Download Warming - Amazon Web Services

Impact File – Warming
1/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
IMPACT FILE – WARMING
Impact File – Warming .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
*** Warming Bad *** ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Warming is Anthroprogenic ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Warming is Anthroprogenic ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
U.S. Key to Warming................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Warming Bad – Amazon 1/2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Warming Bad – Amazon 2/2 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Warming Bad – Econ ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Warming Bad – Extinction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Warming Bad – Extinction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Warming Bad – Laundry List .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Warming Bad – Oceans ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Warming Bad – Outweighs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
AT: Climate Change Fake ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
AT: CO2 Fertilization .............................................................................................................................................................................. 15
AT: Ice Age 1/2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
AT: Ice Age 2/2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
AT: SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
AT: Warming Innevitable ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Their Authors Are Biased ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20
*** Warming Good *** ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Warming Impact Defense 1/2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Warming Impact Defense 2/2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Ext #1 – Warming Inevitable ................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Ext #2 – Warming Natural ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Warming Good – Environment ................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Warming Good – Ice Age ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27
Warming Good – Systemic ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28
AT: Warming Bad – Coral Reefs ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
AT: Warming Bad – Oceans .................................................................................................................................................................... 30
AT: Warming Bad – Wars ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Warming Rhetoric Bad – Wasteful Policies ............................................................................................................................................ 32
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
2/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
*** WARMING BAD ***
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
3/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING IS ANTHROPROGENIC
Deal with it—Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing fast global warming.
Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University, 2008
(Richard. Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. Edited by Ernesto Zedillo. “Anthropogenic Climate Change?” Page 42-49)
The first is as follows: global climate is warming. This is by now a
generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so we deal with it only briefly. The two leading compilations of
data measured with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control
procedures, they both show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8°C since the late nineteenth century. Temperatures over
the past ten years clearly were the warmest since measured records have been available. The year 1998 sticks out well above the
longterm trend due to the occurrence of a major El Nino event that year (the last El Nino so far and one of the strongest on record).
These events are examples of the largest natural climate variations on multiyear time scales and, by releasing heat from the ocean,
generally cause positive anomalies in global mean temperature. It is remarkable that the year 2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even
though no El Nino event occurred that year. (A bizarre curiosity, perhaps worth mentioning, is that several prominent "climate skeptics" recently used the extreme year 1998 to claim in the media
that global warming had ended. In Lindzen's words, "Indeed, the absence of any record breakers during the past seven years is statistical evidence that temperatures are not increasing.")33 In addition to the
surface measurements, the more recent portion of the global warming trend (since 1979) is also documented by satellite data. It is not
It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into two parts.
straightforward to derive a reliable surface temperature trend from satellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just near the surface), including the stratosphere, which has strongly cooled,
Current analyses of
these satellite data show trends that are fully consistent with surface measurements and model simulations." If no reliable temperature
measurements existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal mine" of climate change (as
glaciologist Lonnie Thompson puts it) ~are mountain glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from the position of the
terminal moraines heaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat all over the world during the past century.
and the records are not homogeneous' due to the short life span of individual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different times of day, and drifts in instrument calibration.'
There are precious few exceptions, and they are associated with a strong increase in precipitation or local cooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and New
Zealand. As glaciers respond sensitively to temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers have been used to reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past four centuries (see figure 3-4).
Cores drilled in tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that is unprecedented at least throughout the Holocene-the past 10,000
years. Another powerful sign of warming, visible clearly from satellites, is the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover (figure 3-5), which has
declined 20 percent since satellite observations began in 1979. While climate clearly became warmer in the twentieth century, much discussion particularly in the popular media has
focused on the question of how "unusual" this warming is in a longer-term context. While this is an interesting question, it has often been mixed incorrectly with the question of causation. Scientifically, how unusual recent
warming is-say, compared to the past millennium-in itself contains little information about its cause. Even a highly unusual warming could have a natural cause (for example, an exceptional increase in solar activity). And
even a warming within the bounds of past natural variations could have a predominantly anthropogenic cause. I come to the question of causation shortly, after briefly visiting the evidence for past natural climate variations.
Records from the time before systematic temperature measurements were collected are based on "proxy data," coming from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and other sources. These proxy data are generally linked to local
temperatures in some way, but they may be influenced by other parameters as well (for example, precipitation), they may have a seasonal bias (for example, the growth season for tree rings), and high-quality long records are
difficult to obtain and therefore few in number and geographic coverage. Therefore, there is still substantial uncertainty in the evolution of past global or hemispheric temperatures. (Comparing only local or regional
temperature; as in Europe, is of limited value for our purposes,' as regional variations can be much larger than global ones and can have many regional causes, unrelated to global-scale forcing and climate change.) The first
quantitative reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an error estimation, was presented by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes and rightly highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report as one
of the major new findings since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.39 The analysis suggests that, despite the large error bars, twentieth-century warming is indeed highly unusual and probably was unprecedented during
the past millennium. This result, presumably because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, to some extent in scientific journals, but even more so in the popular media. The hockey stick-shaped curve became a
symbol for the IPCC,.and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question the credibility of the IPCC. Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, even if
the scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into question the very cautious conclusion drawn by the IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy data for the
Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the twentieth century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years." This conclusion has since been supported further by every
single one of close to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are shown in figure 3-6). Second, by far the most serious scientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a mistake. 40 The
prominent paper of von Storch and others, which claimed (based on a model test) that the method of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes systematically underestimated variability, "was [itself] based on incorrect implementation of
the reconstruction procedure."41 With correct implementation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the one used by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes have been shown to perform well in similar model tests. Third,
whether their reconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis underestimated past natural climate variability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus a lesser concern
about the consequences of our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it would point to a larger climate sensitivity. While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply in practice to the climate sensitivity estimates
discussed herein or to the range given by IPCC, since these did not use the reconstruction of Mann, Hughes, and Bradley or any other proxy records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto Protocol"
had been called into question were therefore misinformed. As an aside, the protocol was agreed in 1997, before the reconstruction in question even existed. The overheated public debate on this topic has, at least, helped to
attract more researchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its methodology has advanced significantly, and a number of new reconstructions have been presented in recent years. While the science has moved
forward, the first seminal reconstruction by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley has held up remarkably well, with its main features reproduced by more recent work. Further progress probably will require substantial amounts of new
Developing these data sets will require time and substantial effort.
It is time to address the final statement: most of the observed warming over the past fifty years is anthropogenic. A large number of
studies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue, which is generally called the "attribution problem." I do not
discuss the exact share of the anthropogenic contribution (although this is an interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more
than 50 percent.” The first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course, that the magnitude of the warming is what is expected from the
anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so anthropogenic forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise. As
discussed here, the rise in greenhouse gases alone corresponds to 2.6 W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed
0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would Cause 1.6°C of warming since preindustrial times for medium climate sensitivity (3"C). With a
proxy data, rather than further refinement of the statistical techniques pioneered by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley.
current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected warming is O.8°c. The point here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number-this is fortuitous because the amount of aerosol' forcing is still very'
uncertain-but that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubt that the anthropogenic forcing is large enough to explain most of the warming.
Rhamstorf Continues…
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
4/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING IS ANTHROPROGENIC
Rhamstorf Continues…
Depending on aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more
warming than has been observed (leaving room for natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The second important piece
of evidence is clear: there is no viable alternative explanation. In the scientific literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has been
proposed to explain the observed global warming. Other possible causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or
orbital cycles, are well observed, but they do not show trends capable of explaining the observed warming. Since 1978, solar irradiance has been
measured directly from satellites and shows the well-known eleven-year solar cycle, but no trend. There are various estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers, solar cycle length, the
geomagnetic AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate that solar activity probably increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation in previous centuries, different
authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last sixty-five years. Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other factors mentioned. Models driven by natural factors
only, leaving the anthropogenic forcing aside, show a cooling in the second half of the twentieth century (for an example, See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of natural forcings is
downward.
The only way out would be either some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend that arises by chance from an
unforced internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be completely ruled out, but has to be considered highly unlikely.
No evidence in the observed record, proxy data, or current models suggest that such internal variability could cause a sustained trend
of global warming of the observed magnitude. As discussed, twentieth century warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years (or
even 2,000 years, as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the idea of large internal
fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic activity) and thus appear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability." And indeed, it would
be difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the fundamental physical law of energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat around different parts of the climate system-for
example, the large El Nino event of 1998, which warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This mechanism implies that the ocean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms. For past decades, as
discussed, we observed the atmosphere warming and the ocean heat content increasing, which rules out heat release from the ocean as a cause of surface warming. The heat content of the whole climate system is increasing,
and there is no plausible source of this heat other than the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. ' A completely different approach to attribution is to analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in so-called
fingerprint studies, which associate particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced climate change differs from the pattern of a change caused by greenhouse gases.
Such studies have
used different data sets and have been performed by different groups of researchers with different statistical methods. They
consistently conclude that the observed spatial pattern of warming can only be explained by greenhouse gases.49 Overall, it has to be
considered, highly likely' that the observed warming is indeed predominantly due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases. '
This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on climate,
finding that this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points to a CO2 effect on
climate of 3C ± 1.59C global-warming for a doubling of concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC range; my personal assessment is
that, in-the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the uncertainty range can now be narrowed somewhat to
3°C ± 1.0C) This is based on consistent results from theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence-of any computer
models, the same result would still hold based on physics and on data from climate history alone. Considering the plethora of
consistent evidence, the chance that these conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is accepted, then it follows logically and
For example, a characteristic of greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that, unlike solar variability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter, and at night.
incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming. The magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior, but the climatic response to various emissions scenarios can be
computed from the information presented here. The result is the famous range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps are involved in these computations: the consideration of
anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are not discussed here, although they are important to get
quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing. Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that ocean and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the
past. This could turn out to be an optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing climatic stress. It is clear
that even in the more optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3°C above its preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an
extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As far as the data show, we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable temperatures.
The rate of this warming (which is important for the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time. The last major global warming trend occurred when the last great
Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago: this was a warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1 °C per century. 52
The expected magnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risk and impacts in terms of sea level rise (Pliocene sea level was 25-35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets), extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem loss.
The second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed what is known about its causes. This part showed that global warming is already a measured and-well-established fact,
not a theory. Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most of the observed warming of the past fifty years was caused by human activity. Above all, this warming is exactly what would be expected given the
anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific literature.
Taken together., the very strong evidence accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the past decades convinced virtually every climatologist around the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical,
including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is a reality with which we need to deal.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
5/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
U.S. KEY TO WARMING
The U.S. emits most of the world’s CO2
James E. Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute and professor of Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, 2008
(Briefing before the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, US House of Representatives. “Twenty years later:
tipping points near on global warming,” http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf)
The fossil industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as
scapegoats to rationalise inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a
nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed
limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean
air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and
dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary,
import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.
We produce a quarter of the world’s emissions
CTA, 9/29/2004, “Gasoline Cost Externalities Associated With Global Climate Change”, International Center for Technology
Assessment, (http://www.icta.org/doc/global%20warming%20rpg%20update.pdf)
Estimates of the cost of global warming used for this report are based only on U.S. emissions and the resulting domestic externalities.
Obviously this narrow estimate of the costs of climate change ignores the significant impact of U.S. emissions on the rest of the world.
The United States produces approximately a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, even though the country’s population is
less than 5% of the world total. Automobiles and other gasoline-powered vehicles account for more than 21% of U.S. CO2 emissions5
and more than 17% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.6 If China, for example, with almost one quarter of the world’s population
and already in the grip of a severe environmental pollution crisis, were to match the per capita gasoline usage of the United States, the
implications for global warming would be catastrophic. Americans continue to waste energy and emit greenhouse gases as if there
were no climatic or environmental costs. U.S. political leaders have failed to recognize the long-term implications and communicate
with industry and the public in order to formulate responsible energy and transportation policies.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
6/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – AMAZON 1/2
Climate change will destroy the Amazon rainforest – That will kill biodiversity and supercharge the rate of warming.
