and Craig, Carbon Dioxide and Earths Future: Pursuing the PrudentPath, Published by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf)

Fortunately, we have a powerful all y in the ongoing rise in the airs CO2 content that can providewhat we cant . Since atmospheric CO2 is the basic food of essentially all plants, the more of itthere is in the air, the bigger and better they grow . For a nominal doubling of the airs CO2concentration, for example, the productivity of earth s herbaceous plants rises by 30 to 50% (Kimball,1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 75% or more (Saxeet al. 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Hence, as the airs CO2 content continues to rise, so too will theland use efficiency of the planet rise right along with it . In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichmenttypically increases plant nutrient use efficiency and plant water use efficiency . Thus, with respect toall three of the major needs noted by Tilman et al. (2002), increases in the airs CO2 content pay hugedividends, help ing to increase agricultural output without the taking of new lands from nature.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdfhttp://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf


41/53

AT: Positive Feedback

Positive Feedback Theory is wrong: satellite data proves ice caps aren't melting

Huff, Feb 12 2012 (Ethan Huff, Huff is a staff writer for NaturalNews and cites Wahr whois a UC prof, "Shock study shows Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice overthe last decade",http://www.naturalnews.com/034940_Himalayan_ice_global_warming.html)

(NaturalNews) [hu]Man-made climate change theory proponents frequently cite claims that ice capsand glaciers all around the world are melting at an alarming rate because of excess carbon dioxide(CO2). But new research published in the journal Nature reveals that, contrary to popular belief, ice capsin the Himalayan mountains and many nearby peaks have not actually melted at all in the past tenyears. Professor John Wahr from the University of Colorado and his team evaluated data collected by apair of satellites known as "Grace" that measured changes in the earth's gravitational pull from 500kilometers (311 miles) up in space. These satellites revealed that ice levels in these high peaks arebasically the same as they were a decade ago, despite the fact that many people still think they aremelting. "I believe this data is the most reliable estimate of global glacier mass balance that has beenproduced to date," Professor Jonathan Bamber, a glaciologist from Bristol University in the U.K., isquoted as saying to the Guardian. "This is a compelling reason to try to understand what is happeningthere better." The reason why many scientists still believe that ice caps and glaciers in these higherelevations are melting has to do with the way data on melting has been collected up until this point .Rather than come from satellite imagery and gravitational analysis, most of the research is based ondata gathered on the ground from just a few glaciers, which fails to take into account the 200,000-or-so glaciers in existence across the globe. At the same time, the researchers claim that lower-level icemelting is still occurring, and that the new findings do not negate existing theories on global warming.

This declaration, however, appears to be more of a politically-charged opinion rather than a hypothesisbased on the facts, as there simply is no concrete evidence that ice caps as a whole are melting anyfaster than usual, or that [hu]man is responsible for causing this if they are . The new study is not theonly one to blow holes in the sacred cow theory of [hu]man-made global warming, either. A reportpublished last summer by Human Events, for instance, revealed that those iconic images of polar bearsdying because of melting ice caps are based on lies. The polar bears observed in the study that wasused to make this claim appear to have actually died from an isolated windstorm , which means thatpolar bears are not necessarily an endangered species

Glacier Melting is natural



42/53


43/53

Ice Age Scenario


44/53

Ice Age Scenario

Ice age is inevitable absent sustained emissions

Whitehouse, 11 Jan 2012 (Dr David Whitehouse is science adviser to the Global WarmingPolicy Foundation think-tank, "Could rising CO2 levels help prevent the next ice age?",http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1338/could-rising-co2-levels-help-prevent-the-next-ice-age)

Some 15,000 years ago , the spot where I am now writing this - Hampshire in England - was uninhabitable . The Arctic tundra that came before the green fields was home to very few animals andno humans. The ice sheet stopped only a few miles north of here, hardly moving for tens of thousandsof years. Today's great cities including Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh were all under akilometre of ice. Such a contrast to today only 15,000 years later. When the ice receded, the trees tookover. It has been said that you would have been able to travel from the most southern to the furthestnorthern point of ancient Britain without touching the ground. That the trees no longer completelycanopy this land is due to [hu]mankind as we cleared the forests. That the ice is no longer here is due toglobal warming . Without doubt, we live in an interglacial period a warm time between ice ag es.There have been many during the current great glaciation . Some have these periods have been warmerthan today , many shorter than our current interglacial's duration . The return of the ice would , short of a giant meteor strike, be the biggest disaster to face humanity . Vast swathes of the northernHemisphere would be frozen . Northern Europe, Asia, Canada and the United States would haveextensive regions rendered uninhabitable. [hu]Mankind would have to move south. There would be nochoice as no technology could stop the ice or allow our high populations to life amongst it. Somebelieve the return of the ice will not happen for thousands of years, other that the signs could be visiblewithin decades. But could it be that the greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmospher e, that

many believe are responsible for a recent warming of the planet, might counteract the forces bringingus a new glaciation ? Could it be that greenhouse gasses might actually stave off the return of the iceand save the lives of tens of millions, if not civilisation itself? A recent study by scientists at CambridgeUniversity and published in the Journal Nature Geoscience suggests that the carbon dioxide mightextend the current interglacial until carbon dioxide levels fall . They believe that the atmosphericconcentration of CO2 must be about 240 parts per million before glaciation could start. Currently, it isabout 390 ppm. In a 1999 essay, Sir Fred Hoyle said: " The renewal of ice-age conditions would render alarge fraction of the world's major food-growing areas inoperable and so would inevitably lead to theextinction of most of the present human population. We must look to a sustained greenhouse effectto maintain the present advantageous world climate . This implies the ability to inject effectivegreenhouse gases into the atmosphere , the opposite of what environmentalists are erroneously

advocating."


45/53

Indicts

warming good utnif 2012

Documents