Pearce 2007 (Fred, Environmental consultant and BEMA environment journalist of the year) “With speed and violence: why scientists fear tipping points in climate
change”, p. 63-66
The Amazon rainforest is the largest living reservoir of carbon dioxide one land surface of Earth. Its trees contain some 77 billion
tons of carbon, and its soils perhaps as much again. That is about twenty years' worth of an-made emissions from burning fossil fuels. The rainforest is
also an engine of the world's climate system, recycling both heat and moisture. More than half of the raindrops that fall on the forest canopy never reach the round;
instead they evaporate back into the air to produce more rain downwind. The forest needs the rain, but the rain also needs the forest. But as scientists come to
understand the importance of the Amazon for maintaining climate, they are also discovering that it may itself be under threat from climate change. We
are familiar enough with the damage done to the world's biggest and lushest jungle by farmers armed with chain saws and firebrands. But, hard as they try, they
can destroy the rainforest only slowly. Despite many decades of effort, most of this jungle, the size of Western Europe, remains
intact. Climate change, on the other hand, could overwhelm it in a few years. Until recently, many ecologists have thought of the Amazon
rainforest much as their glaciologist colleagues conceived of the Greenland ice sheet: as big and extremely stable. The Greenland ice maintained the climate that
kept the ice securely frozen, while the Amazon rainforest maintained the rains that watered the forest. Bur, just as with the Greenland ice sheet, the idea that the
Amazon is stable has taken a knock: some researchers believe that it is in reality a very dynamic place, and that the entire ecosystem may
be close to a tipping point beyond which it will suffer runaway destruction in an orgy of fire and drought. Nobody is quite sure what would
happen if the Amazon rainforest disappeared. It would certainly give an extra kick to climate change by releasing its stores of
carbon dioxide. It would most likely diminish rainfall in Brazil. It might also change weather systems right across the Northern
Hemisphere. One man who is trying to find out how unstable the Amazon rainforest might be is Dan Nepstad, a forest ecologist nominally attached to the
Woods Hole Research Center, in Massachusetts, but based for more than two decades in the Amazon. He doesn't just watch the forest: he conducts large
experiments within it. In 200 I, Nepstad began creating a man-made drought in a small patch of jungle in the Tapajos National Forest, outside the river port of
Santarem. Although in most years much of the Amazon has rain virtually every day, Tapajos is on the eastern fringe of the rainforest proper, where weather cycles
can shut down the rains for months. The forest here is, to some extent, adapted to drought. But there are limits, and Nepstad has been trying to find out where they
lie. He has covered the 2.5-acre plot with more than 5,000 transparent plastic panels, which let in the sunlight but divert the rain into wooden gutters that drain to
canals and a moat. Meanwhile, high above the forest canopy, he has erected gantries linked by catwalks, so that he can study the trees in detail as the artificial
drought progresses. The work was all done by hand to avoid damaging the dense forest, and the scientists soon found they were not alone. The canals became
"congregating places for every kind of snake you can imagine," says Nepstad. Caimans and jaguars cruised by, just, it seemed, to find out what was going on. The
results were worth the effort. The forest, it turns out, can handle two years of drought without great trouble. The trees extend their roots deeper to find water and
slow their metabolism to conserve water. But after that, the trees start dying. Beginning with the tallest, they come crashing down, releasing carbon to the air as'
they rot, and exposing the forest floor to the drying sun. By the third year, the plot was storing only about 2 tons of carbon, whereas a neighboring control plot, on
which rain continued to fall, held close to 8 tons. The "lock was broken" on a corner of one of the planet's great carbon stores. The study shows that the Amazon is
"headed in a terrible direction," wrote the ecologist Deborah Clark, of the University of Missouri, discussing the findings in Science. "Given that droughts in the
Amazon are projected to increase in several climate models, the implications for these rich ecosystems are grim." Everywhere in the jungle, drought is followed by
fire. So, in early 2005, Nepstad started an even more audacious experiment. He set fire to another stretch of forest with kerosene torches. "We want to know if
recurring fire may threaten the very existence of the forest." he says. The initial findings were not good: the fires crept low along the forest floor, and no huge
flames burst through the canopy. The fire may even have been invisible to the satellites that keep a constant watch overhead. But many trees died nonetheless, as
their bark scorched and the flow of sap from their roots was stanched. Nepstad's experiments are part of a huge international effort to monitor the health of the
Amazon, called the Large-scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia. From planes and satellites and gantries above the jungle, researchers from a
dozen countries have been sniffing the forest's breath and assessing its survival strategies. The current estimate is that fires in the forest are releasing some 200
million tons of carbon a year—far more than is absorbed by the growing forest. The Amazon has become a significant source of carbon dioxide, adding to global
warming. More worrying still, the experiment is discovering a drying trend across the Amazon that leaves it ever more vulnerable to fires. Nepstad's work suggests
that beyond a certain point, the forest will be unable to recover from the fires, and will begin a process of rapid drying that he calls the "savannization" of the
Amazon. And even as he concluded his drought experiment, nature seemed to replicate it. The rains failed across the Amazon through 2005, killing
trees, triggering fires, and reducing the ability of the forest to recycle moisture in future—thus increasing the risk of future drought. Nepstad's
experiments suggest that the rainforest is close to the edge—to permanent drought, rampant burning, savannization, or worse. In the final weeks of 2005,
the rains returned. The forest may recover this time. But if future climate change causes significant drying that lasts from one year
to the next, feedbacks in the forest could realize Nepstad’s worst fears . The 2005 drought was caused by extremely warm temperatures in the
tropical Atlantic-the same high temperatures that are believed to have caused the record-breaking hurricane season that year. The rising air that triggered the
hurricanes eventually came back to earth, suppressing the formation of storm clouds over the Amazon. And, as I discovered at Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction, that is precisely what climate modelers are forecasting for future decades. The Hadley Centre's global climate model is generally regarded as one of the
world's top three. And it predicts that business-as-usual increases in industrial carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in the coming decades
will generate warmer sea temperatures, subjecting the Amazon to repeated droughts, and thus creating "threshold conditions"
beyond which fires will take hold. The Amazon rainforest will be dead before the end of the century. Not partly dead, or sick, but dead and gone. "The
region will be able to support only shrubs or grass at most," said a study published by the Hadley Centre in 2005. Not all models agree about that. But the Hadley model is the best at reproducing the current relationship
between ocean temperatures and Amazon rainfall, so it has a good chance of being right about the future too. Nepstad himself predicts that a "megafire event" will spread across the region. As areas in the more
vulnerable eastern rainforest die, they will cease to recycle moisture back into the atmosphere to provide rainfall downwind. A wave of aridity will travel west, creating the conditions for fire to rip through the heart of
With the trees gone, the thin soils will bake in the sun. Rainforest could literally turn to desert. The Hadley forecast includes a
graph of the Amazon's forest's future carbon. It predicts that the store of a steady 77 billion tons over the past half century will shrink to 44 billion tons by 2050
and 16.5 billion tons by the end of the century. That, it calculates, would be enough to increase the expected rate of warming worldwide by at
the jungle.
least 50 percent.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
7/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – AMAZON 2/2
Destruction of the Amazon causes extinction
Takacs 96 (David, Professor of environmental humanities at the Institute for Earth Systems Science and Policy at Cal state,) “The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies
of Paradise,” p. 200-201
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value of
biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and
human futures: “It is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes in global
climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain heavily dependent on food.
By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could have entrained famines in which a billion
human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish
civilization.” 13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama: What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues?
Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change, soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more
serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will
increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from
respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly)
will be unimportant. Humanity will bring upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a
nuclear conflict, it appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.14
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
8/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – ECON
Climate change crushes the global economy
ENS 8 [Environmental News Service, cites the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research think-tank, and former World Bank
chief economist Lord Nicholas Stern, State of the World 2008: Environmental Woes Sow Seeds of Sustainability, http://www.ensnewswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-10-10.asp]
Concern about environmental degradation is beginning to impact the global economy, according to a new report by an international
environmental research group. The Worldwatch Institute details a lengthy and distressing list of environmental problems caused by the
global economic system, but finds some evidence that the world is taking small steps toward a sustainable future. "There are early
signs that a vibrant, new sustainable economy is just beginning to be created," Worldwatch president Christopher Flavin told reporters
Wednesday at the launch of the organization's annual "State of the World" report. The report details how the conventional economic
system is inherently self-destructive, failing to take into account the damage done to the environment by a wide range of human
activities that create wealth. But it suggests that is beginning to change. The world's leading corporations and investors are beginning
to realize "the tremendous risks" that environmental degradation and climate change pose, Flavin explained, and starting to respond to
growing demand for greener policies and technologies. The report estimates that more than $100 billion of annual investment is
directly related to environmental concerns. Some $52 billion was invested in renewable energy in 2006, according to figures in the
report, a 33 percent rise from 2005. That figure seems to have jumped to $66 billion last year, Worldwatch says, and is set to rise
again this year. The report also estimates carbon markets tripled in 2006 to some $30 billion. The report notes that major corporations
have taken significant steps to improve their environmental performance - largely because they have realized it is a way to save
money. "Reducing wastes typically means reducing costs and companies are increasingly finding this out," said Gary Gardner, one of
the report's lead authors. Gardner highlighted how chemical giant DuPont has cut its greenhouse gas emissions some 72 percent in the
past 16 years and saved $3 billion in the process. "Those numbers talk … and get the attention of businesses," Gardner said at
Wednesday's press briefing in Washington DC. Clean technology is now the third largest recipient of venture capital, the report says,
and new renewable energy laws and climate policies in China and Europe will "ensure these kinds of investments will continue to
flow for many years to come." Furthermore, a majority of the world's largest banks have endorsed new sustainable investment
principles and many have announced major investments to tackle environmental concerns, according to the report. "Innovative ideas
and big money are a powerful combination," Worldwatch says, "and the sums now moving in a green direction are eye-popping."
Financial giant Citigroup pledged $50 billion last year to address climate change over the next decade, the report notes, and Goldman
Sachs invested $1.5 billion in renewable energy technologies in 2006. "An extraordinary wave of innovation is being released," Flavin
told reporters. "There has been a real awakening in the past two years … Can this wave of innovation be accelerated to the point
where we have a chance of turning around the huge environmental challenges that we now face?" "The only honest answer," he said,
"is that the jury is still out." The 2008 State of the World report is Worldwatch's 25th annual assessment of global environmental
conditions. Although it offers an upbeat message about green innovation, much of the report presents a sobering and worrying
assessment of the state of the world's environment, highlighting how economic indicators currently fail to adequately consider
environmental degradation. Nowhere is this more evident than climate change, the report's authors note, citing former World Bank
chief economist Lord Nicholas Stern's comment that the impacts of rising greenhouse gases caused by human activities represent "the
greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen." In the "Stern Review," a report issued in October 2006, Stern warned that
unabated climate change will cause profound impacts to societies and ecosystems across the planet and could cost the world five to 20
percent of gross domestic product, GDP, annually. The market failure described by Stern is one "the global economy is not prepared
to cope with and that most of today's economic analysis is not able to understand," according to Flavin. In fact, widely used economic
indicators such as GDP fail to consider how nature benefits humanity, the report explains, or the economic costs of environmental
degradation, whether it be unsustainable logging, air pollution or adverse impacts to water quality. That must change, Flavin declared.
"Continued human progress now depends on an economic transformation that is more profound than any seen in the last century,"
Flavin said. "We should be practicing a sustainable approach to economics that takes advantage of the ability of markets to allocate
scarce resources while explicitly recognizing that our economy is dependent on the broader ecosystem that contains it." A growing
number of countries are beginning to consider and implement "green accounting programs," but Worldwatch acknowledges that the
influence of such programs is still limited. Charting course to a sustainable economy is a daunting task, Flavin told reporters, but one
that humanity must embrace. "Whether this transition occurs rapidly enough to avoid a breakdown of the global economic system and
the unravelling of political systems is," he said, "the single largest challenge facing the world today."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
9/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – EXTINCTION
Warming causes extinction.
Morgan, Professor of Current Affairs and Public Speaking, December ’09 (Dennis, Hankuk U., Futures, “World on fire: two
scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race”, 41:10, ScienceDirect)
As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire may seem, the one consolation is that this
future can be avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsible world leaders change Cold War thinking to move away from aggressive wars over natural resources and
towards the eventual dismantlement of most if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another scenario of human extinction by fire is one that may not so easily be
reversed within a short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fire is gradually heating up the planet as industrial civilization progresses and develops globally. This gradual process
and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed, even if responsible world leaders change their thinking about ‘‘progress’’ and industrial development based on the burning of fossil fuels. The way that global
warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of the proverbial frog in a pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water is gradually rising. Instead of trying to
escape, the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilitated. Though it finally realizes its predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble
attempt is to no avail— and the frog dies.
Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in heated water or not is irrelevant; it still serves as a comparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a runaway condition and
take humanity by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time the politicians finally all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is indeed human caused, its development could be too advanced to arrest; the poor frog
has become too weak and enfeebled to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations
Environmental Programme to ‘‘assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced
climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.’’[16]. Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all prior
assessments came attacks fromsome parts of the scientific community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove that the theory had no basis in planetary history and present-day reality; nevertheless, as more
andmore research continually provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming hypothesis, that it is indeed human-caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific consensus grew
global warming is verifiable. As a matter of fact, according to Bill McKibben [17], 12 years of ‘‘impressive
scientific research’’ strongly confirms the 1995 report ‘‘that humans had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for
energy that they were now damaging the most basic of the earth’s systems—the balance between incoming and outgoing solar
energy’’; ‘‘. . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report – a constant strengthening of the simple basic
truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel.’’ [17]. Indeed, 12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming,
with a stronger scientific consensus that the slow burn is ‘‘very likely’’ human caused, but it also finds that the ‘‘amount of
carbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a faster rate even than before’’ and the temperature increases would be
‘‘considerably higher than they have been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution that is temporarily helping to
cool the planet.’’ [17]. Furthermore, almost ‘‘everything frozen on earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since
the air is warmer and therefore holds more water than cold air, and ‘cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while
hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.’’ [17]. Unless drastic action is taken soon, the average global
temperature is predicted to rise about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced in recent years,
stronger that human induced
the rise in global temperature is melting the Arctic sheets. This runaway polar melting will inflict great damage upon coastal areas, which could be much greater than what has been previously forecasted. However, what is
missing in the IPCC report, as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but still plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have the most devastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term
future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report places too much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account of the dynamics of systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally different
premise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As a matter of fact, as early as the 1950s, Hannah Arendt [18] observed this radical shift of emphasis in the human-nature relationship, which
starkly contrasts with previous times because the very distinction between nature and man as ‘‘Homo faber’’ has become blurred, as man no longer merely takes from nature what is needed for fabrication; instead, he now acts
into nature to augment and transform natural processes, which are then directed into the evolution of human civilization itself such that we become a part of the very processes that we make. The more human civilization
becomes an integral part of this dynamic system, the more difficult it becomes to extricate ourselves from it. As Arendt pointed out, this dynamism is dangerous because of its unpredictability. Acting into nature to transform
natural processes brings about an . . . endless new change of happenings whose eventual outcome the actor is entirely incapable of knowing or controlling beforehand. The moment we started natural processes of our own and the splitting of the atom is precisely such a man-made natural process -we not only increased our power over nature, or became more aggressive in our dealings with the given forces of the earth, but for the first time have
taken nature into the human world as such and obliterated the defensive boundaries between natural elements and the human art ifice by which all previous civilizations were hedged in’’ [18]. So, in as much as we act into
nature, we carry our own unpredictability into our world; thus, Nature can no longer be thought of as having absolute or iron-clad laws. We no longer know what the laws of nature are because the unpredictability of Nature
increases in proportion to the degree by which industrial civilization injects its own processes into it; through selfcreated, dynamic, transformative processes, we carry human unpredictability into the future with a precarious
recklessness that may indeed end in human catastrophe or extinction, for elemental forces that we have yet to understand may be unleashed upon us by the very environment that we experiment with. Nature may yet have her
the Earth and its delicate ecosystems, environment, and atmosphere reach a tipping point, which could turn out to be
a point of no return. This is exactly the conclusion reached by the scientist, inventor, and author, James Lovelock. The creator of the
wellknown yet controversial Gaia Theory, Lovelock has recently written that it may be already too late for humanity to change course
since climate centers around the world, . . . which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s
physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as
100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are
in grave danger. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and
soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years.
We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in
temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer
serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. . . . Curiously, aerosol
pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This ‘global dimming’ is transient
and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a
fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of
people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. [19] Moreover, Lovelock states that the task of trying to
correct our course is hopelessly impossible, for we are not in charge. It is foolish and arrogant to think that we can regulate the
atmosphere, oceans and land surface in order to maintain the conditions right for life. It is as impossible as trying to regulate
your own temperature and the composition of your blood, for those with ‘‘failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of
adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys’’ [19].
[continues]
revenge and the last word, as
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
10/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – EXTINCTION
[continued]
Lovelock concludes his analysis on the fate of human civilization and Gaia by saying that we will do ‘‘our best to survive, but sadly I
cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of
emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate’’ [19]. Lovelock’s forecast for climate change
is based on a systems dynamics analysis of the interaction between humancreated processes and natural processes. It is a
multidimensional model that appropriately reflects the dynamism of industrial civilization responsible for climate change. For one
thing, it takes into account positive feedback loops that lead to ‘‘runaway’’ conditions. This mode of analysis is consistent with recent research on how ecosystems
suddenly disappear. A 2001 article in Nature, based on a scientific study by an international consortium, reported that changes in ecosystems are not just gradual but are often sudden and catastrophic [20]. Thus, a scientific
consensus is emerging (after repeated studies of ecological change) that ‘‘stressed ecosystems, given the right nudge, are capable of slipping rapidly from a seemingly steady state to something entirely different,’’ according to
Stephen Carpenter, a limnologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (who is also a co-author of the report). Carpenter continues, ‘‘We realize that there is a common pattern we’re seeing in ecosystems around the world,
. . . Gradual changes in vulnerability accumulate and eventually you get a shock to the system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, you’re over into another regime. It becomes a self-sustaining collapse.’’ [20]. If ecosystems are
in fact mini-models of the system of the Earth, as Lovelock maintains, then we can expect the same kind of behavior. As Jonathon Foley, a UW-Madison climatologist and another co-author of the Nature report, puts it,
‘‘Nature isn’t linear. Sometimes you can push on a system and push on a system and, finally, you have the straw that breaks the camel’s back.’’ Also, once the ‘‘flip’’ occurs, as Foley maintains, then the catastrophic change
is ‘‘irreversible.’’ [20]. When we expand this analysis of ecosystems to the Earth itself, it’s frightening. What could be the final push on a stressed system that could ‘‘break the camel’s back?’’ Recently, another factor has
been discovered in some areas of the arctic regions, which will surely compound the problem of global ‘‘heating’’ (as Lovelock calls it) in unpredictable and perhaps catastrophic ways. This disturbing development, also
reported in Nature, concerns the permafrost that has locked up who knows how many tons of the greenhouse gasses, methane and carbon dioxide. Scientists are particularly worried about permafrost because, as it thaws, it
releases these gases into the atmosphere, thus, contributing and accelerating global heating. It is a vicious positive feedback loop that compounds the prognosis of global warming in ways that could very well prove to be the
Borenstein of the Associated Press describes this disturbing positive feedback loop of permafrost greenhouse
gasses, as when warming ‘‘. already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years.
Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the
greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on.’’ [21]. The significance and severity of this problem cannot be understated since scientists have
tipping point of no return. Seth
discovered that ‘‘the amount of carbon trapped in this type of permafrost called ‘‘yedoma’’ is much more prevalent than originally thought and may be 100 times [my emphasis] the amount of carbon released into the air each
year by the burning of fossil fuels’’ [21]. Of course, it won’t come out all at once, at least by time as we commonly reckon it, but in terms of geological time, the ‘‘several decades’’ that scientists say it will probably take to
come out can just as well be considered ‘‘all at once.’’ Surely, within the next 100 years, much of the world we live in will be quite hot and may be unlivable, as Lovelock has predicted. Professor Ted Schuur, a professor of
ecosystem ecology at the University of Florida and co-author of the study that appeared in Science, describes it as a ‘‘slow motion time bomb.’’ [21]. Permafrost under lakes will be released as methane while that which is
under dry ground will be released as carbon dioxide. Scientists aren’t sure which is worse. Whereas methane is a much more powerful agent to trap heat, it only lasts for about 10 years before it dissipates into carbon dioxide
or other chemicals. The less powerful heat-trapping agent, carbon dioxide, lasts for 100 years [21]. Both of the greenhouse gasses present in permafrost represent a global dilemma and challenge that compounds the effects of
global warming and runaway climate change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it, is that there are ‘‘lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off’’ [21].14 In an
accompanying AP article, Katey Walters of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks describes the effects as ‘‘huge’’ and, unless we have a ‘‘major cooling,’’ - unstoppable [22]. Also, there’s so much more that has not even
. Is it the end of human civilization and possible extinction of humankind?
What Jonathon Schell wrote concerning death by the fire of nuclear holocaust also applies to the slow burning death of global
warming: Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither
been discovered yet, she writes: ‘‘It’s coming out a lot and there’s a lot more to come out.’’ [22]. 4
we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of
it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species [23].15 When we consider that beyond the
, even
if some small remnant does manage to survive, what the poisonous environmental conditions would have on human evolution in the
future. A remnant of mutated, sub-human creatures might survive such harsh conditions, but for all purposes, human
civilization has been destroyed, and the question concerning human extinction becomes moot. Thus, we have no other choice but
to consider the finality of it all, as Schell does: ‘‘Death lies at the core of each person’s private existence, but part of death’s meaning
is to be found in the fact that it occurs in a biological and social world that survives.’’ [23].16 But what if the world itself were to
perish, Schell asks. Would not it bring about a sort of ‘‘second death’’ – the death of the species – a possibility that the vast majority
of the human race is in denial about? Talbot writes in the review of Schell’s book that it is not only the ‘‘death of the species, not
just of the earth’s population on doomsday, but of countless unborn generations. They would be spared literal death but would nonetheless be victims . . .’’ [23]. That
horror of nuclear war, another horror is set into motion to interact with the subsequent nuclear winter to produce a poisonous and super heated planet, the chances of human survival seem even smaller. Who knows
is the ‘‘second death’’ of humanity – the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there are no prospects – that there will be no future. In the second chapter of Schell’s book, he writes that since we have not made a positive
decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have ‘‘chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one of uncertainty and nervous
. Will we relinquish the fire and
our use of it to dominate the Earth and each other, or will we continue to gamble with our future at this game of Russian roulette while
time increasingly stacks the cards against our chances of survival?
insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness.’’ [23].17 In other words, the fate of the Earth and its inhabitants has not yet been determined. Yet time is not on our side
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
11/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – LAUNDRY LIST
Warming is real and dangerous – causes economic collapse, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, food insecurity, oil
disruption, lower agricultural yields immigration, resource and water wars
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are fast approaching unsustainable and alarming levels. Unless we alter our current trajectory, we
may soon cross a dangerous threshold leaving us with ever fewer options for remedy. Scientific consensus leaves little doubt as to the
causes of global climate change or the gravity of its consequences. Broad and overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the increased
concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in the atmosphere since the industrial age are attributable to human activity—
particularly the combustion of fossil fuels—and have led to an increasingly rapid rise in global temperatures. Indeed, the most recent
Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change affirms this correlation with its highest level of certainty yet. It
finds a 35 percent increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 from preindustrial levels to 2005, which, at 379 parts per million, “by
far” exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years.1 Global temperatures rose an average of 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last
century, with the past three decades alone accounting for a 0.6 degrees Celsius increase.2 Mid-range estimates by the IPCC predict a
temperature increase between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.3 Abrupt and potentially catastrophic disruptions
to human and natural systems loom. Researchers are documenting increased droughts and floods, ocean acidification, loss in snow
cover and sea ice, rise in sea level, and loss of biodiversity.4 Climate change is increasingly discussed in national security terms, as
food and water scarcity trigger migration, conflict, and political instability.5 Researchers are forecasting costly setbacks for the U.S.
economy and national security, including rising property damage from storm surges and wildfires, loss in agricultural output from heat
waves and droughts, disruptions to U.S. and Arctic infrastructure and pipelines, threats to clean air and water, and new and
destabilizing immigration flows from resource-scarce regions.6 Moreover, climate-induced humanitarian crises around the world have
the potential to strain U.S. resources even further.7
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
12/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – OCEANS
Carbon dioxide destroys the oceans by turning them into acid
Stern 2007 (Nicholas, Head of the British Government Economic Service, Former Head Economist for the World Bank, I.G. Patel
Chair at the London School of Economics and Political Science) “The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review”, The report
of a team commissioned by the British Government to study the economics of climate change led by Siobhan Peters, Head of G8 and
International Climate Change Policy Unit, Cambridge University Press, p. 72
Ocean acidification, a direct result of rising carbon dioxide levels, will have major effects on marine ecosystems, with possible
adverse consequences on fish stocks. For fisheries, information on the likely impacts of climate change is very limited – a major
gap in knowledge considering that about one billion people worldwide (one-sixth of the world’s population) rely on fish as their
primary source of animal protein. While higher ocean temperatures may increase growth rates of some fish, reduced nutrient
supplies due to warming may limit growth. Ocean acidification is likely to be particularly damaging. The oceans have become
more acidic in the past 200 years, because of chemical changes caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide dissolving in
seawater.44 If global emissions continue to rise on current trends, ocean acidity is likely to increase further, with pH declining by
an additional 0.15 units if carbon dioxide levels double (to 560 ppm) relative to pre-industrial and an additional 0.3 units if carbon
dioxide levels treble (to 840 ppm).45 Changes on this scale have not been experienced for hundreds of thousands of years and are
occurring at an extremely rapid rate. Increasing ocean acidity makes it harder for many ocean creatures to form shells and
skeletons from calcium carbonate. These chemical changes have the potential to disrupt marine ecosystems irreversibly - at the
very least halting the growth of corals, which provide important nursery grounds for commercial fish, and damaging molluscs and
certain types of plankton at the base of the food chain. Plankton and marine snails are critical to sustaining species such as salmon,
mackerel and baleen whales, and such changes are expected to have serious but as-yet-unquantified wider impacts.
Collapse of the oceans causes extinction
Craig 2003 (McGeorge, Associate Prof Law, Indiana U School Law) Law Review, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155 Lexis)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems,
but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most
economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other
environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another
significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems
play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms,
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and
direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is
often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to
keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are
more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the
complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine
environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that
many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and
restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Nonuse biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in
Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic
value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also
have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the
sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine
ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even
though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef
ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the
sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory
relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this
much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
13/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING BAD – OUTWEIGHS
Regardless of timeframe, nuclear war will not outweigh warming – climate change is the biggest threat to the human race
The New York Times 2006 (The New York End Times is a non-partisan, non-religious, non-ideological, free news filter. We monitor
world trends and events as they pertain to two vital threats - war and extinction. We use a proprietary methodology to quantify
movements between the extremes of war and peace, harmony and extinction. http://newyorkendtimes.com/extinctionscale.asp)
We rate Global Climate Change as a greater threat for human extinction in this century. Most scientists forecast disruptions and
dislocations, if current trends persist. The extinction danger is more likely if we alter an environmental process that causes harmful
effects and leads to conditions that make the planet uninhabitable to humans. Considering that there is so much that is unknown
about global systems, we consider climate change to be the greatest danger to human extinction. However, there is no evidence of
imminent danger. Nuclear war at some point in this century might happen. It is unlikely to cause human extinction though. While
several countries have nuclear weapons, there are few with the firepower to annihilate the world. For those nations it would be
suicidal to exercise that option. The pattern is that the more destructive technology a nation has, the more it tends towards rational
behavior. Sophisticated precision weapons then become better tactical options. The bigger danger comes from nuclear weapons in
the hands of terrorists with the help of a rogue state, such as North Korea. The size of such an explosion would not be sufficient to
threaten humanity as a whole. Instead it could trigger a major war or even world war. Under this scenario human extinction would
only be possible if other threats were present, such as disease and climate change. We monitor war separately. However we also
need to incorporate the dangers here .
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
14/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: CLIMATE CHANGE FAKE
Because climate change is irreversible we must err on the side of preventing it even if the scientific evidence is debatable.
Cass R. Sunstein—Professor in the Department of Political Science and at the Law School of the University of Chicago—2007
(“Worst-Case Scenarios”, Harvard University Press)
Most worst-case scenarios appear to have an element of irreversibility. Once a species is lost, it is lost forever. The special concern for
endangered species stems from the permanence of their loss (outside of Jurassic Park). One of the most serious fears associated with
genetically modified organisms is that they might lead to irreversible ecological harm. Because some greenhouse gases stay in the
atmosphere for centuries, the problem of climate change may be irreversible, at least for all practical purposes. Transgenic crops can
impose irreversible losses too, because they can make pests more resistant to pesticides. If we invest significant wealth in one source
of energy and neglect others, we may be effectively stuck forever, or at least for a long time. One objection to capital punishment is
that errors cannot be reversed. In ordinary life, our judgments about worst-case scenarios have everything to do with irreversibility. Of
course an action may be hard but not impossible to undo, and so there may be a continuum of cases, with different degrees of
difficulty in reversing. A marriage can be reversed, but divorce is rarely easy; having a child is very close to irreversible; moving from
New York to Paris is reversible, but moving back may be difficult. People often take steps to avoid courses of action that are
burdensome rather than literally impossible to reverse. In this light, we might identify an Irreversible Harm Precautionary Principle,
applicable to a subset of risks.' As a rough first approximation, the principle says this: Special steps should be taken to avoid
irreversible harms, through precautions that go well beyond those that would be taken if irreversibility were not a problem. The general attitude here is "act, then
learn," as opposed to the tempting alternative of "wait and learn." In the case of climate change, some people believe that research should be our first line of defense. In
their view, we should refuse to commit substantial resources to the problem until evidence of serious harm is unmistakably clear.' But even assuming that the evidence
is not so clear, research without action allows greenhouse gas emissions to continue, which might produce risks that are irreversible, or at best difficult and expensive to
reverse. For this reason, the best course of action might well be to take precautions now as a way of preserving flexibility for future
generations. In the environmental context in general, this principle suggests that regulators should proceed with far more aggressive
measures than would otherwise seem justified.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
15/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: CO2 FERTILIZATION
Climate change leads to crop failures—detrimental effects of higher temperatures overcomes any benefits of CO2 fertilization.
Brown, Lester (World-renowned environmental analyst and head of the non-profit research organization the Earth Policy Institute
based in Washington DC. p.52: “Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization” http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/pb3ch3.pdf)
2008
Agriculture as it exists today has been shaped by a climate system that has changed little over farming’s 11,000-year history. Crops
were developed to maximize yields in this long-standing climatic regime. As the temperature rises, agriculture will be increasingly out
of sync with its natural environment. Nowhere is this more evident than in the relationship between temperature and crop yields. Since
crops in many countries are grown at or near their thermal optimum, even a relatively minor increase during the growing season of 1
or 2 degrees Celsius can shrink the grain harvest in major food-producing regions, such as the North China Plain, the Gangetic Plain
of India, and the U.S. CornBelt.16Higher temperatures can reduce or even halt photosynthesis, prevent pollination, and lead to crop
dehydration. Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that raise temperature can also raise crop yields, the
detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields overrides the CO2 fertilization effect for the major crops. In a study of local
ecosystem sustainability, Mohan Wali and his colleagues at Ohio State University noted that as temperature rises, photosynthetic
activity in plants increases until the temperature reaches 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit).The rate of photosynthesis then
plateaus until the temperature hits 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), whereupon it begins to decline, until at 40 degrees
Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), photosynthesis ceases entirely.17The most vulnerable part of a plant’s life cycle is the pollination
period. Of the world’s three food staples—rice, wheat, and corn—corn is particularly vulnerable. In order for corn to reproduce, pollen
must fall from the tassel to the strands of silk that emerge from the end of each ear of corn. Each of these silk strands is attached to a
kernel site on the cob. If the kernel is to develop, a grain of pollen must fall on the silk strand and then journey to the kernel site.
When temperatures are uncommonly high, the silk strands quickly dry out and turn brown, unable to play their role in the fertilization
process. The effects of temperature on rice pollination have been studied in detail in the Philippines. Scientists there report that the
pollination of rice falls from 100 percent at 34 degrees Celsius to near zero at 40 degrees Celsius, leading to crop failure.
Climate change destroys food production—even carbon fertilization has a net-negative outcome in a world of higher
temperatures
Stern, Nicholas (British economist and academic. He was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from
2000 to 2003, and was recently a civil servant and government economic advisor in the United Kingdom. “Stern Review on the
Economics of Climate Change.” http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm) 2008
Food production will be particularly sensitive to climate change, because crop yields depend in large part on prevailing climate
conditions (temperature and rainfall patterns). Agriculture currently accounts for 24% of world output, employs 22% of the global
population, and occupies 40% of the land area. 75% of the poorest people in the world (the one billion people who live on less than $1
a day) live in rural areas and rely on agriculture for their livelihood.29 Low levels of warming in mid to high latitudes (US, Europe,
Australia, Siberia and some parts of China) may improve the conditions for crop growth by extending the growing season30 and/or
opening up new areas for agriculture. Further warming will have increasingly negative impacts – the classic “hill function” (refer back
to Box 3.1) - as damaging temperature thresholds are reached more often and water shortages limit growth in regions such as Southern
Europe and Western USA.31 High temperature episodes can reduce yields by up to half if they coincide with a critical phase in the
crop cycle like flowering (Figure 3.4).32 The impacts of climate change on agriculture depend crucially on the size of the “carbon
fertilisation” effect (Box 3.4). Carbon dioxide is a basic building block for plant growth. Rising concentrations in the atmosphere may
enhance the initial benefits of warming and even offset reductions in yield due to heat and water stress. Work based on the original
predictions for the carbon fertilisation effect suggests that yields of several cereals (wheat and rice in particular) will increase for 2 or
3°C of warming globally, according to some models, but then start to fall once temperatures reach 3 or 4°C.33 Maize shows greater
declines in yield with rising temperatures because its different physiology makes it less responsive to the direct effects of rising carbon
dioxide. Correspondingly, world cereal production only falls marginally (1 – 2%) for warming up to 4°C (Box 3.4).34 But the latest
analysis from crops grown in more realistic field conditions suggests that the effect is likely to be no more than half that typically
included in crop models.35 When a weak carbon fertilisation effect is used, worldwide cereal production declines by 5% for a 2°C rise
in temperature and 10% for a 4°C rise. By 4°C, entire regions may be too hot and dry to grow crops, including parts of Australia.
Agricultural collapse across large areas of the world is possible at even higher temperatures (5 or 6°C) but clear empirical evidence is
still limited.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
16/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: ICE AGE 1/2
1. Turn: Warming obliterates the thermohaline circulation
Pearce, environmental consultant and BEMA environment journalist of the year, 2007 [Fred, With speed and violence: why scientists
fear tipping points in climate change, p. 145-147]
But the crux of the public debate on Broecker's ocean conveyor remains a very simple question: Could global warming shut the
conveyor down? Broecker seems rarely to have doubted it. And the claim has in recent years seemed almost to have a life of its own.
This struck me most strongly at a conference on "dangerous" climate change held at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, in Exeter in 2005. There I met Michael
Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a sharp-suited guy sporting a pastiche of 1950S clothes and hairstyle. But if there were
serious doubts in Exeter about whether his style sense would ever come back into fashion, there was no doubt that his ideas about climate change had found their
moment. For more than a decade, Schlesinger has been making Broecker's case that a shutdown of the ocean conveyor could be closer than
mainstream climate modelers think. Some critics feel that he just doesn't know when to give up and move on. But he has stuck with it, criticizing the IPCC and
its models for systematically eliminating a range of quite possible doomsday scenarios from consideration. "The trouble with trying to reach a consensus is that all the
interesting ideas get eliminated," he said at the conference. Science by committee ends up throwing away the good stuff like the idea of the conveyor's shutting down.
But in Exeter, Schlesinger was back in vogue. He had been invited to present his model findings that a global warming of just 3.6°F would melt the
Greenland ice sheet fast enough to swamp the ocean with freshwater and shut down the conveyor. The risk, he said, was
"unacceptably large." Although he had been saying much the same for a decade, he was now considered mainstream enough to be invited across the Atlantic to
expound his ideas at a conference organized by the British government. And he was no longer alone. Later in the day , Peter Challenor, of the British National
Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, said he had shortened his own odds about the likelihood of a conveyor shutdown from one in thirty to one in three. He
guessed that a 3-degree warming of Greenland would do it. Given how fast Greenland is currently warming, that seems a near certainty. But all this is
models. What evidence is there on the ground for the state of the conveyor? The truth is that dangerous change is already afoot in the North Atlantic.
And, whatever the skepticism about some of Broecker's grander claims, the conveyor may already be in deep trouble. Since the mid2000s, says Ruth Curry, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the waters of the far North Atlantic off Greenland-where Wadhams's chimneys deliver water to
the ocean floor and maintain Broecker's conveyor-have become decidedly fresher. In fact, much of the change happened back in the 1960s, when some 8 billion acrefeet of freshwater gushed out of the Arctic through the Fram Strait. Oceanographers called the event the Great Salinity Anomaly. To this day, nobody is quite sure why
it happened. It could have been ice breaking off the great Greenland ice sheet, or sea ice caught up in unusual circulation patterns, or increased flow from the great
Siberian rivers like the Ob and the Yenisey. Luckily, most of the freshwater rapidly headed south into the North Atlantic proper. Only 3 billion acre-feet remained.
Curry's studies of the phenomenon, published in Science in June 2005, concluded that 7 billion acre-feet would have been enough to "substantially reduce" the
conveyor, and double that "could essentially shut it down." So it was a close call. With the region's water still substantially fresher than it was at the start of the 1960s,
the conveyor remains on the critical list. Another single slug of freshwater anytime soon could be disastrous. In the coming decades, some
combination of increased rainfall, increased runoff from the land surrounding the Arctic, and faster rates of ice melting could turn off the conveyor. And
there would be no turning back, because models suggest that it would not easily switch back on. " A shift in the ocean conveyor, once initiated, is essentially
irreversible over a time period of many decades to centuries," as Broecker's colleague Peter deMenocal puts it. "It would permanently alter the climatic
norms for some of the most densely populated and highly developed regions of the world." As I prepared to submit this book to the publisher, new research
dramatically underlined the risks and fears for the conveyor. Harry Bryden, of the National Oceanography Centre, had strung
measuring buoys in a line across the Atlantic, from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas, and found that the flow of water north from the
Gulf Stream into the North Atlantic had faltered by 30 percent since the mid-I990S. Less warm water was going north at the surface, and less cold water
was coming back south along the ocean floor. This weakening of two critical features of the conveyor was, so far as anyone knew, an
unprecedented event. Probing further, Bryden found that the "deep water" from the Labrador Sea west of Greenland still seemed to be flowing south. But the
volume of deep water coming south from the Greenland Sea, the site of Wadhams's chimneys, had collapsed to half its former level. The implication was clear:
the disappearing chimneys that Wadhams had watched with such despair were indeed hobbling the ocean circulation. Broecker
seemed on the verge of being proved right that the ocean conveyor was at a threshold because of global warming.
2. Scientific accuracy and consensus make the thermohaline effect is undeniable
Alley, Department of Geosciences and PSICE, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University,
2007 [Richard B., “Wally Was Right: Predictive Ability of the North Atlantic “Conveyor Belt” Hypothesis for Abrupt Climate
Change,” Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2007. 35:241–72 February 21]
The idea of North Atlantic abrupt climate change—freshening of the surface waters leading to a reorganization in oceanic circulation
and coupled atmospheric changes with widespread consequences and often abrupt shifts—is now at least 25 years old (Rooth 1982).
This rich field of study has especially been led, championed, publicized, and developed into a major paradigm of climate change by
Prof. Wallace S. Broecker (e.g., Broecker et al. 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990; Broecker & Denton 1989; Broecker 1994, 1997, 1998). The
remarkable success of this research program has opened new subdisciplines, including the nascent field of abrupt climate change,
provided important insights to climate processes, feedbacks, and sensitivity, and captured public as well as scientific attention.
Scientific skeptics do still remain (most notably Wunsch 2003, 2005, 2006), providing important impetus for additional research, but
Broecker’s North Atlantic/conveyor paradigm has gained widespread acceptance. For example, the Broecker papers listed above
have been cited more than 2000 times as indexed by ISI, and a brief perusal indicates that at least most of those citations are in general
agreement. Of particular note is the predictive power of Broecker’s paradigm.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
17/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: ICE AGE 2/2
3. Most conclusive studies determine an Ice Age won’t start for more than 10,000 years
Revkin, environment reporter for the New York Times, 2004 [Andrew C, “A New Ice Age? None Soon, Snow 2 Miles Deep
Implies,” Jun 10, New York Times, proquest]
Despite the recent trend toward global warming, scientists have long wondered whether the Earth is nearing a new ice age, an end to
the 12,000-year temperate spell in which civilizations arose. Some have said such a transition is overdue, given that each of the three
temperate intervals that immediately preceded this current one lasted only about 10,000 years. But now, in an eagerly awaited study, a
group of climate and ice experts say they have new evidence that Earth is not even halfway through the current warm era. The
evidence comes from the oldest layers of Antarctic ice ever sampled. Some scientists earlier proposed similar hypotheses, basing them
on the configuration of Earth's orbit, which seems to set the metronome that ice ages dance to. Temperature patterns deciphered in sea
sediments in recent years backed the theory. But experts say the new ice data are by far the strongest corroborating evidence,
revealing many similarities between today's atmospheric and temperature patterns and those of a warm interval, with a duration of
28,000 years, that reached its peak 430,000 years ago. The findings are described Thursday in the journal Nature in a report by the
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The evidence comes from a shaft of ice extracted over five grueling years from
Antarctica's deep-frozen innards, composed of thousands of ice layers formed as each year's snowfall was compressed over time. The
deepest ice retrieved so far comes from 10,000 feet deep and dates back 740,000 years. The relative abundance of certain forms of
hydrogen in the ice reflects past air temperatures. Many ice cores have been cut from various glaciers and ice sheets around the world,
but until now none have gone back beyond 420,000 years. "It's very exciting to see ice that fell as snow three-quarters of a million
years ago," said Dr. Eric Wolff, an author of the paper and ice core expert with the British Antarctic Survey.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
18/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: SO2
1. The greenhouse cooling effect is temporary—SO2 leads to net more warming. Our evidence is the only one that cites the
comparative effect between warming and the aerosol effect
Monastersky, 91 – Richard, Staff writer for Business Net News, “CO2 limits may initially worsen warming - carbon dioxide and
global warming” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n7_v139/ai_10381518
Policies designed to control fossil-fuel emissions might temporarily hasten the greenhouse warming before ultimately limiting the
global temperature rise, according to calculations by climate researcher Tom Wigley. Yet that possibility should not deter efforts to
control greenhouse-gas emissions, he says. Wigley, of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, says the real message of his findings is that success will not come easily. "It might take
decades for even a strong policy to produce some noticeable response," he says. More Articles of Interest Polluted dust storms reduce global warming Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate Environment Committee
plans to limit... NWF Urges Congress To Pass Clean Power Act - Brief Article Sulfur-climate link called insignificant Releasing Sulfur to the Atmosphere Could Counter Global Warming Related Results Polluted
dust storms reduce global warming Greenhouse gases Warming hysteria.(LETTERS) Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate Environment Committee plans to limit... NWF Urges Congress To Pass Clean Power
Act - Brief Article advertisement Wigley's calculations spotlight a highly uncertain arena in climate-change scenarios: the influence of sulfur dioxide (SN: 8/25/90, p.118). Like carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide is produced by
sulfur dioxide turns into tiny sulfate droplets that reflect sunlight back toward space. These
sulfate "aerosols" also cool the Earth's surface indirectly by making clouds more reflective. Scientists don't know the strength of such
cooling effects, especially the effect on clouds. But if sulfate aerosols have an important influence, policies that limit fossil-fuel use
would exert two opposing forces on the climate by reducing emissions of both the warning gas and the cooling gas. To
investigate the outcome of that tug-of-war, Wigley calculated how various pollution controls would affect the carbon dioxide
"forcing" and the sulfate aerosol "forcing." His study, detailed in the Feb. 7 NATURE, represents the first attempt to quantify the
impact of both direct and indirect aerosol effects. Because carbon forcing appears to dominate aerosol forcing, a policy that cuts
emissions would eventually limit a temperature rise. But Wigley found that the aerosol effect would delay the climate's response to
any emissions control strategy and would reduce the overall effectiveness of such policies. Since the cooling power of sulfate aerosols
remains unknown, Wigley tested a range of cases. In a scenario where aerosols exerted considerable effect, fossil-fuel limitations
enhanced greenhouse warming for more than three decades before beginning to slow the temperature rise. That's because carbon
dioxide stays in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, while aerosols fall out within days. Thus, controls would rapidly
reduce the aerosol cooling, and only later begin to curb the carbon dioxide warming, he found. Although the sulfate aerosol
effect might appear to represent an ameliorating force, "it cannot be considered to be a good thing," Wigley maintains. Because
the combustion of fossil fuels. But while carbon dioxide gas traps heat,
industrial centers in the Northern Hemisphere produce the most sulfur pollution, the aerosol effect could throw the world's climate off balance by cooling the north more than the south. Although this might limit an increase in
average global temperatures, the hemispheric imbalance could significantly alter weather patterns around the world, possibly producing a situation "as severe as what we might be heading for with the plain greenhouse
effect," says Wigley. Atmospheric scientist Robert J. Charlson agrees.
"It would be a fundamental mistake to think that the aerosols in any way balance the
greenhouse forcing," he says.
Charlson, of the University of Washington in Seattle, views aerosol's influence on clouds as a priority for future climate research. Investigators must study not only
pollution-generated aerosols but also natural ones, he says. Wigley adds, however, that unanswered questions about aerosols should not hold up negotiations on an international climate treaty, which formally began in
Chantilly, Va., last week. Rather, he says, "the possible effects of fossil-fuel-derived sulfate aerosols should be seen as further reason for implementing controls on fossil-fuel use."
2. SO2 causes ocean acidification—kills ocean ecosystems
Doney, 7 – Scott, Senior Scientist in the WHOI Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, 9/7/2007, “News Release : Acid
Rain Has a Disproportionate Impact on Coastal Waters” Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=31286&ct=162
the release of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere by power plants and agricultural activities plays a minor role in making the
ocean more acidic on a global scale, but the impact is greatly amplified in the shallower waters of the coastal ocean, according to new research by atmospheric
and marine chemists. Ocean “acidification” occurs when chemical compounds such as carbon dioxide, sulfur, or nitrogen mix with
seawater, a process which lowers the pH and reduces the storage of carbon. Ocean acidification hampers the ability of marine
organisms—such as sea urchins, corals, and certain types of plankton—to harness calcium carbonate for making hard outer shells or
“exoskeletons.” These organisms provide essential food and habitat to other species, so their demise could affect entire ocean
ecosystems. The findings were published this week in the online “early edition” of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; a printed version will be
issued later this month. “Acid rain isn’t just a problem of the land; it’s also affecting the ocean,” said Scott Doney, lead author of the study and a
senior scientist in the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). “That effect is most pronounced near
the coasts, which are already some of the most heavily affected and vulnerable parts of the ocean due to pollution, over-fishing, and climate change.” In addition to
acidification, excess nitrogen inputs from the atmosphere promote increased growth of phytoplankton and other marine plants which, in turn, may cause more frequent
harmful algal blooms and eutrophication (the creation of oxygen-depleted “dead zones”) in some parts of the ocean. Doney collaborated on the project with Natalie
Mahowald, Jean-Francois Lamarque, and Phil Rasch of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Richard Feely of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory,
Fred Mackenzie of the University of Hawaii, and Ivan Lima of the WHOI Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department. “Most studies have traditionally
focused only on fossil fuel emissions and the role of carbon dioxide in ocean acidification, which is certainly the dominant issue,”
Doney said. “But no one has really addressed the role of acid rain and nitrogen.” The research team compiled and analyzed many publicly available
data sets on fossil fuel emissions, agricultural, and other atmospheric emissions. They built theoretical and computational models of the ocean and
atmosphere to simulate where the nitrogen and sulfur emissions were likely to have the most impact. They also compared their model
results with field observations made by other scientists in the coastal waters around the United States.
[impact in Ocean Scenario]
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
19/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: WARMING INNEVITABLE
It’s not too late – we can stop positive feedback mechanisms by curbing current emissions
Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute and professor of Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, 2007 [James E.
Hansen. Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth
and Environmental Science at Columbia University. Al Gore’s science advisor. Briefing http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3720, “How Can
We Avert Dangerous Climate Change?” delivered to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, United
States House of Representatives, revised 25 June 2007]
We have solved or are solving those pollution problems, at least in developed countries. But we did not address them until they hit us
with full force. That approach, to wait and see and fix the problems post facto, unfortunately, will not work in the case of global
climate change. On the contrary, the inertia of the climate system, the fact that much of the climate change due to gases already in the
air is still ‘in the pipeline’, and the time required for economically-sensible phase-out of existing technologies together have a
profound implication. They imply that ignoring the climate problem at this time, for even another decade, would serve to lock in
future catastrophic climatic change and impacts that will unfold during the remainder of this century and beyond (references A and B).
Yet this is not a reason for gloom and doom. On the contrary, there are many bright sides to the conclusion that the ‘dangerous’ level
of CO2 is no more than 450 ppm, and likely much less than that. It means that we, humanity, are forced to find a way to limit
atmospheric CO2 more stringently than has generally been assumed. In so doing, many consequences of high CO2 that were
considered inevitable can be avoided. We will be able to avoid acidification of the ocean with its destruction of coral reefs and other
ocean life, retain Arctic ice, limit species extinctions, prevent the U.S. West from become intolerably hot, and avoid other undesirable
consequences of large global warming. It is becoming clear that we must make a choice. We can resolve to move rapidly to the next
phase of the industrial revolution, and in so doing help restore wonders of the natural world, of creation, while maintaining and
expanding benefits of advanced technology. Or we can continue to ignore the problem, creating a different planet, with eventual chaos
for much of humanity as well as the other creatures on the planet.
Feedback mechanisms can be stopped by slowing emissions now
Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute and professor of Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, 2007 [James E.
Hansen. Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth
and Environmental Science at Columbia University. Al Gore’s science advisor. Briefing http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3720, “How Can
We Avert Dangerous Climate Change?” delivered to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, United
States House of Representatives, revised 25 June 2007]
Crystallizing scientific data and analyses reveal that the Earth is close to dangerous climate change, to tipping points of the system
with potential for irreversible deleterious effects. This information derives in part from paleoclimate data, i.e., the record of how
climate changed in the past, as well as from measurements being made now by satellites and in the field. The Earth’s history shows
that climate is remarkably sensitive to global forcings. Positive feedbacks predominate. This has allowed the entire planet to be
whipsawed between climate states. Huge natural climate changes, from glacial to interglacial states, have been driven by very weak,
very slow forcings, and positive feedbacks. Now humans are applying a far stronger forcing much more rapidly, as we put back into
the atmosphere, in a geologic heartbeat, fossil fuels that accumulated over millions of years. Positive feedbacks are beginning to
occur, on a range of time scales. The climate system has inertia. Nearly full response to a climate forcing requires decades to centuries.
But that inertia is not our friend. It means that there is additional climate change in the pipeline that will occur in coming decades even
without additional greenhouse gases. The upshot is that very little additional forcing is needed to cause dramatic effects. To cause the
loss of all summer Arctic ice with devastating effects on wildlife and indigenous people. To cause an intensification of subtropical
conditions that would greatly exacerbate water shortages in the American West and many other parts of the world, and likely render
the semi- arid states from west and central Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas increasingly drought prone
and unsuitable for agriculture. To cause the extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species, an indictment of humanity’s
failure to preserve creation For humanity itself, the greatest threat is the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet as it is attacked
from below by a warming ocean and above by increased surface melt. There is increasing realization that sea level rise this century
may be measured in meters if we follow business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions. There is a bright side to this planetary emergency. We
can successfully address the emergency only by stabilizing climate close to its present state; there is no viable option, as adaptation
to a continually rising sea level is not practical. Therefore, if we address the problem, there will be no need to adapt to the highly
deleterious regional climate changes mentioned above, acidification of the ocean, and other detrimental effects. The actions needed to
stabilize climate will preserve creation and restore a cleaner, healthier atmosphere.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
20/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
THEIR AUTHORS ARE BIASED
The authors the neg cites are all funded by Exxon and have displayed obvious bias.
Sawin and Davies, director of the Worldwatch Institute’s Energy and Climate Change Program, May 2002 (Janet and Kert, “A
Chronicle of ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming,” http://www.stopesso.com/pdf/exxon_denial.pdf
accessed 7/14/08)
Other prominent skeptics funded by Exxon include Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and Sherwood Idso.74 All are veterans of the
1991 coal-industry funded skeptic campaign coordinated by the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). According to strategy
papers developed for the campaign, the ICE campaign sought to “re-position global warming as theory (not fact)” and attempted to
target “older, less educated males from larger households who are not typically information seekers” and “younger, lower income
women.”75
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
21/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
*** WARMING GOOD ***
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
22/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING IMPACT DEFENSE 1/2
1. Even if we stop greenhouse gas emissions, warming is inevitable
Longley 8 (Robert, “ Global Warming Inevitable This Century, NSF Study Finds”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/climatetochange.htm)
Despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and a greater increase in sea level are inevitable during this
century, according to a new study performed by a team of climate modelers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
in Boulder, Colo. Indeed, say the researchers, whose work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), globally averaged
surface air temperatures would still rise one degree Fahrenheit (about a half degree Celsius) by the year 2100, even if no more
greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. And the resulting transfer of heat into the oceans would cause global sea levels to rise
another 4 inches (11 centimeters) from thermal expansion alone. The team's findings are published in this week's issue of the journal
"Science." “This study is another in a series that employs increasingly sophisticated simulation techniques to understand the complex
interactions of the Earth,” says Cliff Jacobs of NSF’s atmospheric sciences division. “These studies often yield results that are not
revealed by simpler approaches and highlight unintended consequences of external factors interacting with Earth’s natural systems.”
2. Warming is natural- satellites prove
Spencer 08 (Roy Spencer, Ph.D, report to congress, “ NASA’s Spencer Tells Congress Global Warming Is Not a Crisis,”
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23930/NASAs_Spencer_Tells_Congress_Global_Warming_Is_Not_a_Crisis.html, 10/9/8)
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from
the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive
than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Another way of saying this is that the real climate
system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks”—instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all 20
computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin
(Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.) If true, an insensitive
climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change.
And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if
climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end—if it has not ended already, since satellitemeasured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
23/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING IMPACT DEFENSE 2/2
3. Their evidence is inconclusive while ours cites thousands of years of climate records. Warming exists as a natural cycle that
causes CO2 increases -- greenhouse emissions didn’t cause the temperature to rise
Fegel ‘9 (Gregory F, Pravda, “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age,” January 11, http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922earth_ice_age-0)
During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse
gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming . Since the 1970s the
theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has
inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW. The central piece of evidence that is cited
in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient
Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07.
However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere
since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will
probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures. The main flaw in the AGW theory is that
its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million
years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more
credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials. In 1999 the British journal “Nature”
published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data
includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting
from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time. The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the
Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of
a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global
temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2
changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural
cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise. The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature
is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm
environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or
CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release
increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we
should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial
warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to
the increased chilling of the world’s oceans. The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a
direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years.
Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are
at today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age.
If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle,
with or without any influence from the effects of AGW. The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow
span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from
paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering
another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years . While concern over the
dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and
inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.
4. Apocalyptic warming scenarios are exaggerated
"Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr 01/24/2005 “How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html
When
the outlook for the future is discussed, the scenario that predicts the highest growth rates for greenhouse gas emissions -- which, of
course, comes with the most dramatic climatic consequences -- is always selected from among all possible scenarios. Those predicting
significantly smaller increases in greenhouse gas levels are not mentioned. Every prediction has to trump the last. Melting Antarctic ice is one of the
The pattern is always the same. The significance of individual events is turned into material suitable for media presentation and is then cleverly dramatized.
current horror scenarios du jour. Who benefits from this? The assumption is made that fear compels people to act, but we forget that it also produces a rather shortlived reaction. Climate change, on the other hand, requires a long-term response. The impact on the public may be "better" in the short term, thereby also positively
affecting reputations and research funding. But to ensure that the entire system continues to function in the long term, each new claim about the future of
our climate and of the planet must be just a little more dramatic than the last . It's difficult to attract the public's attention to the climate-related
extinction of animal species following reports on apocalyptic heat waves. The only kind of news that can trump these kinds of reports would be something on the
order of a reversal of the Gulf Stream. All of this leads to a spiral of exaggeration. Each individual step in this process may seem harmless, but on the
whole, the knowledge imparted to the public about climate, climatic fluctuations, climate shift and climatic effects is dramatically distorted.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
24/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
EXT #1 – WARMING INEVITABLE
Warming inevitable- can’t reverse current levels
The Times 08 ( Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University, Richard Richels, Electric Power Research Institute and Richard Tol, Economic and Social Research Institute, “
Copenhagen Consensus: global warming,” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3992368.ece)
There is unequivocal evidence that humans are changing the planet’s climate. We are already committed to average temperature increases of about
0.6°C, even without further rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The world has focused on mitigation — reducing carbon emissions —
a close look at the costs and benefits suggests that relying on this alone is a poor approach. Option One: Continuing focus on mitigation Even if
mitigation — economic measures like taxes or trading systems — succeeded in capping emissions at 2010 levels, then the world would pump out
55 billion tonnes of carbon emissions in 2100, instead of 67 billion tonnes. It is a difference of 18 per cent: the benefits would remain
smaller than 0.5 per cent of the world’s GDP for more than 200 years. These benefits simply are not large enough to make the
investment worthwhile.
Warming inevitable- new scientific studies
Keil 6/22/10 (Ann Keil, reporter for Wate.com, “ORNL scientists warn of global warming's impact on the Southeast,”
http://www.wate.com/global/story.asp?s=12855794)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists say global warming is inevitable and it will impact the southeastern part of the United States. "Almost all
of the evidence shows we are getting warm. There is no doubt about it," said David C. Bader, deputy director of the Oak Ridge Climate
Change Science Institute. The institute was formed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to coordinate and develop the lab's efforts in climate change science. One
of the institute's projects has been to publish a series of reports on ORNL climate change research. The reports were funded by the Environmental Protection Agency
and each one focuses on a different region within the U.S. One report claims the southeastern part of the U.S. is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change.
"There is a lot of dry land agriculture in the Southeast, as opposed to other parts of the country, that are heavily irrigated," said Bader. This means East Tennessee
farmers, many of who, have long avoided irrigation systems may suffer in the extreme heat. The Southeast is already relatively warm. There are questions about rainfall
levels of the future. Climate models used in the reports predict extreme shifts in weather and stronger storms. "Undoubtedly, these types of
changes will have consequences on human society, on urban areas, and on different types of economic productivity," said Benjamin Preston, a senior researcher at
ORNL. Bader and Preston say animal and plant species worldwide are already migrating as the climate shifts. That means the Smokies and other area forests rich in
their biodiversity will be impacted. The report also points out increased risks of disease for the Southeast, an area that has the fastest growing population in the U.S.
years down the road. "We are vulnerable to the climate systems, tropical cyclones, droughts and heat waves," said Preston. Preston also said the
public can prepare for climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but making a real impact will take a global effort.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
25/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
EXT #2 – WARMING NATURAL
Warming is natural- mars proves
National Geographic 07 (Kate Ravilious, “ Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says,”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html, 2/28/7)
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—
cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is
due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures .
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been
diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia,
says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun . "The long-term increase
in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can
account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages
throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent
years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance ," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun,
Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
No warming- their models are flawed—
a. discoveries of NASA data glitches
Young 11- 21 (2k8)(Gregory, Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He is currently involved with a
privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research., “Global Warming? Bring it On!”, http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html)
(2) The reported NASA temperature data glitch discovered by Canadian Computer Analyst Steve McIntyre that wrongly kicked
all temperature records up several tenths of a degree was a severe setback for AGW modelers. This software "failure" was
overseen by one of AGW's fiercest proponents, the notorious Dr. James Hanson. NASA's GISS and Hanson have recently come
under fire again for poor data collection methods and questionable accuracy.
b. Discoveries of wrongly sited weather stations
Young 11- 21 (2k8)(Gregory, Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He is
currently involved with a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research., “Global Warming? Bring it On!”,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html)
(4) Finally let us not forget the astute investigation of automated weather stations by US Meteorologist Anthony Watts.
Watts
painstakingly discovered that a large fraction of the nation's 1,200 stations have been wrongly sited in man-made heatabsorbing centers. (Examples include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat absorbing concrete, next to air conditioners, diesel
generators and asphalt parking lots, even at sewage treatment plants. Some are located in areas experiencing excessive nighttime
humidity, and at non-standard observing heights, including one actually sinking into a swamp.) Watts' discovery profoundly undermined the
veracity of historical temperature data documented in the United States -- data that had been used by AGW proponents.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
26/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING GOOD – ENVIRONMENT
Empirically warming has ONLY been beneficial to the environment – it increases forest growth, growing seasons, and
resiliency, biodiversity, the stability of biochemical cycles
McMahon et al 10 (Sean M. McMahon- postdoctoral fellow from Smithsonian Tropical Research Insititute’s Center for Tropical
Forest Science, 3 February 2010, “Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth,” published online for Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, http://www.pnas.org/content/107/8/3611.full?sid=03d5a654-605b-4a3c-ba27453b95c8afbf, CM)
Forests and their soils contain the majority of the earth’s terrestrial carbon stocks. Changes in patterns of tree growth can have a huge impact on
atmospheric cycles, biogeochemical cycles, climate change, and biodiversity. Recent studies have shown increases in biomass across
many forest types. This increase has been attributed to climate change . However, without knowing the disturbance history of a forest, growth could
also be caused by normal recovery from unknown disturbances. Using a unique dataset of tree biomass collected over the past 22 years from 55 temperate forest plots
with known land-use histories and stand ages ranging from 5 to 250 years, we found that recent biomass accumulation greatly exceeded the expected growth caused by
natural recovery. We have also collected over 100 years of local weather measurements and 17 years of on-site atmospheric CO2 measurements that show
consistent increases in line with globally observed climate-change patterns. Combined, these observations show that changes in temperature and CO2 that have
been observed worldwide can fundamentally alter the rate of critical natural processes, which is predicted by biogeochemical models. Identifying this rate change is important to research on the
current state of carbon stocks and the fluxes that influence how carbon moves between storage and the atmosphere. These results signal a pressing need to better understand the changes in
growth rates in forest systems, which influence current and future states of the atmosphere and biosphere. biomass change | carbon cycle | carbon fertilization | climate change | forest stand
dynamics The movement of carbon in our atmosphere, oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems is critical to predicting how climate change may influence the natural systems on which humans rely
(1–4). Changes in ecosystems can, in turn, feed back into global atmospheric cycles through evapotranspiration, net ecosystem CO2 exchange, and surface albedo and roughness, which
complicates predictions about future climate states (1, 5–7). Key evidence that global changes may affect the functioning of forests is shown in changes in forest biomass over time, which can
have important implications for whether or not forests accumulate biomass at a rate that would alter current trends of atmospheric carbon cycling (8). In densely forested regions across the
globe, forests can recover rapidly from agricultural fields, logged stands, or areas cleared because of natural disturbances as long as remnant patches or seed banks remain. Across forest types,
the period of recovery consists of a rapid rise in above-ground biomass (AGB) followed by a leveling off as the canopy fills in and biomass shifts from the sum of many small stems to fewer,
larger canopy trees. The rate and asymptote of this pattern of biomass recovery can differ across stands because of nutrient availability and species composition or can differ between regions
because of climate and disturbance regimens; however, the functional form of this response remains similar across forest types and regions (9, 10). There are indications that forest biomass
accumulation may be accelerating where nutrients and water are not limiting (11–17). Distinguishing changes in forest dynamics caused by climate change from those changes caused by longterm stand recovery from disturbance, soil variables, species composition, and climate history is difficult (12, 18–20). We were able to use a unique dataset that combines census data and
stand-age data, from which we estimated biomass change, while controlling for stand regeneration. Our biomass estimates were gathered over varying census intervals for 55 plots in a
temperate deciduous forest in and near the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) in Edgewater, MD (38°53′18″N, 76°33′15″W). Plot sizes ranged from 75 to 15,625 m2
(median = 1,000 m2). Stand age was estimated from tree-core measurements and land-use history. From these data, we compared the expected rate of biomass accumulation caused by the
ensemble response of stands to disturbance with recent growth rates derived from the census data. These stands contain similar species compositions (Materials and Methods) and differ only
slightly in soils and topography. All plots have documented histories of agricultural use. The Monod function effectively describes the increase in biomass of forests during recovery and thus,
is appropriate to model patterns of resource use and limitation (10). The function for stand biomass in megagrams per hectare (Mg ha-1) for stand i is (Eq. 1): AGBi ¼ β0 þ β1 SAi SAi þ
θ
; [1] where β0 + β1 is the asymptote for the maximum biomass that a stand can achieve, SAi is the age of the stand, and θ is the age at halfsaturation of the function. We estimated the parameters β0, β1, and θ across the plots using hierarchical Bayesian methods (modified from ref. 21). We estimated biomass using species-specific
algorithms relating diameter at breast height (DBH) to total AGB. Stand age was estimated from tree-ring counts of cores of the 10 largest trees immediately outside of the stand-plot boundary
(see ref. 22 for detailed methods) and historical photographs of the stand sites (Materials and Methods). Fig. 1 shows the fit of Eq. 1 for 55 sites in red and 50 sampled curves from the posterior
distributions of the estimated parameters in light blue. The blue lines highlight variation in parameter fits and not process error, which is larger and encompasses all plots. This is intended to
show uncertainty in expectation of growth rates, which are defined as the tangent of these lines, but not intended to show if some sites have overall different biomass estimates than the mean.
For sites that had multiple censuses, we used mean biomass at the mean stand age of those censuses to estimate function parameters. Results and Discussion The Monod function in Eq. 1 gives
the expected ensemble-growth trajectory. The derivative of Eq. 1 [β1 × θ/(SAi + θ)2], then provides a point estimate of expected annual biomass change given the age of a stand and the values
of β1 and θ; 37 of 55 sites had more than one measurement taken between 1987 and 2005. To get annual biomass changes for a stand age, we divided the difference in biomass between census
dates by the interval length. Using the mean stand age of each census interval from the β1 and θ parameters estimated from the ensemble data, we calculated the expected annual biomass
change with error from posterior draws of the parameter estimates. Fig. 2A shows the census changes overlaid on the median ensemble estimate (red curve). Logged axes are used for clarity.
Fig. 2B compares the observed biomass changes with those expected from the ensemble curve. In 78% of the annual growth estimates, the observed AGB change between censuses exceeded
the higher confidence bound of the estimated rate (in a binomial test, P < 0.0001). Tree death is the only way biomass can decrease in a plot, and therefore, a negative rate cannot be used to
assess changes in growth. When census intervals were only considered if there was positive growth (growth without deaths of large trees), 90% of intervals showed greater than expected
growth (Fig. 2B). Plots with positive growth show an average annual rate increase of 4.15 Mg ha-1 (confidence bounds of 3.55 and 4.74) above their expected increase given stand age. This
increase was independent of stand age (P > 0.1) and the year of the census (P > 0.1). These high biomass-rate increases across stand age must be a recent phenomenon. Extrapolating observed
annual growth rates backward would lead either to dramatically lower than estimated stand ages or unrealistic biomass gain functions. Many potential mechanisms can influence the rate of
biomass change. Table 1 lists six hypotheses that might explain the difference between the observed and expected values that we found. Increases in temperature, growing season, and
atmospheric CO2 have documented influences on tree physiology, metabolism, and growth, and likely, they are critical to changing the rate of stand growth observed across stands. Increased
Temperature. Temperature
is critical to all metabolic processes involved in uptake, release, and storage of carbon. Rising temperatures, especially when
coinciding with adequate precipitation and without resource limitation, can increase tree metabolic processes that, in turn, lead to higher biomass
accumulation (6, 23). Temperate forest trees have shown a broader range of temperatures for optimal photosynthesis than have tropical forests, and they can likely
respond quickly to increased temperatures (24). Observational studies correlating temperature to diameter growth across forest types have shown both increases (15, 25)
and decreases (26, 27) in response to higher temperatures. Decreases are likely caused by water limitation of photosynthesis, which is not the case at the SERC stands.
Mean and maximum temperatures near SERC have shown consistent long-term increases (Fig. 3A). Increased Growing Season. Higher temperatures are also
correlated with longer growing seasons (Fig. 3B). A steady lengthening of the growing season has been documented worldwide (7), and
even a shift in the seasonal phase of surface temperatures has been detected (28). Growing degree days correlate with the speed of forest recovery from
pasture in the Amazon (9, 29) and increased plant growth in boreal forests (11, 25). Fig. 3B shows that last frosts of winter have come earlier and first frosts of fall have
come later in the SERC region over the last century, significantly increasing the length of the growing season. Increased CO2. Atmospheric CO2 can increase
tree growth through carbon fertilization (30). Trees have shown species specific increases in growth under elevated CO2 , but nutrient and
water limitation can mitigate growth (31). Measurements of CO2 from SERC match the increases observed from annual averages on Mauna Loa (Fig. 3C). Higher
atmospheric CO2 levels can also cause higher temperatures and longer growing seasons (1, 5, 8). Interactions and feedbacks are expected to drive
growth when nutrients, such as N or P, and water are not limiting.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
27/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING GOOD – ICE AGE
Continuing CO2 atmospheric input from warming is key to extend our current interglacial period
Shaffer, 09 (Gary Shaffer – professor in the Planet and Geophysics department of the Niels Bohr Institute of University of Copenhagen, Director of the Danish
Center for Earth System Science, senior scientist at Department of Geophysics, University of Concepcion, Chile, 11 February 2009, “Long time management of fossil
fuel resources to limit global warming and avoid ice age onsets,” Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 36, L03704, doi:10.1029/2008GL036294, CM)
[1] There are about 5000 billion tons of fossil fuel carbon in accessible reserves. Combustion of all this carbon within the next few centuries would force high
atmospheric CO2 content and extreme global warming. On the other hand, low atmospheric CO2 content favors the onset of an ice age when changes in the Earth’s
orbit lead to low summer insolation at high northern latitudes. Here I present Earth System Model projections showing that typical reduction targets for fossil fuel use in
the present century could limit ongoing global warming to less than one degree Celcius above present. Furthermore, the projections show that combustion pulses of
remaining fossil fuel reserves could then be tailored to raise atmospheric CO2 content high and long enough to parry forcing of ice age onsets by
summer insolation minima far into the future. Our present interglacial period could be extended by about 500,000 years in this way.
Citation: Shaffer, G. (2009), Long time management of fossil fuel resources to limit global warming and avoid ice age onsets, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L03704,
doi:10.1029/2008GL036294. 1. Introduction [2] Most of the ongoing global warming is very likely forced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, in particular CO2 from
fossil fuel combustion [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC), 2007]. Natural processes remove this CO2 from the atmosphere on time scales of decades
to hundreds of thousands of years [Archer, 2005; Lenton and Britton, 2006]. This has several important implications. First, if large amounts of CO2 are introduced too
rapidly into the atmosphere, high atmospheric CO2 content and extreme global warming result [Montenegro et al., 2007; Schmittner et al., 2008]. Second, slow natural
uptake of anthropogenic CO2 means that warming would continue for thousands of years after a CO2 injection into the atmosphere. But this also implies that
management of CO2 input to the atmosphere could provide an effective means for long term climate regulation and could be used to
extend the present interglacial even longer than expected for current weak eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit [Loutre and Berger, 2000]. [3] Ice
ages start when conditions at high northern latitudes allow winter snowfall to persist over the summer for enough years to accumulate and build ice sheets. Such
conditions are usually attributed to minima of summer solar insolation at high northern latitudes from changes in the eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the Earth’s
orbit [Ruddiman, 2003]. However, other factors like atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and biosphere-related albedo feedbacks have also been found to
be important for ice sheet inception [Berger et al., 1999; Ruddiman, 2003; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2004; Calov and Ganopolski, 2005; Crucifix et al., 2006]. In
one coupled climate model study, obliquity forcing was most important for inception followed by forcing of about equal importance by eccentricity-precession and
atmospheric CO2 [Vettoretti and Peltier, 2004]. Critical summer mean (June 21–July 20) insolation at 65N for ice sheet nucleation was significantly lower for higher
CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) in projections with the coupled climate-ice sheet Climber-2 model using constant obliquity but variable precession [Archer and
Ganopolski, 2005]. [4] Here I force the low-order, DCESS Earth System Model [Shaffer et al., 2008] with three fossil fuel emission scenarios to obtain three long term
(>100,000 year) projections of atmospheric pCO2 and of global warming. These projections are used together with the Climber-2 results to diagnose ice age onsets. The
third of the emission scenarios is tailored to limit immediate global warming while avoiding ice age onsets as long as possible for available fossil fuel reserves.
An ice age is the ONLY scenario for extinction – warming will be beneficial, history proves
Forbes, 10 (Viv Forbes – Chairman of The Carbon Sense Coalition, 4 February 2010, “New tax inevitable in the Libs' alternative ETS,” The Advertiser, Australia,
pg. 20, lexis, CM)
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide drives temperature changes on Earth. And even
if the world did warm, there is no evidence that this would be
harmful to life on Earth. Ice ages cause mass extinctions; warm periods are always bountiful. Moreover, higher temperature must
produce higher evaporation from the oceans and thus more rainfall. If this is combined with more abundant carbon dioxide, the aerial
plant food, Earth would have another green revolution. The war on carbon dioxide has been heavily promoted by European interests dependent on ageing
and costly nuclear power and unreliable Russian gas. Their goal is to hobble those competitors reliant on efficient and dependable coal power, chiefly the AngloAmerican world and Australia's major customers in China and India. Many foolish local politicians have thus become foreign agents.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
28/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING GOOD – SYSTEMIC
Warming would prevent thousands of deaths each year by decreasing winter diseases
Langford and Bentham 95 ( Ian H. Langford - Health Policy and Practice Unit, School of Health and Social Work, University of East Anglia and Graham
Bentham - Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 1995, “The potential
effects of climate change on winter mortality in England and Wales,” International Journal of Biometeorology, CM)
In Britain death rates from several important causes, particularly circulatory and respiratory diseases, rise markedly during the colder winter
months. This close association between temperature and mortality suggests that climate change as a result of global warming may lead
to a future reduction in excess winter deaths. This paper gives a brief introductory review of the literature on the links between cold conditions and health,
and statistical models are subsequently developed of the associations between temperature and monthly mortality rates for the years 1968 to 1988 for England and
Wales. Other factors, particularly the occurrence of influenza epidemics, are also taken into account. Highly significant negative
associations were found between temperature and death rates from all causes and from chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, ischaemic heart
disease and cerebrovascular disease. The statistical models developed from this analysis were used to compare death rates for current
conditions with those that might be expected to occur in a future warmer climate. The results indicate that the higher temperatures
predicted for 2050 might result in nearly 9000 fewer winter deaths each year with the largest contribution being from mortality from ischaemic heart
disease. However, these preliminary estimates might change when further research is able to make into account a number of additional factors affecting the relationship
between mortality and climate.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
29/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: WARMING BAD – CORAL REEFS
Multiple factors allow reefs to recover from stress
International Union for Conservation of Nature 9 (Jan 9, http://www.iucn.org/cccr/resilience_to_climate_change/) LL
Resilience - A promising paradigm Even though climate change and coral bleaching pose a serious threat to the future survival of coral
reefs, there is still hope that these ecosystems will be able to survive increased SSTs. Some coral reefs are able to withstand stresses to
a greater degree (are more resistant) while other coral reefs are able to recover from bleaching events more rapidly (are more resilient) depending on a number
of oceanographic, ecological and physiological factors. The principles of resistance and resilience are emerging as a promising paradigm to
aid the management of coral reefs in the face of climate change, and give hope in the face of adversity. The figure below illustrates the
stages in the coral bleaching process where it is possible for a coral or coral reef to survive the disturbance. It illustrates four main processes that can allow a coral
reef to survive: protection, resistance, tolerance and resilience. Protection Oceanographic and other environmental factors that create pockets of
reduced or non-stressful conditions where ecosystems are protected from disturbances (Salm et al, 2001). A coral reef can be protected against
increased SSTs or light levels and therefore against bleaching by local upwelling, fast water flow, shading and screening. Resistance The ability of an
organism or ecosystem to withstand disturbance without undergoing a phase shift or losing neither structure nor function (Odum,
1989). For example a coral reef’s ability to withstand bleaching and mortality. Coral morphology, different zooxanthellae clades and coral acclimatisation can all
influence a coral reef's resistance to bleaching. Tolerance The ability of an organism to absorb a disturbance and not suffer mortality ( Obura,
2006). For example, a coral’s ability to bleach, and then recover its zooxanthellae to become healthy again . Resilience The ability of a system
to absorb or recover from disturbance and change, while maintaining its functions and services (Adapted from Carpenter et al, 2001). For example a coral reef’s
ability to recover from a bleaching event. Factors that can improve a coral reef's resilience to a mass bleaching event include good
species and functional diversity, good connectivity to larval sources, appropriate substrates for larval settlement and protection
from other anthropogenic impacts.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
30/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: WARMING BAD – OCEANS
New data proves- oceans cooling.
Young 11- 21 (2k8)(Gregory, Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford,
Oxford, England. He is currently involved with a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research., “Global
Warming? Bring it On!”, http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html)
(3) As recently presented in American Thinker, Lord Monckton competently summarizes for us that many of the highly publicized
AGW "facts" are simple documented anomalies of natural climate cycling -- designedly misrepresented for the cause of AGW.
To wit: The Oceans are not catastrophically rising nor are they warming. In fact, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. The
Snows of Kilimanjaro are not melting but ablating because of friction due to a cooling atmosphere and natural cooling trends. The
world's 160,000 glaciers are not suddenly receding, but appear to be re-advancing, including those ice shelves in Antarctic and the
polar ice sheets, all of which cycle regularly in ice mass. Lord Monckton, a science-journalist, provides even more evidence here.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
31/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
AT: WARMING BAD – WARS
No link between warming and war.
Tol & Wagner ’08 [Richard & Sebastian, Economic & social Research Institute for Coastal Research, Jan 15, “Climate Change and
Violent Conflict in Europe over the Last Millennium,” http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/workingpapers/climatewarwp.pdf]
In this paper, we study the relationship between climate change and violent conflict over the past millennium in Europe. Our results do
not show a clear-cut picture: We present some evidence that abnormally cold periods were abnormally violent, as do Zhang et al.
(2006). However, we also show that this evidence is not particularly robust. If one has strong priors that climate change causes
conflict, our results provide confirmation. However, if one has strong priors that there is no link, our results do not overthrow such
doubt. If anything, cold implies violence, and this effect is much weaker in the modern world than it was in mediaeval times. This
implies that future global warming is not likely to lead to (civil) war between (within) European countries. Should anyone ever
seriously have believed that, this paper does put that idea to rest.
Many examples disprove the warming results in conflict.
Salehyan ’07 [Idean, Assistant Professor of Political Science at UNT, “The New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical
governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be to blame for the coming resource wars,”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922]
First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and changing environmental
conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to
conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data
collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the
number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in
Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend.
Furthermore, if famine and 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 in Malawi have been experiencing
chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has 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 in recent history, did not lead to an
outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Impact File – Warming
32/32
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
WARMING RHETORIC BAD – WASTEFUL POLICIES
Rhetoric describing global warming as anthropogenic creates wasteful spending, mass hysteria, and policy failure. Warming
isn’t anthropogenic – claims that it is come from biased, paid-off scientists with an agenda who propagate false science
Delingpole 10 (James Delingpole - a writer, journalist, broadcaster, and prolific author, 7 May 2010, “Finally, proof that global warming is a load of hot air,” The
Express, lexis, CM)
Fill your tank with petrol, book another holiday, turn that patio heater up to 11 and breathe a deep sigh of relief: the
theory that humans are responsible for
global warming is as good as dead, thanks to a discovery by one of America's top meteorologists . In The Great Global Warming Blunder,
former senior NASA climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer demonstrates that all those scary computer-modeled predictions of man-made eco doom have
been based on a fundamental misconception of how climate works. Climate change, he shows, is an almost entirely natural process on
which human influence is negligible. Of course, skeptics have been making this point for years, arguing that the quantities of carbon dioxide
(CO2) produced by man are so tiny that even if they were to double there would still be no dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming
(AGW). What they have been unable to answer convincingly until now, though, is the alarmists' counterargument that CO2 emissions are
exaggerated by "positive feedbacks". One type of positive feedback often cited by alarmists is cloud cover. When CO2 causes the world to warm,
they argue, it reduces the number of clouds. Clouds are what help protect our planet from the burning heat of the sun, by reflecting solar radiation. But according to
Spencer, these alarmists have got completely the wrong end of the stick. The mistake they have made is to confuse cause with effect. It's
not man-made global warming that is causing cloud cover to grow thinner, leading to a spiral of ever-rising temperatures. Rather, it's natural variations in
cloud cover that are helping to cause global warming. The implications of this are enormous . Not only does it mean that the billions of pounds
of taxpayers' money which have been pumped into proving the connection between CO2 and climate change have been utterly wasted
but it also means that the climate policy of most of the world's leading industrial nations is based on a total lie . According to the international
energy Agency it will cost the world $45trillion to deal with AGW. Britain is committed to spending a whopping £18billion a year combatting the effects of climate
change. Most of this will go on attempting to reduce CO2 - a gas which Spencer says is not merely harmless but positively beneficial. "Instead of asking 'By how much
should we cut back our CO2 emissions?' we should ask 'is there any compelling reason to reduce CO2 emissions at all?'," says Spencer, who believes, "More
atmospheric carbon dioxide might be good for life on earth." This doesn't mean that Spencer is a global warming "denier". In fact all the evidence tells him that
temperature
The phrasing of global warming as an extinction scenario makes it more difficult to solve
Bjørn Lomborg -- the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center July 1, 2009 http://www.detnews.com/a
rticle/20090701/OPINION01/907010318/1008/opinion01/Stop-scaring-kids-about-global-warming
The continuous presentation of scary stories about global warming in the popular media makes us unnecessarily frightened. Even
worse, it terrifies our kids.Al Gore famously depicted how a sea-level rise of 20 feet (six meters) would almost completely flood
Florida, New York, Holland, Bangladesh and Shanghai, even though the United Nations estimates that sea levels will rise 20 times
less than that and do no such thing.When confronted with these exaggerations, some say they are for a good cause, and surely there is
no harm done if the result is that we focus even more on tackling climate change. A similar argument was used when George W.
Bush's administration overstated the terror threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.But this argument is astonishingly wrong. Such
exaggerations do plenty of harm. Worrying excessively about global warming means that we worry less about other things, where we
could do so much more good. We focus, for example, on global warming's impact on malaria -- which will be to put slightly more
people at risk in 100 years -- instead of tackling the half-billion people suffering from malaria today with prevention and treatment
policies that are much cheaper and dramatically more effective than carbon reduction would be. Exaggeration also wears out the
public's willingness to tackle global warming. If the planet is doomed, people wonder, why do anything? A record 54 percent of
American voters now believe the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. A majority of people now believes - incorrectly -- that global warming is not even caused by humans. In the United Kingdom, 40 percent say global warming is
exaggerated and 60 percent doubt that it is man-made.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells