CNDI - Warming False

Forslund/Lazarevic Lab CNDI 2K8
Warming False
1NC Warming Frontline (1/...........................................................................................................................................................3
_______________.........................................................................................................................................................................6
***Ext. #1: Satellites.....................................................................................................................................................................6
__________________________...................................................................................................................................................7
***Ext. #2: Warming at Night/In North........................................................................................................................................7
_________________________.....................................................................................................................................................8
***Ext. #3 Warming Slow/Linear.................................................................................................................................................8
No Warming: Weather Baloons.....................................................................................................................................................9
2NC Warming Slow/Linear.........................................................................................................................................................10
Warming Slow/Linear..................................................................................................................................................................11
Warming Slow/Linear..................................................................................................................................................................12
AT: Sea-Level Rise......................................................................................................................................................................14
_________________________...................................................................................................................................................15
*******Cosmic Rays*******....................................................................................................................................................15
No Sunspots Now........................................................................................................................................................................16
Sunspots.......................................................................................................................................................................................17
Alt Caus - Sun = Warming..........................................................................................................................................................18
_________________________...................................................................................................................................................19
*******GCM’s Bad*******......................................................................................................................................................19
GCM’s Bad: Unreliable...............................................................................................................................................................19
GCM’s Bad: Don’t Account for Clouds......................................................................................................................................20
GCM’s Bad: Flawed Results.......................................................................................................................................................22
_____________________...........................................................................................................................................................24
*******Source Debate................................................................................................................................................................24
1NC Source Debate.....................................................................................................................................................................24
AT: Co2 Magazine Indicts...........................................................................................................................................................25
AT: Idso Indicts............................................................................................................................................................................26
AT: Oil Funding Taints Your Authors..........................................................................................................................................28
AT: Chalko...................................................................................................................................................................................29
AT: Chalko ..................................................................................................................................................................................31
Author Quals...............................................................................................................................................................................33
AT: Consensus.............................................................................................................................................................................34
AT: Consensus.............................................................................................................................................................................35
AT: Consensus.............................................................................................................................................................................36
AT: Fossi Fuel Industry Taints.....................................................................................................................................................38
Author Prodicts............................................................................................................................................................................39
IPCC Says No Warming..............................................................................................................................................................43
IPCC Not Credible......................................................................................................................................................................44
IPCC Fraudulent..........................................................................................................................................................................46
IPCC Modeling Wrong................................................................................................................................................................47
IPCC Not Qualified.....................................................................................................................................................................48
Lindzen Prodicts..........................................................................................................................................................................49
_________________...................................................................................................................................................................50
*******Indicators.......................................................................................................................................................................50
AT: Ice Caps ...............................................................................................................................................................................50
AT: Polar Bears = Indicators........................................................................................................................................................51
AT: Ice Melt ................................................................................................................................................................................52
AT: Ice Melt.................................................................................................................................................................................53
AT: More Hurricanes...................................................................................................................................................................54
AT: Ocean Warming ...................................................................................................................................................................55
Global Cooling Now....................................................................................................................................................................56
Warming isn’t Happening............................................................................................................................................................57
__________________.................................................................................................................................................................58
*******Feedbacks......................................................................................................................................................................58
Volcanos ......................................................................................................................................................................................58
Clouds .........................................................................................................................................................................................59
1
Warming False
Cosmic Rays................................................................................................................................................................................60
Oceans ........................................................................................................................................................................................61
Rain..............................................................................................................................................................................................62
AT: Positive Feedback Loops......................................................................................................................................................63
_________________________...................................................................................................................................................65
*******Advantage Answers.......................................................................................................................................................65
AT: Climate Flips.........................................................................................................................................................................65
AT: Climate Flips.........................................................................................................................................................................66
AT: Climate Flips.........................................................................................................................................................................67
AT: Ice Age Advantage................................................................................................................................................................68
AT: Ice Melt Advantage...............................................................................................................................................................69
AT: Biodiversity...........................................................................................................................................................................70
Warming = Moderate Temps.......................................................................................................................................................71
AT: Diseases................................................................................................................................................................................72
AT: Sea-Level Rise......................................................................................................................................................................74
AT: Storms...................................................................................................................................................................................75
AT: War Scenarios.......................................................................................................................................................................76
___________________...............................................................................................................................................................77
*******Blame Game..................................................................................................................................................................77
Climate Change = Natural ..........................................................................................................................................................77
CO2 Doesn’t Match Warming.....................................................................................................................................................78
Convection...................................................................................................................................................................................80
Warming = Natural......................................................................................................................................................................81
Water Vapor.................................................................................................................................................................................82
Urban Heating ............................................................................................................................................................................83
___________________...............................................................................................................................................................84
*******Adaptation.....................................................................................................................................................................84
______________________.........................................................................................................................................................85
*******Ice Age Turn..................................................................................................................................................................85
Ice Age – Uniqueness Extensions................................................................................................................................................86
Ice Age – Uniqueness..................................................................................................................................................................87
Ice Age – Impacts........................................................................................................................................................................88
A2: Warming leads to Ice Age.....................................................................................................................................................89
AFF AT: Ice Age D.A..................................................................................................................................................................90
AFF AT: Ice Age D.A..................................................................................................................................................................91
2
Warming False
1NC Warming Frontline (1/

1. Sats Most Accurate, Show No Warming—Their Data Tainted By Spotty Coverge, Errors, And Heat Islands**
[1nc]
BAST (President, Heartland Institute) 2/03
[Joseph L., “Eight Reasons Why Global Warming Is a Scam,” . http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548 //cndi-ef]
Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings
of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23
years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from
weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these
stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby
urban development, and are subject to human error.
2. Any Warming Will Be At Night And In The North – Which Supercharges All Of Our Co2 Links, Reduces
Extreme Weather, And Lengthens The Growing Season
MOORE (Sr. Fellow, Hoover Institution) ‘97
[Thomas Gale, Global Warming Opposing Viewpoints, pg. 96//cndi-ef]
A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temper atures at northern latitudes, with less change
near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for
farming, but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much
of the earth’s climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and arctic lows will be diminished. As a result of more
evaporation from the oceans, a warmer climate should intensify cloudiness. More cloud cover
will moderate daytime temperatures while acting at night as an insulating blanket to retain heat.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found exactly this pattern to hold for the last 40 years, indeed for the whole of the twentieth century. For the Northern Hemisphere in summer months, daytime high temper-
Warmer night-time temperatures,

atures have actually fallen; but in the fall, winter, and spring, both the maximum and especially the minimum temperatures (night time) have climbed.
particularly in the spring and fall, create longer growing seasons, which should enhance agricul tural productivity.
Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields in
a warmer climate would push up yields, but also that the

Canada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia, Finland, and Iceland found not only that
added boost from enriched CO2 would enhance output by 17 percent. Researchers have attributed a burgeoning of forests in Europe
to the increased CO2 and the fertilizing effect of nitrogen oxides.
3. Warming Will Be Slow And Linear In The Status Quo

MICHAELS IN ‘04
(Patrick, res prof of env sci U of Virginia visiting sci w/ Marshall Inst past pres of the Am Assoc of State Climat &
frmr program chair Committee on Applied Climat of Am Meteor Society, A.B. & S.M. biol sci & plant ecol U of
Chicago, Ph.D. ecol climatology U of Wisc. contrib author & reviewer U N IPCC, Meltdown, ed. CATO Institute pg.
19-20//cndi-ef)
Ditto for the climate models. Having established a greenhouse warming for several decades, owing to the strong preference for
warming of the cold dry air in Siberia and North America, we can simply take the observed
warming, which itself has been highly linear, and project it onto the other forecasts . It becomes very clear that,
unless the central tendency for linearity (funded by about $20 billion in climate science research over the years) is dead wrong, then we already know the warming rate to a
very small error. As a result, scientists know quite precisely how much the climate will warm
in the policy-foreseeable future of 50 years, a modest three quarters of a degree (°C) (1.4°F) (see Figure 2.7 in color
insert). NASA's James Hansen, whom many credit with lighting the fire over the greenhouse issue with
his incendiary 1988 congressional testimony, wrote this in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.: Future global warming can be
predicted much more accu-rately than is generally realized . . . we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of
¾°C ± 1/4°C, a warming rate of 0.15°C ± 0.05°C per decade. That warming rate is about four times less than the lurid top
figure widely trumpeted by the United Nations in its 2001 compendium on climate change and repeated ad infinitum in the press. Why wasn't it front-page news that the scientist
who was responsible for much of the global warming furor was now predicting, with high confidence, only a modest warming? Hansen went on to write in the following online journal Natural Science: Emphasis on extreme
scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate . . . scenarios
consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. With that remarkable statement, Hansen declared that scientists exaggerating to draw public attention to global warming was just fine.
3
Warming False
4. ****New Research Validates That Clouds Counter Warming
Milloy, 07
(Clouds Mitigate Global Warming, New Evidence Shows, Steven Milloy, Environment & Climate News, 1/11/2007 The
Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22205)
In a study published in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters on August 9, researchers
at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) provide more real-world evidence of the self-regulating nature of
the Earth's atmosphere. If the self-regulatory mechanism is confirmed by additional research, it will represent yet
another deal-breaker for the hypothesis that has propped up climate alarmism thus far. Positive Feedback
Theory Key to predictions of runaway global warming are alleged "positive feedback" cycles
that supposedly will build upon each other to cause runaway global warming. Existing climate models,
for example, assume a warmer atmosphere will cause an increase in high-altitude cirrus clouds--a
positive feedback into the climate system since cirrus clouds trap outgoing radiation emitted by
the Earth. When you feed a warming scenario envisioning the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels--
which would on its own create no more than 1.2º C of warming--into a climate model that has been turbocharged
with positive feedback factors such as cirrus clouds, the resulting estimated warming increases by 250 percent to
3º C. Self-Regulating Clouds However, many scientists have questioned the validity of the
hypothetical positive feedback mechanism. Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric physicist
Richard Lindzen, for example, proposed the "iris effect" in 2001 as an explanation for why the
amplified warming has never materialized. Analyzing a limited set of data, Lindzen
hypothesized cirrus clouds and associated moisture work in opposition to surface temperature
changes. The data seemed to indicate that when the Earth's surface warms, clouds open up to
allow heat to escape. A cooling surface, in turn, causes clouds to close and trap heat. This
elegant, self-regulatory, atmospheric mechanism was soon attacked for being based on limited data and the
inability of other researchers to identify the effect in other cloud and temperature data sets. New Data Support
Theory But the new research from the University of Alabama-Huntsville supports the validity of
the iris effect. Analyzing six years of data from four instruments aboard three NASA and NOAA
satellites, the UAH researchers tracked precipitation amounts, air and sea surface temperatures,
high- and low-altitude cloud cover, reflected sunlight, and infrared energy escaping out to
space. As opposed to the hypothesized positive feedback of the climate models, the UAH data
show a strong negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds
decrease, allowing infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space. "To give
an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global
warming, it would reduce [climate model-based] estimates of future warming by 75 percent,"
said UAH researcher Roy Spencer in a media release. "The role of clouds in global warming is widely
agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify
warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave
in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."
5. No Relationship Between CO2 And Climate, Dinosaurs Time Proves.
Michaels and Balling 2000 - Prof Environmental Sciences @ U Virginia, and Prof Climatology @ ASU The Satanic
Gasses Pg. 106 (The – up). //CNDI - RV
That tenet is obvious both from theoretical points of view and based on practical observations. When dinosaurs
roamed the earth, the carbon dioxide concentration was around 10 times higher than it was before the industrial
revolution. And yet the temperature was only about 10°C (18°F) above what it is today, if the relationship between
carbon dioxide and temperature were constant, then temperatures during that era should have been more than twice
as warm. Not only that, but there is a lag between when the greenhouse effect changes and when the earth's
oceans-which are very slow to warm-catch up.
4
Warming False
Increase In CO2 REDUCES Climate Variability
Gasses Pg. 112 (Tom – variability). //CNDI - RV
Tom Karl, now director of the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, wrote in Nature in 1995 that an increase in CO,
should decrease temperature variability; indeed he and colleagues R. W. Knight and N. Plummer found that
day-to-day variability during the 20th century is down in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the United
States and China. In another paper published in 1997 in Scientific American, Karl stated that "projections of the
day-to-day changes in temperature are less certain than those of the mean, but observations have suggested that
this variability in much of the Northern Hemisphere's midlatitudes has decreased as the climate has become war-
mer. Some computer models also project decreases in variability."
5
Warming False
_______________
***Ext. #1: Satellites
Any Satellites That May Be Credible All Show No Warming.
Gasses Pg. 84 ( Note – data). //CNDI - RV
Note that our satellite temperatures do not display much warming at all. That is because Wentz neglected
two other drifts in the satellite, known as east-west and time-of-day. This corrected version of the satellite data has
been accepted for publication in the refereed journal Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology and will appear in early
2000; this book uses the corrected data.
6
Warming False
__________________________
***Ext. #2: Warming at Night/In North
Clouds Cause Warming To Only Happens At Night.
Gasses Pg. 60 (Consider – temperature). //CNDI - RV
This last question is the most important one in climate science. Without knowing "how much"-without knowing
the correct value of a climate input parameter-no one can ever estimate accurately how the climate output can or
will change. Without knowing how much humans have altered the surface of the earth, for example, we can only
guess. Those guesses are "parameterizations." Consider the parameterization of clouds. Clouds are
concentrated water vapor-so much so that many are "supersaturated" and actually have more
moisture than they can hold over time. That moisture turns into rain. Rain develops when tiny
cloud droplets run into each other and coalesce When their size is large enough, they fall to
earth. The point is that clouds exert a substantial regional greenhouse effect because of all their
water vapor, an effect we can observe almost every winter. On a clear, calm night, temperatures
drop precipitously after sunset, as cold air is usually very dry and has little natural greenhouse
effect. But when a cloudbank rolls in under such conditions, the temperature stops falling. If it is early enough
in the evening and the surface has lost only a small portion of the day's heating, a nighttime
cloudbank can completely arrest the usual fall in temperature. Clearly, any systematic error a
GCM makes in the formation of clouds or rain (and the grid size ensures such errors will occur)
will induce substantial miscalculations of regional (and therefore global) temperature.
7
Warming False
_________________________
***Ext. #3 Warming Slow/Linear
8
Warming False
No Warming: Weather Baloons
18 years worth of cooling data from satellites and weather balloons prove that there’s no warming. Natural climate
cycles are the reason for weather changes.
APC in 2008(American Policy Center, “There is No Global Warming”, United Nations,

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm)//CNDI – GP
There is no global warming. Period. You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who
can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda,
mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us." There is no evidence
whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows
warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or
Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming. Scientific research through U.S.
Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling
- very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius. A little research into modern-day temperature trends
bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was
only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days. Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling"
trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same
period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming." Changes in global
temperatures are natural. There is no proof that temperature is affected by anything that man
has done. In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon
that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade
winds actually reverse for a time. The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even draught on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino
has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared. How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? Well,
yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of the ice age in
which ice covered most of North American and Northern Europe. There's at least one
environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking over the possibility that we may soon lose
Glacier National Park in Montana because the ice is melting. One hates to tell him that we've
already lost the glacier that used to cover the whole country. Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the Interior
Department to begin immediately restoring this lost historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining, timber cutting and urban sprawl. The
truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will
be perfectly natural. Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global Warming.
9
Warming False
2NC Warming Slow/Linear
Warming has been slow and linear since the 1700s – manmade CO2 has nothing to do with status quo temperatures.
Ice core data proves
Solomon - executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy
Probe Research Foundation – in 2007(Lawrence, Financial Post Comment, “Little Ice Age is still with us”, March
30th, pg. lexisnexis)
The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 20th century, global temperatures increasing by about half a degree
Celsius. The evidence for this global warming comes from ice core data from the Arctic island of
Severnaya Zemlya, published just last year. The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 19th century, too, global temperatures again increasing by about half a degree Celsius. The
evidence for this global warming comes from the same ice core data. The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 18th century, too, global temperatures increasing by about a half a degree Celsius. The
evidence for the global warming that occurred during the 18th century comes from multiple sources, all well recognized. The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the latter part of the
17th century as well, global temperatures increasing at the rate of about a half a degree Celsius per century, according to one of those multiple sources, the only one that extends that far back.
Throughout these centuries, which followed the depths of the Little Ice Age, the rate of global
warming has been fairly consistent. "There is clearly a linear increase of temperature from
about 1800 based on last year's ice-core data," states geophysicist Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the
University of Alaska. "Roughly the same linear change in temperatures extends back to the
earliest recordings, going back to about 1660, even before the Industrial Revolution." Dr.
Akasofu, the founder of the International Arctic Research Center and a giant in Arctic research
since his discovery in 1964 of the origin of storms in the aurora borealis, postulates a startlingly
straightforward explanation of the warming Earth has seen in the 20th century. The long slow
climb out of the Little Ice Age, he states, is typically thought to have ended in 1900. Chances are good
that it didn't. "The Earth may still be recovering from the Little Ice Age," he says, pointing to
the consistent rate of warming over the centuries. Although Dr. Akasofu thinks a continuation
of the Little Ice Age can explain the 20th-century warming, he believes other explanations may
also be valid. Any explanation, however, would point to a natural process, and not manmade
CO2. The evidence for this lies in the Arctic, which magnifies temperature fluctuations seen at
lower latitudes, highlighting temperature changes that might otherwise seem unremarkable. Arctic data, for example, shows a very large rise and
then fall in temperature between 1910 and 1975, while the global average data shows this
fluctuation as more a minor blip, peaking at 1940. A second temperature fluctuation involves a rise after 1975. Because the pre-
1940 increase in temperature happened without much CO2, and the 1940-75 temperature
decline happened after CO2 emissions began in earnest, "the large fluctuation between 1910
and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change. Contrary to the statement by the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 Report, it is not possible to say with
any confidence that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect." Ironically,
the IPCC's own climate-change models also point to carbon dioxide's irrelevance in climate
change. The Earth's warming is not uniform: Different geographic regions are warming at
different rates, while others are actually cooling. Dr. Akasofu asked the IPCC's Arctic group to apply its global climate models to "hindcast" the geographic
distribution of the temperature change during the last half of the last century. ("Hindcasting" asks a model to produce results that match the known observations of the past --a model that can do this helps establish its ability to
predict future conditions.)
10
Warming False
Warming Slow/Linear
The Latest IPCC Report Is Wrong, It Doesn’t Account For The Little Ice Age. Warming Is Actually Proven To Be
Slow And Linear
Akasofu - was the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007. He has been professor of geophysics since 1964 and
has published more than 550 professional journal articles. In 2002, he was named one of the "1000 Most Cited
Scientists." His full paper on the Little Ice Age is available as a PDF download. – in 2008(Dr. Syun-Ichi, The New
American, “The Recovery from the Little Ice Age and Global Warming”, January 29th,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6973)//CNDI - GP
A roughly linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C per 100 years seems to have occurred from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This value may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C per 100 years. This long-lasting linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of the linear increase may be Earth’s
continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age. This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend.
Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the 2007 IPCC Report (p.10), which states that
“most” of the present warming is due to the manmade greenhouse effect. There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming trend in order to accurately identify the
contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect. One certain way to learn about natural changes is to examine climate change before the greenhouse effect of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) became significant.
11
Warming False
Warming Slow/Linear
Warming has been slow and linear since the 1700s – manmade CO2 has nothing to do with status quo temperatures.
Ice core data proves
Solomon - executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy
Probe Research Foundation – in 2007(Lawrence, Financial Post Comment, “Little Ice Age is still with us”, March
30th, pg. lexisnexis)
The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 20th century, global temperatures increasing by about half a degree Celsius. The evidence for this global warming comes from ice core data from the Arctic island of
Severnaya Zemlya, published just last year. The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 19th century, too, global temperatures again increasing by about half a degree Celsius. The evidence for this global warming
comes from the same ice core data. The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 18th century, too, global temperatures increasing by about a half a degree Celsius. The evidence for the global warming that occurred
during the 18th century comes from multiple sources, all well recognized. The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the latter part of the 17th century as well, global temperatures increasing at the rate of about a half a
degree Celsius per century, according to one of those multiple sources, the only one that extends that far back. Throughout these centuries, which followed the depths of the Little Ice Age, the rate of global warming has been fairly
consistent. "There is clearly a linear increase of temperature from about 1800 based on last year's ice-core data," states geophysicist Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the University of Alaska. "Roughly the same linear change in temperatures
extends back to the earliest recordings, going back to about 1660, even before the Industrial Revolution." Dr. Akasofu, the founder of the International Arctic Research Center and a giant in Arctic research since his discovery in
1964 of the origin of storms in the aurora borealis, postulates a startlingly straightforward explanation of the warming Earth has seen in the 20th century. The long slow climb out of the Little Ice Age, he sta tes, is
typically thought to have ended in 1900. Chances are good that it didn't. "The Earth may still be
recovering from the Little Ice Age," he says, pointing to the consistent rate of warming over the
centuries. Although Dr. Akasofu thinks a continuation of the Little Ice Age can explain the
20th-century warming, he believes other explanations may also be valid. Any explanation,
however, would point to a natural process, and not manmade CO2. The evidence for this lies in
the Arctic, which magnifies temperature fluctuations seen at lower latitudes, highlighting temperature changes that might
otherwise seem unremarkable. Arctic data, for example, shows a very large rise and then fall in temperature between 1910 and 1975, while the global average data shows this fluctuation as more a minor blip, peaking at 1940. A
second temperature fluctuation involves a rise after 1975. Because the pre-1940 increase in temperature happened without much CO2, and the 1940-75 temperature decline happened after CO2 emissions began in earnest, "the
large fluctuation between 1910 and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change. Contrary to the statement by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 Report, it is not possible to say with any confidence
that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect." Ironically, the IPCC's own climate-change models also point to carbon dioxide's irrelevance in climate change. The Earth's warming is not uniform: Different
geographic regions are warming at different rates, while others are actually cooling. Dr. Akasofu asked the IPCC's Arctic group to apply its global climate models to "hindcast" the geographic distribution of the temperature change
during the last half of the last century. ("Hindcasting" asks a model to produce results that match the known observations of the past --a model that can do this helps establish its ability to predict future conditions.)
12
Warming False
There Have Been Few Sunspots Recently And The Number Is Not Increasing. Thus, It Is Cold
And It Is Not Getting Warmer.
Van Der Lingen, PhD in Geology from Utrecht University, June 26, 2008
‘Are we staring at global cooling?’ Lexis
The ultimate driver of our climate is the sun and historically, there is a close correlation
between climate and sunspots. Solar activity (expressed by sunspot activity) is cyclic. The shortest cycle is 22
years, called the Schwabe Cycle (11 years minimal sunspots, 11 years maximum sunspots).
There are larger solar cycles, such as the Gleissberg Cycle (88 years) and the Suess Cycle (208
years). During the Little Ice Age (ca 1300-1850) there were four exceptionally cold periods.
During these periods there were few or no sunspots. The coldest was the so-called Maunder
Minimum (ca 1645-1715), when there were no sunspots for 70 years. By analysing these
sunspot cycles, astrophysicists are predicting that we may be going into a cold period that may
be as severe as the last sunspot minimum of the Little Ice Age, the Dalton Minimum (ca 1790-
1830) and which could last for 30 years or more. Since 1755, Schwabe sunspot cycles have been given numbers. We are now at
the end of Cycle 23. A change from one cycle to another is indicated by a reversal of the
magnetic polarity of sunspots. Cycle 24 is already 14 months overdue. Most of the time there
are no sunspots at all. One can find information on sunspots on the Internet (www.solarcycle24.com). When I checked when writing this article (June 5), there had
been no sunspots at all for 10 days. This is worrying. If the sun stays quiet, we may be in for a
cold winter. According to Niwa, last May was the coldest since 1992
13
Warming False
AT: Sea-Level Rise

Climate Warming Slows Down Sea Level Rise Not Accelerate
Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at University of Virgina, Nov. 1999
‘Global Warming will lower sea level rise’ http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/sealevel.html
What about the effects of human-induced global warming on SL rise? Will it really increase the rate above its natural
A final note:
. The
value, as predicted by the IPCC? We do have a handle on this question by observing what actually happened when the climate warmed sharply between 1900 and 1940, before cooling between 1940 and 1975
answer is quite surprising and could not have been derived from theory or from mathematical
models. The data show that SL rise slowed down when the climate warmed and accelerated
when the climate cooled. Evidently, ocean-water thermal expansion and mountain-glacier melting were less important than ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent (which lowers SL). By
analogy, a future warming produced by an increase in greenhouse gases would give the same result:
i.e., reduce the rate of rise of sea level. This is not a recommendation to burn more coal in order to save Venice from drowning. It is a modest appeal to politicians to take note
of new scientific developments and recognize that the drastic limits on energy use called for by climate-treaty negotiators will not stop the rising seas.
There Is Nothing We Can Do About Sea Level Rise

We can therefore describe the broad scenario as follows: The strong temperature increase that followed the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago has melted enough ice to raise global SL by 120 meters (360 feet). The
rate of rise was quite high at first, controlled by the rapid melting away of the ice sheets covering North America and the Eurasian land mass. These disappeared about 8000 years ago; but then, as SL rose, the WAIS continued to
. The principal conclusion is that this melting of the WAIS will

melt, albeit at a lower rate -- and it is still melting at about this rate today
continue for another 7000 years or so, unless another ice age takes over before then. And there
is nothing that we can do to stop this future sea level rise! It is as inevitable as the ocean tides.
Fortunately, coral reefs will continue to grow, as they have in the past, to keep up with SL rise.
The rest of us will just have to adapt, as our ancestors did some 10,000 years ago. At least we
are better equipped to deal with environmental changes.
Climate Warming Causing Sea Level Rise Consensus Have Big Flaws
But recent observations and new analyses of existing data suggest an opposite outcome: A climate
warming should slow down SL rise not accelerate it. To understand this counterintuitive result, one must first get rid of false leads --- just like in a
detective story. The misleading argument here is the oft-quoted statement that the climate warmed by 1
F (0.6 C) in the last 100 years AND that SL rose by 18 cm. Both parts of the statement are true; but
the second part does not necessarily follow from the first. The first clue that there might be something
amiss with the logic is hidden in the IPCC report itself. According to their compilation of data, the contribution to SL rise of the past century comes
mainly from three sources: (i) Thermal expansion of the warming ocean contributed about 4 cm; and (ii) the melting of continental glaciers about 3.5 cm. (iii) The polar regions, on the other hand, produced a net lowering of S L,
with most of this coming from the Antarctic. (The mechanism is intuitively easy to understand but difficult to calculate : A warming ocean evaporates more water,
and some of it rains out in the polar regions, thus transferring water from the ocean to the polar
ice caps.) The surprising result: When one simply adds up all these contributions (neglecting
the large uncertainties), they account for only about 20 percent of the observed rise of 18 cm.
The climate warming since 1900 cannot be the cause of the SL rise; something is missing here.
The second clue comes from geological observations that SL has been rising for past centuries at about the same rate as seen by tide gauges in the last 100 years. In other words, SL was rising even
during the cold Little Ice age, from about 1400 to 1850. This provides further support for the
hypothesis that the observed global SL rise since 1900 is reasonably independent of this
century’s temperature rise.
14
Warming False
_________________________
*******Cosmic Rays*******
15
Warming False
No Sunspots Now
There Is Currently A Lack Of Sunspots.
Balgord, head of Environmental & Resources Technology, June 22nd 2008

‘Is Global Warming To Blame?’ Lexis
Solar experts at the conference highlighted how sunspots, and associated magnetic storms on the Sun's surface,
also influence Earth's weather and climate. The previous (very strong) 11-year sunspot cycle, associated
with the recent warmth, ended in 2007, after having peaked in 2002. The new cycle should have already begun, but hasn't
yet.
16
Warming False
Sunspots
Lack Of Sunspots Reflects Sunlight Back Into Space. Past Cool Periods Are Correlated With Low Sunpot Numbers.
In the absence of sunspots, solar flares are minimal. Flares eject massive streams of electrons
and protons outward from the Sun.A portion of this stream, called the "solar wind," bathes our planet, producing
the aurora and interfering with communications, and, as it interacts with Earth's magnetic field, protects us from harmful cosmic
radiation. During periods of weak solar activity - as at present - cosmic rays (high-energy protons from interstellar space) penetrate through the troposphere and ionize oxygen and nitrogen molecules. The ions are
nucleating sites for water vapor that condenses into clouds. When sunspots are at a minimum, more clouds form and,
correspondingly, more sunlight is reflected back into space. The enhanced reflectance (albedo) cools the Earth. We all have experienced how
quickly the temperature drops when the sun ducks behind a puffy white cloud on a warm, dry afternoon. Past cool periods are closely correlated with low
sunspot numbers (astronomers have kept close tabs on sunspots since Galileo's time).
17
Warming False
Alt Caus - Sun = Warming

Research Shows That Cosmic Rays And Clouds Are The Cause For Global Warming
Science Daily in 02(American Geophysical Union, “Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming”, July 31 st,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm)//CNDI - GP
Researchers studying global warming have often been confounded by the differences between observed increases
in surface-level temperatures and unchanging low-atmosphere temperatures. Because of this discrepancy, some
have argued that global warming is unproven, suggesting instead that true warming should show uniformly
elevated temperatures from the surface through the atmosphere. Researchers have proposed a theory that changes
in cloud cover could help explain the puzzling phenomenon, but none-until now-have come up with an argument
that could account for the varying heat profiles. A study in the July 2002 issue of Journal of Geophysical
Research-Space Physics, published by the American Geophysical Union, proposes for the first time that interstellar
cosmic rays could be the missing link between the discordant temperatures observed during the last two decades
(since recorded satellite records began in 1979). The report, by Fangqun Yu of the State University of New York-
Albany, proposes that the rays, tiny charged particles that bombard all planets with varying frequency depending
on solar wind intensity, may have height-dependent effects on our planet's cloudiness. Previous research has
proposed a link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, has not suggested the altitude dependence of the current
study. "A systematic change in global cloud cover will change the atmospheric heating profile," Yu said. "In other
words, the cosmic ray-induced global cloud changes could be the long-sought mechanism connecting solar and
climate variability." The hypothesis, if confirmed, could also shed light on the Sun's role in global warming. The
amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth depends on solar winds, which vary in strength by space-weather
conditions. Yu points out that indications of Earth's warming have coincided with decreased cosmic ray intensity
during the 20th century. Such explanations for natural causes of global warming do not rule out human
contributions to temperature change, but present the possibility that humans are not solely responsible for
some of the observed temperature increases. In addition, recent satellite data have revealed a correlation between
cosmic ray intensity and the fraction of the Earth covered by low clouds. Yu proposes that the amount and charge
of cosmic ray-generated ions can contribute to the formation of dense clouds by stimulating the production rate of
low-atmosphere particles that make the clouds more opaque. In addition, natural and man-made differences in
atmospheric chemistry, like greenhouse gas concentrations, can also affect the cosmic rays' influence on clouds,
according to Yu. Such height-dependent atmospheric differences can increase the quantity of ambient particles in
the lower troposphere and decrease the particles in the upper air, thus affecting the type of cloud cover. High
clouds, for example, generally reflect sunlight while lower clouds tend to retain surface energy; both effects are
scientifically well established and have a significant effect on global temperatures. The data provides evidence
supporting Yu's claim that cosmic ray-induced cloud changes may have warmed the Earth's surface but cooled the
lower troposphere, which could provide an explanation of the Earth's varying temperature trends.
18
Warming False
_________________________
*******GCM’s Bad*******
GCM’s Bad: Unreliable
IPCC admits, GCMs aren’t reliable
Horack – NASA Scientist, the Senior Executive Service – and Spencer - a climate change research scientist for the
University of Alabama in Huntsville – in 1997(John and Roy, “Accurate ‘Thermometers’ in Space: The State of
Climate Measurement Science”, NASA: Marshall Space Flight Center, October 2nd,
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm)//CNDI - GP
A computer model is only as reliable as the physics that are built into the program. The physics
that are currently in these computer programs are still insufficient to have much confidence in
the predicted magnitude of global warming, because we currently don't understand the detailed physical processes of clouds that will determine the extent and nature of
water vapor's feedback into the Earth's temperature.
And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees: ``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a
substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely
to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed
processes is needed."
Computer Models Fail, They Can’t Predict Every Component – Proves They Can’t Predict Warming
APC in 2008
(American Policy Center, “There is No Global Warming”, United Nations,
FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most
up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast. But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind
picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants. Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the
audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future. The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third
component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers.
Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.
GCM’s Can Only Tell So Much And Are Far Too Inaccurate For The Plan To Be Based Off Of It.
Gasses Pg. 62 (This – soon). //CNDI - RV
This kind of gross calculation-relating geological-scale events such as mountain-building to the

ice ages-is really about as accurate as -a GCM can be. As for specific predictions about the climate of a
given point (see Figure 4.1 in insert), GCMs were and are largely inadequate. Even the IPCC rates its
confidence in such predictions as "low." Asking GCMs how the local climate changes for
relatively small changes in the atmospheric greenhouse effect (which is all that human beings
could ever induce on the atmosphere compared with the 33°C [59°F] natural greenhouse effect
resulting largely from planetary water vapor) is asking too much, too soon.
19
Warming False
GCM’s Bad: Don’t Account for Clouds
Climate Models Disproved As Volcanoes Don't Subtantially Cool Temperature. If They Aren't Cooling Climate
Stabilizes Itself (Clouds)
Physorg 05
Volcano emsissions counteract warming, Mystery Climate Mechanism May Counteract Global Warming, April 12,
2005, http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html
A new study by two physicists at the University of Rochester suggests there is a mechanism at
work in the Earth’s atmosphere that may blunt the influence of global warming, and that this
mechanism is not accounted for in the computer models scientists currently use to predict the future
of the world’s temperature. The researchers, David H. Douglass and Robert S. Knox, professors of physics, plotted
data from satellite measurements of the Earth’s atmosphere in the months and years following the volcanic
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The results, published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters
(and now online), show that global temperatures dropped more and rebounded to normal significantly faster than
conventional climate models could have predicted.
“All we did was chart the data,” says Douglass. “We can be confident that our numbers are accurate because we
aren’t using computer models and assumptions; we’re using simple observations. Despite whatever models might
say, the analysis of the actual data says that the atmosphere rebounded from the Pinatubo volcano much faster than
was expected.” In addition, the analysis of Douglass and Knox showed that the amount of the cooling measured
could be explained only if there was some mechanism producing a kind of self-correcting feedback. In other words
according to Douglass “ This feedback mechanism prevented the Earth from becoming much colder.”
In an attempt to approach the climate warming issue from a data-centered, rather than model-centered,
way, Douglass and Knox looked for a global temperature-changing event that was well-recorded and did
not occur at the same time as other events, such as El Nino or particularly high solar activity. They found their
candidate in the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, the largest volcanic eruption in the 20th
century. The volcano forced millions of tons of debris into the Earth’s atmosphere, which blocked some
of the Sun’s heat from reaching the Earth. The average temperature of the world dropped more than half
a degree immediately following the eruption.
The Rochester team zeroed in on the years during and after the eruption, and extracted satellite
temperature data to carefully plot the rate at which the atmosphere rebounded to its pre-
volcanic temperature. Within a single year, the global temperature was already rebounding, and
within roughly five years, it was back to normal.
When conventionalatmosphere models were used to predict the rebound, they suggested that the
rebound would have been much slower, taking many years to finally reach equilibrium.
“This return to normal temperatures is important because some climate models say that volcanoes affect the global
climate for much longer, and that would mean they would have a cumulative effect, where each cools the
atmosphere a little more,” says Douglass. “This is used as a justification to say that volcanoes are
helping to mask the effects of human pollution. But if volcanoes’ effects last only a few years,
then there is no accumulated cooling, and we can’t say they’re masking anything.”
Douglass and Knox point out that the mechanism producing the negative feedback may be the
“Infrared Iris effect” due to clouds proposed by MIT professor Richard Lindzen. Clouds can
both cool the Earth by reflecting light from the Sun, and warm the Earth by trapping heat
between them and the ground. Since cloud formation is influenced by temperature and
humidity changes in the atmosphere, the team suspects that clouds may form and dissipate in a
way that tends to push the global temperatures back to steady normal.
20
Warming False
Since the explanation of Pinatubo by the computer models was wrong in regard to the response time and the
negative feedback, Douglass asks, “Are the computer models right when they consider the change to the climate
caused by carbon dioxide?”
GCM’s Don’t Take Into Account The Cooling Clouds Cause, So Information Provided Us Is Flawed.
Gasses Pg. 61 (That – cup). //CNDI - RV
That GCMs produce clouds that are thousands of square miles in extent guarantees unrealism.
And unrealism at any vertical level means that all the other levels are similarly suspect, since
the atmosphere behaves like a stirred fluid. If the temperature in the bottom of a stirred cup is
misestimated, then so is the temperature of the whole cup.
21
Warming False
GCM’s Bad: Flawed Results
GCM's Produce Hockey Stick Graphs 99% Of The Time When Random Data Is Input
Carlson, 08
(Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?,Jerry Carlson, February 1, 2008, http://www.aim.org/special-
report/print/will-media-expose-global-warming-con-job/, Accuracy in Media)
What justifies such extreme confidence in long-term computer models of projected climate?
One poster-child controversy is the "Hockey Stick" computer model of past and future climate,
developed primarily by Michael Mann, Associate Professor in Pennsylvania State University's Department
of Meteorology.
His team used a statistical technique called "principal component analysis" (PCA) to simplify the large array of
variables.
Mann's model result was published by the IPCC as proof of unprecedented, man-made global warming. The model
flattens the temperature changes of the well-documented Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. The model
generates a dramatic uptrend in recent years, then a parabolic rise in global temperatures over the next few
decades.
The Little Ice Age
Several statistical experts have declared Mann's study invalid, and went on to point out the
"peer review" involved was primarily among Mann's mutually supportive colleagues.
Mann and fellow researchers still use the same statistical approach, and the hockey-stick formation remains in
IPCC-published charts as evidence for man-caused world warming.
A friend of mine who teaches graduate-level statistics uses Mann's climate model as an
example of how not to apply principle component analysis. As used in the climate model, "it
will generate a hockey-stick projection 99% of the time when applied to purely random data
over time," says my friend.
This misuse of statistics was verified by Canadian researchers Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who offer a
rich array of other evidence at this web address:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Also, see Steven McIntyre's website at:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Incidentally, my college-professor friend asked to remain anonymous, saying: "If I became
branded on this campus as opposing man-made global warming, I'm afraid it would be used
against me-to deny tenure."
Another long-time skeptic of the UN's global climate models is Dr. Reid Bryson , who at age 87
still works daily on his own, unpaid, at the Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin.
His sixth book is just off the press. It's written to help researchers build models of regional climate history.
Colleagues often cite him as the "father of scientific climatology." Our acquaintance with his work
goes back 30 years, when his book Climates of Hunger alerted us to the Northern Hemisphere cooling episodes
leading into the 1970s. At the time, Bryson's book expressed a hope that this cooling might reverse, which would
rescue agriculture from disasters like those during the Little Ice Age.
Fortunately, Northern Hemisphere temperatures did rise again, during and after the 1970s. But Bryson reasons
that the upturn was caused by natural cycles such as varying transparency of the earth's atmosphere, not by CO2
from hydrocarbon fuels.
He sticks with a conclusion of his 1977 book: "We can't expect to control the forces that affect
climate."
Bryson points out that most computer simulations of climate are designed like short-term
weather models. He says: "Impossible. You cannot do that."
The reason: Interactions of our planetary circulation and solar system are unknown, complex,
unpredictable - and interwoven with feedback. Wrong assumptions propagate with each
computer-simulated cycle of global circulation. After a few iterations, "you're down to zero
accuracy," says Bryson. "Who even believes a 10-day forecast?"
22
Warming False
But the weather-model approach to general-circulation climate models persists because many of today's
climatologists were trained as meteorologists. These models have generally predicted more warming than has
actually occurred, says Bryson.
For more than 60 years, Bryson and a wide array of colleagues searched for causes of climate change. They found
signals in Earth's orbital changes and the slight wobble on its rotational axis. They studied a natural influence
largely ignored by other climatologists: variations in transparency of Earth's atmosphere, caused primarily by
sulfur dioxide and other aerosols emitted by volcanic activity. The transparency data correlate with Earth's
temperature variations in the past 100 years.
23
Warming False
_____________________
*******Source Debate
1NC Source Debate
So-Called Climate ‘Skeptics’ Are On The Right Side Of The Debate – Our Arguments Are Based Upon Sound Science
Rather Than On Scare Tactics – Warming Extremists Use Doomscenarios To Scare The Public Into Giving Them
More Funds – Doomscenarios Should Be Dismissed As The Rediculous Lies That They Are
INHOFE IN ‘04
(James, Senator, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD "An
Update on the Science of Climate Change," January 4, 2005, pg online @
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5022&method=full //wyo-ef)
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear
rather than science. I am the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. In addition to its normal expected jurisdictions, the committee also has a lot to do with the Energy bill. We have
probably as many provisions in the Energy bill as the Energy Committee does. It is one with which we have great concern. We recognize we have an energy crisis in America. The House passed a very good Energy bill last year.
We should have passed it in the Senate. We did not. I hope we will pass it this time. In the meantime, we need to do what I committed to do when I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee 2 years ago.
We are going to encourage decisions that are made in Government to be made on sound
science. Many times that is not the case, and such a case is the hoax referred to as "global
warming." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated
on the American people in a statement, to put it mildly, that was not viewed very kindly by the environmental extremists and their elitist
organizations. I also pointed out in a lengthy committee report that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for
fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using Federal taxpayers' dollars to finance the campaigns. For these groups, the issue of
catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it is more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced
global warming is an article of religious faith to the radical far left alarmists. Therefore, contending
that its central tenets are flawed to them is heresy and of the most despicable kind. Furthermore, scientists who challenge
its tenets are attacked sometimes personally for blindly ignoring the so-called scientific
consensus. That is not all. Because of their skeptical views, they are contemptuous, dismissed for being "out of the mainstream." This
seems to me highly ironic. Aren't scientists to be nonconforming and question consensus ? Nevertheless, it
is not hard to read between the lines. "Skeptic" and "out of mainstream" are their thinly veiled code phrases meaning
anyone who doubts the alarmists' orthodoxy is, in short, a quack. I have insisted all along that the climate
change debate should be based on fundamental principles and science, not religion. Ultimately, I
hope it will be decided by hard facts and data and by serious scientists committed to the
principles of sound science instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor. These
scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure they are heard. I am sure the Presiding Officer from Rhode Island is very much concerned with the sound science with which we address
this subject. Since my detailed climate change speech in 2003, so-called skeptics continue to speak out. What they are saying
is devastating to the alarmists. They amassed additional scientific evidence convincingly

refuting the alarmists' most cherished assumptions and beliefs. New evidence has emerged that
further undermines their conclusions, most notably those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
IPCC, one of the major pillars of the authorities cited by the extremists and climate alarmists. I
guess what I am saying is we are going to be looking at this new evidence. Just since we have adjourned and have come back in today to swear in our new Members, the scientists are almost
entirely on the side that there is no sound science behind the idea that, No. 1, the climate is
changing and, No. 2, if it is that it is the result of manmade gases. Evidence has come to light in very interesting times.
24
Warming False
AT: Co2 Magazine Indicts
1. You Obviously Have Never Been To This Website Before – These Articles Are Simply Taken From Qualified,
Peer-Reviewed Articles And Commented On By Staff Writers At The Site – Check Out Each One Of The
Cards We Read – It Doesn’t Just Contain Qualifications, It Also Has The Authors And The Journal The
Argument Was Published In –
2. The Authors Who Write At This Site Are More Qualified To Make The Claims They Do Than Your Authors
Are - [Insert Quals]
3. Extend Our 1nc Source Arguments – Whether They Are Funded By The Fossil Fuel Industry Or Not – You
Should Still Evaluate Our Evidence
4. Turn: Federal Funding Corrupts Science And Justifies Non-Qualified Individuals Writing About Issues They
Don’t Know Or Have Expertise On
MICHAELS 2004
[Patrick J. Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, “Meltdown” CATO Institute
2004 226-227//cndi-ef]
At the agency level,the interaction of politics and science is more direct. It's interesting to run a thought scenario demonstrating the logic and the inevitability of
this dynamic. Some examples are brutal andblatant, some more subtle. In late winter, 2004, Fortune
magazine trumpeted an illogical study of an extreme-case climate change scenario published
by two Pentagon contractors, Peter Schwartz and Douglas Randall, with little experience in climate science and no
track record of scientific publication in the field. The report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States
National Security," made little sense. Fortune wrote about the climate of Great Britain possibly becoming like
"Siberia" in 15 years. That's simply impossible. Siberia is extremely cold in the winter because it is the center of a huge land basin, with considerable mountains on
three sides and the North Pole on the other. The snow- covered land radiates outward into the long winter nights, and the resultant cold air is trapped by the mountairm, forming a deeper and deeper pile. For
England to become Siberia, then, it is necessary to drain the Atlantic Ocean for thousands of miles
around London. Then some considerable mountains need to build up on the edges of this dry basin. That might take
a few dozen million years, not a dozen single ones. But the report received considerable coverage, which put it in the political
sphere. Within a month the Senate Committee on Com- merce, Science and Transportation, under the
direction of John Mccain (R-Ariz.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R- Maine), and Ted Stevens (R-Ark.), approved legislation creating a $60 million
study of the impact of "abrupt climate change" on federal property. That's a small example of a
pretty gross scientific excess. Other excesses are more subtle, expensive, and pervasive, and demonstrate how paradigms create funding.
25
Warming False
AT: Idso Indicts
1. Look – Our Authors Are Significantly More Qualified Than Most Of Your Pro-Warming Hacks – Not Only
Has Sherwood Idso Been Conducting Experiments About Co2 Since Before The Climate Debate Exploded,
He Also Is Considered A Pioneer In His Field – The Idso’s Aren’t Just A Bunch Of Idiots – They Collectively
Have 9 Degrees – 3 Of Which Are Phd’s – They Have Written In Hundreds Of Peer-Reviewed Magazines And
Journals, Are Members Of Some Of The Most Prestigious Organizations In The World, And Are Oft Cited By
Scientists Around The World
2. You Won’t Win That Your Authors Are More Qualified – Your Indicts Are From Journalists And People
Outside The Science Community – They Are Not More Qualified To Make The Claims That They Make Than
The Idsos Are To Make The Claims They Make
3. Everyone Who Is Involved In The Climate Debate Is Tainted – Your Authors Are Just As Bad Because
Scientists That Write About Warming Are Influenced By Government Funding – Regardless Of Which Way
They Sit On The Issue
MICHAELS IN ‘04
(PATRICK, res prof of env sci U of Virginia visiting sci w/Marshall Inst past pres of the Am Assoc of State Climat & frmr program chair
Committee on Applied Climat of Am Meteor Society, A.B. & S.M. biol sci & plant ecol U of Chicago, Ph.D. ecol climatology U of Wisc. contrib
author & reviewer U N IPCC, “Yawn - It's Just Political Scientists,” March 9, 2004, http://www.cato.org/research/articles/michaels-
040309.html)
Ho-hum. Haiti will be a mess, and politicians will mess with science. It isn't surprising. It's inevitable. That's why
I'm surprised that a statement released last month by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS),
claiming that the Bush administration is distorting science, mainly global warming science, got
any press play. Although several of the signees were scientists not in the UCS, the group itself is a left-wing lobbying group best known for being greatly exercised about global warming from fossil fuels and
destroying the alternative, nuclear power, at the same time. The UCS is angry that the Bush administration has pulled a climate
assessment report. That report was pulled together mainly by Clinton-era hacks. Now Bush-era hacks have booted it. To the victor goes the delete key, OK? Politics distorts
science, particularly environmental science, because 99.99 percent of those sciences'
financial support comes from the federal government. Scientists distort science because
their careers depend on the money they bring to their university or their laboratory. Both the
employees of the academy, and the academy itself, must support a political process that results
in the exaggeration of threats. In competition for a finite federal outlay, scientists present their particular issues (global warming, cancer, AIDS) in the most urgent light possible, threatening
societal ruin if their work isn't funded.
4. The Idsos Aren’t The Only Authors We Read In The 1nc – In Fact, The Majority Of The Authors We Read
Are Not Indicted By The 2ac Evidence – You Would Still Evaluate Each Of Our Authors Individually –
Especially Given That They Are Each Uniquely Qualified To Speak On The Subjects To Which They Are
Speaking
5. Dozens Of Studies Have Validated Idso’s Claims
MICHAELS & BALLING (Prof., Env’tal Science, Univ. of Virginia & Prof., Geography, Arizona State Univ.) 2K
[Patrick J., Robert C. The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air on Global Warming, p. 181-182]
In a comprehensive analysis of 42 different experiments, appearing in 1994 in

But basic plant physiological research largely contradicts such concerns.
, Keith Idso and Sherwood Idso found that the percent growth enhancement resulting from
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
a 300 ppm increase in the air’s CO content actually rose with increasing air temperature going from dose to zero at 10 C (50 F) to 100 percent at 38 C (100 F). This increase in relative
2
0 0 0 0
growth response arises from the fact that the growth-retarding process called photorespiration is
most pronounced at high temperatures but is effectively inhibited by atmospheric CO2
enrichment. So powerful is this effect of elevated CO2. in fact, that the optimum temperature for
plant growth and development typically rises with increasing CO2 levels. Dozens of
researchers in plant physiology have duplicated this result.
6. There Is No Threshold To Your Argument – What Does It Take To Be Qualified To Speak About Warming? If
3 P.H.D.’S Isn’t Enough Than None Of Your Evidence Ought To Be Evaluated Either
7. The Idso Site Has Been Overhauled And Is Now A Pay Site – This Means That Now It Is Just Like Any Other
Online Journal – It Is Paid For By Public Funds – In Order To Get Access You Have To Subscribe – This
26
Warming False
Ensures Funding Comes From Anonymous Sources, And Means Your Oil Funding Claims Are Now
Irrelevant
27
Warming False
AT: Oil Funding Taints Your Authors
Even Gelbspan Admits That Private Funding Does Not Result In Flawed Science
GELBSPAN ‘97
(Ross, Pulitzer Prize Winner, frmr editor and reporter of Boston Globe, Village Voice, The Heat is On: The Climate
Crisis, The Cover Up, The Prescription, 1997, pg. 197//cndi-ef)
Earlier chapters have documented the hitherto undisclosed funding that several of these self-
proclaimed skeptics have received from fossil fuel interests, as well as their participation in
industry- funded public relations activities. Still, private funding-even of an undisclosed
nature-does not necessarily result in flawed science. Moreover, it is beyond the scope of a
journalist to evaluate the findings of scientists.
Even If They Win This Argument It Isn’t A Reason To Reject Our Authors – They Have To Prove That Their Authors
Are Uniquely More Qualified Than Our Authors In Order For You To Priveledge Their Claims Over Ours
[Read Specific Source Indicts Of Their Arguments]
28
Warming False
AT: Chalko
And, Chalko Is A Pseudo Scientist At-Best. His Arguments Aren’t Based In Sound Science, And No Rational Human
Being Agrees With Him
Smith ‘08
(Wesley, senior fellow in bioethics at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and
Culture. His blog, Secondhand Smoke, “Media Malpractice; Another global warming meltdown, Daily Standard,
6/19/08, pg nexis//cndi-ef)
Now I am not a scientist, butthe idea that a few alleged degrees of warming--with none apparently in the last decade--could cause an
increase in earthquakes seemed pure quackery to me. So, I decided to perform Google and Yahoo searches of the "scientist" who had issued the
finding, one Thomas Chalko, MSc, Ph.D. In less than five minutes I found that Chalko was perhaps the last person who should be quoted on
the purported impact of allegedly man-caused global warming. Chalko is best described as a
pseudo-scientist--at least when it comes to the fields of global warming and earthquakes about which he was quoted by CBS and MSNBC as an
authority. He is not a meteorologist. Nor is he a geophysicist or seismologist. His website reveals that he is into
"self healing," "vibrations," and alien visitations. Thus, he writes: Awaken the perfect healer: your own body and mind. Living should be a wonderful
experience. The best and most important things in life should be free and effortless. Our bodies should stay in a perfect state of health for as long as we want. This is not a dream. You can choose to aim for it with your own effort.
Chalko's "aural" workshop promises to explain "how to see your own aura," and "the meaning of the aura
and its colors." Chalko also writes in the online NU Journal of Discovery--which he founded and for
which he appears to be the only writer--that global warming could cause the earth to explode:
If the [earth's] under-cooled solid core reactor [due to global warming] continues to accumulate heat,
despite the above described cooling mechanisms, conditions for its meltdown may occur. The meltdown
will begin in the center of the planetary core reactor. Since the core is eccentric and spins, the molten part will be subject to centrifugal forces that will eventually segregate and stratify various radioactive isotopes present in the
core according to their density. If the molten area of the core becomes large enough, one of the isotopes may reach the critical mass. In such a case, the geothermic energy that was scheduled to be released over billions of years will
be released in a fraction of a second and the planet will explode. One doesn't have to be a scientist to know this is beyond nutty . Wait
it gets even worse. The story published both by CBS and MSNBC is a verbatim copy of an article on Chalko's website, which announces: "Earthquakes 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago." The article begins:
New research complied by an Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago. The research proves that destructive ability of
earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed. Now, here is the headline and opening of CBS's
June 18 story (now removed) purporting to be from the AP (but I couldn't find an AP story on Chalko's prediction): "Today's Quakes Deadlier Than In Past." The entire story is exactly as it appears on Chalko's site,
beginning with: (AP) New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago. The research proves that destructive
ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed. Ditto MSNBC, only MSNBC went
even further, linking to a Chalko article in NU Journal of Discovery, and even included his personal contact information!The media love to repeatedly parrot the liberal meme that the Bush administration is scientifically ignorant.
But the Chalko non story shows that many in the MSM are the true scientific ignoramuses-- as well as true
believers. Even if a story that is patently ridiculous comes across their transoms supporting their
mass-think, and, better yet, purports to be based on a "scientific study," why bother
with fact and source checking? No wonder the public is fast losing faith in what the media tell them. File this debacle under Stupidity in the Media.
And, Chalko Is An Idiot – He Should Have ALL His Degrees Taken Away – There Is No Correlation Between Seizmic
Activity And Global Warming – Thousands Of Years Worth Of Evidence Proves
Lone Star Times 6/19/08
(nqa, “The Wacky World of Global Warming "Scientists," pg nexis//cndi-ef)
Jun. 19, 2008 (Lone Star Times delivered by Newstex) -- When LST Commenter Tedtam posted a link to this story I honestly thought it was a joke. I've heard quack scientists blame global warming for many things but never this:
The research proves that

New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.
destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to
continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed. Yes, that's right folks. If we don't address "global
warming", or as Dr. Chalko says, the problem of persistent thermal imbalance of Earth (PTIE), we are all
going to be swallowed up by Gaia's noble chasms of annihilation! The analysis of more than 386,000 earthquakes between 1973 and 2007 recorded on the US Geological
Survey database proved that the global annual energy of earthquakes on Earth began increasing very fast since 1990. Dr. Chalko said that global seismic activity was increasing faster than any other global warming indicator on
What idiot decided that seismic activity was a global warming

Earth and that this increase is extremely alarming.
indicator? Anyone suggesting that such a ridiculous correlation is a causation should have any
and all scientific degrees, awards, accreditations, tenure, and his birth certificate revoked toot
sweet. In addition he should be taxed for excessive stupidity. Was it even considered that we've only
been gathering data on seismic activity on a global scale since the last half of the 20th century?
Was global warming responsible for the catastrophic prehistoric earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions, many dwarfing any we've ever seen, that have been discovered in the fossil record? What about the massive
seismic and volcanic events that have been witnessed and recorded by mankind over the last
couple thousand years? Global warming too? "Unless the problem of global warming (the problem of persistent thermal imbalance of Earth) is addressed urgently and
comprehensively - the rapid increase in global seismic, volcanic and tectonic activity is certain. Consequences of inaction can only be catastrophic. There is no time for half-measures." Just when you think this debate cannot
29
Warming False
possibly get any stranger a poster child for the benefits of retroactive vasectomies stumbles into the light. Actually, this may be a good thing. The more imbecilic these charlatans sound the quicker we can dispense of this nonsense.
Newstex ID: LST-0001-26092139
30
Warming False
AT: Chalko
Chalko Is An Idiot
Smith 08
Media Malpractice,Another Global Warming Meltdown, Wesley J. Smith, The Weekly Standard, June 19, 2008
http://www.discovery.org/a/5911
THERE IS A SURE-FIRE WAY to make the news these days: Just issue a press release beginning with the words,
"New scientific study shows," and have it assert a conclusion that the MSM fervently want to believe--especially if
the resulting story would serve to debunk or refute a Bush administration policy. Slam-dunk! Your press release
will become news!
You are skeptical, you say? But what other explanation is there for the decision by CBS and MSNBC to post on
their websites a ridiculous story about a new scientific "finding" that global warming is causing an increase in the
world's earthquakes--an item that was even linked for a time on the Drudge Report.
Now I am not a scientist, but the idea that a few alleged degrees of warming--with none apparently in the last
decade--could cause an increase in earthquakes seemed pure quackery to me. So, I decided to perform Google and
Yahoo searches of the "scientist" who had issued the finding, one Thomas Chalko, MSc, Ph.D. In less than five
minutes I found that Chalko was perhaps the last person who should be quoted on the purported
impact of allegedly man-caused global warming.
Chalko is best described as a pseudo-scientist--at least when it comes to the fields of global warming
and earthquakes about which he was quoted by CBS and MSNBC as an authority. He is not a meteorologist. Nor is
he a geophysicist or seismologist. His website reveals that he is into "self healing," "vibrations," and
alien visitations. Thus, he writes:
Awaken the perfect healer: your own body and mind. Living should be a wonderful experience. The best and
most important things in life should be free and effortless. Our bodies should stay in a perfect state of health for as
long as we want. This is not a dream. You can choose to aim for it with your own effort.
Chalko's "aural" workshop promises to explain "how to see your own aura," and "the meaning of the
aura and its colors." Chalko also writes in the online NU Journal of Discovery--which he founded and
for which he appears to be the only writer--that global warming could cause the earth to explode:
If the [earth's] under-cooled solid core reactor [due to global warming] continues to accumulate heat, despite the
above described cooling mechanisms, conditions for its meltdown may occur. The meltdown will begin in the
center of the planetary core reactor. Since the core is eccentric and spins, the molten part will be subject to
centrifugal forces that will eventually segregate and stratify various radioactive isotopes present in the core
according to their density. If the molten area of the core becomes large enough, one of the isotopes may reach the
critical mass. In such a case, the geothermic energy that was scheduled to be released over billions of years will be
released in a fraction of a second and the planet will explode.
One doesn't have to be a scientist to know this is beyond nutty.

Wait it gets even worse. The story published both by CBS and MSNBC is a verbatim copy of an article on
Chalko's website, which announces: "Earthquakes 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago." The article
begins:
31
Warming False
New research complied by an Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is
now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago. The research proves that destructive ability of
earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global
warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed.
Now, here is the headline and opening of CBS's June 18 story (now removed) purporting to be from the AP (but I
couldn't find an AP story on Chalko's prediction): "Today's Quakes Deadlier Than In Past." The entire story is
exactly as it appears on Chalko's site, beginning with:
(AP) New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth
is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago. The research proves that destructive ability of
earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global
warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed.
Ditto MSNBC, only MSNBC went even further, linking to a Chalko article in NU Journal of Discovery, and even
included his personal contact information!
The media love to repeatedly parrot the liberal meme that the Bush administration is scientifically ignorant. But
the Chalko non story shows that many in the MSM are the true scientific ignoramuses--as well as true believers.
Even if a story that is patently ridiculous comes across their transoms supporting their mass-think, and, better yet,
purports to be based on a "scientific study," why bother with fact and source checking?
No wonder the public is fast losing faith in what the media tell them. File this debacle under Stupidity in Media
file.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow in bioethics at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for
Bioethics and Culture. His blog, Secondhand Smoke, can be accessed at www.wesleyjsmith.com.
32
Warming False
Author Quals
Warming hype was founded on scientists who were paid to come up with absurd theories.
We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are sounding these
TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS
warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of "scientists." There
are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on what they know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old
practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science. And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly
Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in
dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.
American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental science has become
the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the
bucks coming, NASA has justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed environmental
research. And the budgets keep coming. At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green
agenda. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.
33
Warming False
AT: Consensus
No consensus for warming – a bigger amount of people support the opposite.
SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists
now agree that global warming is a fact. What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists
from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in
Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any
dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000. He also
doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North American climatologists showed
that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory. And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end
of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis said: 1.
"none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed
climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2. "no study to date has positively attributed
all or part of the climate change to ...man-made causes." Global warming is the greatest hoax
ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none.
Climate Conference Agrees That Global Warming Isn’t Happening. Most Others Believe Man-Made Emissions
Unlikely To Cause Major Climate Change.
A recent climate conference in New York City, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, provides
some answers. More than 100 climatologists in attendance dispelled notions that the global
warming debate is over. Most of the others in attendance (more than 500) would readily
acknowledge the existence of post-Little Ice Age warming, but believe man-made emissions
are unlikely to cause major climate change and signed a declaration to that effect.
34
Warming False
AT: Consensus
No Consensus, 31,000 Scientists Sign Global Warming Rejection
Zosh, 08
(Melinda Zosh, May 22, 2008, 31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/, Accuracy in Media)
Presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that “we have to get used to the idea that we can’t keep our
houses at 72, drive our SUVs and eat all we want.” Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, has a different response. “I don’t want to give up eating all I want
because of a failed hypothesis,” said Robinson at the National Press Club here on May 19. Robinson said global
warming is not a threat to America. He said that the global temperature increased by just .5 degrees in the last
century. Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the
claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.” “World
temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen
many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental
evidence that humans are changing the environment…” Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and
a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that
global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists. Dennis Avery, Director for the
Center of Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, agrees with Robinson. “Nobody can do science by a
committee. You do science by testing,” said Avery. “To me it is appalling that an international organization of the
stature of the U.N. would ignore the evidence of past climate changing.” The signers of Robinson’s
petition, including 9,000 Ph.Ds, all have one thing in common. They believe that human rights
are being taken away. When the U.N. and others want to limit hydrocarbons, which account for 85% of the
current United States energy supplies, the consequences are disastrous, Robinson said. “America is buying 30
percent of its energy abroad... Now we’re getting to the point where we can’t afford energy abroad,” said
Robinson. “The problem was created by state and federal taxation against…now they want to [make]…further
regulations that will stop these hydrocarbons.” Robinson said that the results of high taxation and regulation of
energy is evident in America right now with gas prices hitting over four dollars per gallon. When you take away
energy, you lose critical technology, he said. “Industry is required to give you all the things you want, ranging
from pencils to cars,” said Robinson. “When you take away technology, you lose all those things. Anything that
was created with any sort of technology was created by energy.” Robinson said that without necessary energy, the
world will see the “greatest technological genocide you can imagine.” “We wouldn’t have six billion people on
Earth without technology,” said Robinson. “If you reduce energy, you [are also] reducing technology. The biggest
problem is people in the third world who die in enormous numbers.” Avery said that a vast number of people are
already suffering in the third world, because they are forced to cook inside their homes. “The indoor cooking fires
in the third world are vastly more harmful to the health of women and children than smoking cigarettes,” said
Avery. “If you eliminate their opportunity to move up from burning dung and straw and wood to burning
kerosene…then you are eliminating their possibility of having healthy lungs.” In addition, Avery said that energy
restrictions cause “an awful lot of premature deaths.” However, if Green Peace decides to eliminate nitrogen
fertilizer, even more people will suffer. “If we eliminate the nitrogen fertilizer, then that will cut the world’s crop
fields in half immediately,” said Avery. “Half the world will be hungry.” Robinson said that the U.N. is doing
more harm than good. “Every individual has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness….and the right to
access technology that will help him prosper whether he is a wealthy man in the U.S. or an African that can barely
feed himself,” said Robinson. Robinson said that war could also result from limited energy and technological
resources. “There could be vast human suffering, death, and terrible wars, because big wars usually start over
resources,” said Robinson. “And there’s no way people will understand what’s happening… when you start
starving large portions of the population and diminishing the prosperity of others.” Robinson said that people need
to look at the facts, and realize that “ correlation does not prove causality.” 31,000 scientists agree.
But what about the rest of the American population? “Winston Churchill once said that Americans
always do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else,” said Robinson. “Maybe that’s what we’re going to do
this time. But there will be a lot of suffering.”
35
Warming False
AT: Consensus
There is much climatologist dissent on global warming
Carlson, 08
(Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?,Jerry Carlson, February 1, 2008, http://www.aim.org/special-
report/print/will-media-expose-global-warming-con-job/, Accuracy in Media)
In March 2007 the UK’s Channel 4 broadcast a biting documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. It
debunked most of the major arguments of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning video, An Inconvenient Truth. The Chinese
word for crisis is a combination of the two ideograms Wei, which means "danger" and Ji, which means
"opportunity." The Chinese word for crisis In the past several months, a new "crisis" has heated up the controversy
over man-made global warming. A few major-media writers and TV personalities are actually reporting statements
by credible scientists who are challenging the assumption that carbon dioxide is the primary force causing global
warming. There's a real possibility that big-name journalists will break ranks and pursue their next Pulitzer Prize
by exposing the lack of scientific consensus on CO2 as a planet-heating pollutant. That would create a crisis of
confidence among the activists, researchers and global-governance apparatchiks who want a global carbon tax to
build their political and financial power base. As an agricultural journalist, I find this a fascinating new
development in the climate controversy. I've studied weather and climate for more than 50 years. In the early
1970s, I wrote a short book, Tomorrow's Wild Weather, which warned what could happen if there was a long-term
continuation of the cooling trends in the mid-latitudes since the 1930s. As climatologist Reid Bryson advised me at
the time, a cooler climate in temperate zones would have been serious for world agriculture: Westerly winds would
intensify, making U.S. weather more extreme. Africa's Sahel desert would expand much farther southward,
spreading famine across northern Africa. The data looked ominous: Average temperature in the 48 U.S. states had
fallen by more than six-tenths of a degree Celsius since 1930. This cooling attracted widespread press coverage
and even some political pressure-to reduce "aerosols" or fine particles of pollutants which must be making our
atmosphere more opaque. But the "New Ice Age" scare faded as more refined data emerged and the longer-term,
slow recovery from the Little Ice Age resumed. I've continued to follow the climate controversy, especially since
the 1997 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since that conference, billions of dollars in government
funding have generated floods of research data, a myriad of computer models, political posturing and the Kyoto
Protocol. The New Data Most of that data is freely available to scientists and others on the
Internet. Using it, hundreds of highly qualified climatologists and other scientists outside the
fraternal network of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have challenged
climate prediction models and other assumptions of the IPCC's reports. While there's consensus
that climates change over time, climatologists are sharply divided over the interactions of the
many potential causes. As research emerges, CO2 as a primary warming force becomes harder
to defend with hard data. These challenges are starting to fracture the UN's pretext for global governance over
carbon emissions-including imposition of carbon taxes and "carbon credit" trading supervised by UN agencies.
Giving the UN a legal right to impose a carbon tax- "cap and trade" in UNspeak-would provide an income stream
to UN agencies which would greatly increase political power of UN bureaucracies. And their track record with
large amounts of money, such as the Iraqi Oil for Food program, is not encouraging. However, if the scientific case
for CO2 as a primary climate pollutant crumbles, so could a global carbon tax. Individual climatologists
have disputed conclusions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change even before
the first IPCC Assessment Report in 1990. The IPCC has issued a series of reports, each
focusing on CO2 as the primary "greenhouse gas" causing the continuing warming recovery
since the Little Ice Age. One of the first organized scientific counterattacks sounded on April 6,
2006. Sixty accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines signed a letter to
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging that billions of Canadian tax dollars
appropriated to implement the Kyoto Protocol on climate change "will be squandered without a
proper assessment of recent developments in climate science." They wrote that if today's extensive
climate knowledge and measuring capabilities had existed in the mid-1990s, the Kyoto treaty "would almost
certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." That scientific challenge received
little prime-time media attention. The Canadian government's administration and legislature mostly ignored it.
Film Exposes Gore's Deceptions Then, in March 2007, the UK's Channel 4 broadcast a biting documentary, The
36
Warming False
Great Global Warming Swindle. It debunked most of the major arguments of Al Gore's Oscar-winning video, An
Inconvenient Truth. For example, the Antarctic ice core data dramatized in Gore's show actually reveal that
increases in CO2 have generally followed increases in temperature. The lag is typically on the order of 800 years.
The Swindle documentary roused furor and scorn among carbon-as-cause believers, who attacked Channel 4 as
offering a "great propaganda gift" to "climate-change deniers." But the credibility and rationale of scientific
sources on the documentary endured the attacks. No factual challenges were forthcoming against the scientists'
arguments. The controversy over this TV show, the first journalistic challenge against CO2 as primary world
thermostat, may have encouraged others in the scientific community to point out that despite roughly $50 billion
for climate-change research over several decades, the case against carbon dioxide faces more uncertainty as the
evidence grows, not less. One such challenge comes from Dr. Bob Carter, Research Professor at James
Cook University and paleoclimate analyst with more than 30 years' experience, including 95
research papers. In an Accuracy in Media guest column in April 2007, Carter emphasized: " The evidence for
dangerous global warming forced by human carbon dioxide emissions is extremely weak. That
the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and that even the
ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates that a key line of
circumstantial evidence for human-caused change-the parallel rise in the late 20th century of
both atmospheric carbon dioxide and surface temperatures-is now negated." This challenge and
others from eminent scientists roused the carbon theorists to their ramparts. On the website www.realclimate.org,
Gavin Scmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf presented a 1980-2006 chart of global temperature showing that the trend of
deviation from "normal" in that 26-year period remains up. But they made no attempt to explain why shorter-term
deviations vary more widely than the longer-term anomaly, which puts the globe at about 0.4 degrees Celsius
above its long-term "normal" using the GISTEMP Land-Ocean Index computed by the Goddard Institute for Space
Studies. Throughout 2007, hundreds of highly qualified climate scientists individually
challenged the presumption that global regulators can, and must, manage the world's thermostat
by curbing 50% - and possible eventually 100%-of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
Continuing Debate The most lively media arena for the CO2 emissions controversy the past two years has been,
by far, among Internet websites and blogs. The Science and Public Policy Institute
(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org) offers a wide-ranging forum on the science of climate change. Websites like the
SPPI bypass major-media gatekeepers and the UN organizers, who carefully monitor any non-governmental
organization wishing to attend an IPCC climate conference. Example: At the November 2000 Conference of the
Parties (COP6) climate parley in the Hague, Netherlands, the only non-governmental organization to oppose the
Kyoto Protocol was Sovereignty International (www.sovereignty.net). The websites provide newspaper, radio and
TV reporters a rich diversity of data and analysis on the issue. Usually, any posted article contains an opportunity
for immediate rebuttal. These websites may embolden scientists to speak out more frequently in a forum
unconstrained by peer review. The volume of new climate data is accelerating, which means that media-amplified
claims like the linkage between climate warming and hurricanes can be challenged more quickly. For instance, the
SPPI site points out 35 factual errors in Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." On Dec. 20 2007,
the biggest-yet assembly of scientists challenging the Kyoto pretext of CO2-as-villain was
posted by Marc Morano on the minority page of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works. This extensive digging by Sen. James Inhofe's staff summarized comments
from over 400 prominent scientists who disputed some aspect of man-made global warming in
2007. These scientists' observations fill some 120 pages when printed out from the website. But they
hardly made a ripple on prime-time TV news. This Senate site says, in part: "Over 400 prominent scientists
from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of
the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are
current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore." Sen.
Inhofe's staff observes, "Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing
number of skeptical scientists. In October, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious,
writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."
37
Warming False
AT: Fossi Fuel Industry Taints
Oil Companies Cut Ties To Skeptics
MSNBC Jan. 12, 2007

(Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics, Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases MSNBC staff
and news service reports, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ )
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves
that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases. Exxon,
along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the
Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall
with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions. Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for
Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely
misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.” Story
continues below ↓advertisement Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks
of greenhouse emissions. CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but
it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on
CNBC’s “On the Money.” Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that
downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions. Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy
industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a
bill to curb emissions. President Bush has opposed mandatory emissions cuts such as those required by the
international Kyoto Protocol. He withdrew the United States, the world’s top carbon emitter, from the Kyoto pact
early in his first term. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader, has said he wants new
legislation this spring to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Other legislators also are planning hearings on
emissions.
38
Warming False
Author Prodicts
Global Warming skeptics are all qualified
Oriana Zill de Granandos, april 24, 2007

The Doubters of Global Warming: profiles of five prominent global warming skeptics,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html
Many of the researchers expressing doubts about the science of global warming have financial ties to the oil, auto,
electricity and coal industries. These experts appear regularly at Congressional hearings, on television, radio and in
print, and at events in order to spread their message. That message varies somewhat from skeptic to skeptic but
generally sows doubt about climate change, challenging the consensus of mainstream scientists. They ask whether
global warming is really occurring, whether human activity is truly to blame and whether rising temperatures are
such a bad thing.
Here are profiles of five of the most famous skeptics:
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D.

President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences; Chairman Emeritus, George C. Marshall Institute
“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of
technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. This treaty is, in our
opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons
is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally
helpful.”
Letter to the Oregon Petition Project, 1997.
Area of Expertise: Dubbed by Business Week "the

granddaddy of global-warming skeptics" in 2000, Dr.
Seitz is a physicist who served as the president of the National Academy of Science during the
1960s and of Rockefeller University from 1968 to 1978. In 1973, he received the National
Medal of Science.
From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, Seitz worked as a paid consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Hot
Politics editorial consultant Mark Hertsgaard reported in Vanity Fair that helped the cigarette maker distribute $45
million for scientific research, which the company then touted in its advertising. Seitz himself eventually made
over $585,000 during the approximately ten years that he worked for the tobacco industry.
Dr. Seitz began publishing opinion pieces dismissing the dangers of global
In the 1990s,
warming. In 1998, he circulated a petition through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that
carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate and rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz was also a signatory of the 1995
Leipzig Declaration, which disputed that there was any scientific agreement about climate change.
Affiliations & Funding: Among the several skeptical organizations with which Dr. Seitz has been affiliated, he has
been Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between
1998 and 2005, according to the Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon's financial documents. Seitz
also served on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,
which received $472,000 from Exxon from 1998 to 2005, according to the same sources.
Recent viewpoints: Seitz was interviewed on April 3, 2006 for FRONTLINE's Hot Politics. He defended his
acceptance of money from the oil and tobacco industries by stating that the money did not influence his science.
"As a president, a responsible president, of an institution that can devour enormous amounts of money usefully, I
would take any green money for that cause. It's who spends the money that's important," he said.
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
39
Warming False
“Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has
nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to
anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators -- and many scientists -- seem to miss is that the only
thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. …
"The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperature-wise, but
also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for
next week.”
"Why so Gloomy?", Newsweek, April 2007.
A meteorologist, Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Area of Expertise:
His published works include papers on monsoons, how heat and water move around the world,
the ice ages and the effects of seasonal changes on the atmosphere. Lindzen worked on -- and
was vocally critical of -- the Second Assessment of Climate Change by the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in 1995; that same year he also signed the
Leipzig Declaration. He has frequently aired his skepticism in testimony before Congress.
Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively
from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this
statement. Ross Gelbspan, who did some of the first reporting on climate skeptics' links to industry, wrote in
Harper's Magazine in 1995: "[Lindzen] charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his
1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled
'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which
has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according
to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also
been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website
Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall
Institute.
Recent viewpoints: On January 31, 2007, Lindzen appeared on Larry King Live and said, regarding fear of global
warming, "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare
each other and themselves." Weeks later, he told the San Diego Union-Tribune, "To say that climate change will be
catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science." Dr. Lindzen
also appeared in the March 8, 2007 film The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on British television.
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.

President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for
Humane Studies, George Mason University.
“The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming. ... Mr Gore and
company are stirring the pot, trying to create public anxiety in order to impose a form of energy rationing on the
economy.”
"Climate concern is just a tax ruse", Financial Times, Nov. 23, 2006.
A physicist and electrical engineer, Dr. Singer received his Ph.D. in Physics
Area of Expertise:
from Princeton University. In the 1940s and 1950s, he worked to develop instruments that can
measure ozone and cosmic radiation from satellites. He is a former director of the U.S. National
Weather Satellite Center and was a Deputy Administrator of the EPA in the early 1970s.
Dr. Singer has written extensively about his doubts about global warming science and is the
author of the Leipzig Declaration signed by many skeptics. He has also published his doubts about the
links between second hand smoke and lung cancer and between UV rays and skin cancer.
40
Warming False
Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Singer publicly denies receiving funding from energy industry sources, but he has
acknowledged previously being a paid consultant for several oil companies. In addition, his organization -- the
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) -- has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, according to
a review of Exxon's own financial documents and Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org. That site also shows that many
of the other organizations with which Singer works -- Frontiers of Freedom, the Cato Institute, National Center for
Policy Analysis -- have received large grants from Exxon as well.
Recent Viewpoints: In a June 2006 letter to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal, Singer wrote,"The
current warming trend is not unusual: Climate is always either warming or cooling, and ice is either melting or
accumulating. ... The human contribution to global warming appears to be quite small and natural climate factors
are dominant."
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D

Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; Virginia State
Climatologist.
“It has been my history to get these ideas that are unpopular at the time but end up having some veracity. It
certainly keeps me prominent. Twenty years ago I said that global warming would be the most mistreated scientific
argument of our time. Global warming is an exaggeration issue, predictably blown out of proportion by the
political and professional climate in which it evolved.”
Interview with Weatherwise Magazine, May 1, 2005.
Area of Expertise: Dr. Michaels earned his doctorate in ecological climatology from the University
of Wisconsin at Madison. He served as the former President of the American Association of
State Climatologists. His research has focused on the way climate affects agriculture. Michaels
is the author of 1992's Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming, among
other works. He is also affiliated with New Hope Environmental Services, Inc., which bills itself as an
"advocacy science consulting firm." He is also a signatory of the Leipzig Declaration.
Affiliations & Funding: Dr. Michaels has acknowledged receiving funding from energy industry sources. He edits
"World Climate Review," a newsletter and blog funded by the Western Fuels Association, a coalition of coal and
electricity interests. Among the energy companies and groups from which he has received funding are the German
Coal Mining Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the Cyprus Minerals Company. According to ABC
News, in February 2006, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels."
Recent Viewpoints: Michaels wrote in an op-ed in the Feb. 2, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle: "A small, but very
vocal, band of extremists have been hawking a doomsday scenario, in which Greenland suddenly melts, raising sea
levels 12 feet or more by 2100. … While this forecast enjoys no real support in the traditionally refereed scientific
literature, it is repeated everywhere, and its supporters are already claiming that the IPCC -- the self-proclaimed
'consensus of scientists' -- is now wrong because it has toned down its projections of doom and gloom."
Robert C. Balling, Jr. Ph. D.

Former Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University
“Some actions could lessen our ability to adapt, or at least some of us. If electricity prices are driven up, making
air conditioning less affordable, who will suffer the most? The poorest among us who can least afford higher
prices, and who thereby would suffer more heat related deaths. When the weather gets hot, people need to avoid
heated rhetoric and engage in some cool thinking.”
"Heat Wave, Hot Air", Tech Central Station, Aug. 4, 2005.
received his Ph.D. in geography from University of Oklahoma in

Area of Expertise: Dr. Balling
1979 and was a senior consultant to the United Nations World Meteorological Organization. Dr.
Balling has written various books, including Heated Debate, published by the Pacific Research
Institute in 1992, and True State of the Planet, published by Competitive Enterprise Institute.
He co-wrote The Satanic Gases with Patrick J. Michaels, published by the Cato Institute.
41
Warming False
Balling signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1995. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central
Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all of which have expressed doubt about global warming.
Affiliations & Funding: Journalist Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Balling had received "more than $200,000
from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere." Dr. Balling has also received funding since
1989 from the Kuwaiti government, which paid for a version of Balling's A Heated Debate to be released in the
Middle East. According to Greenpeace's Exxonsecrets.org, Dr. Balling conducted an ExxonMobil-funded study in
2002 entitled "The 2000 United States Historical Climate Network Update: What Changed?"
Recent Viewpoints: "Plants all over the planet evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were very much higher than
what we have today. Literally thousands of biological experiments show that when atmospheric CO2 levels
increase, plants grow faster, bigger, more resistant to any number of stresses, and far more water-use efficient. In
many ways, plants must feel like they are going home to a world in which they evolved with CO2 levels up to ten
times what we have today. In order to make CO2 more sinister, claims are made that ragweed and poison ivy will
grow more vigorously in the future, and indeed they will. But so will every tree in the forest, grasses in our
rangelands, and every agricultural crop." "Give a Hoot, Don't (Call It) 'Pollute'", Tech Central Station, July 17,
2006.
42
Warming False
IPCC Says No Warming

In Recent Years, IPCCC Scientists Concede No Warming
Battig, 08
(LETTER- No global warming proof, by Charles G. Battig, published 2/14/2008
http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2008/02/14/letter-battigonstenger-0707.rtf.aspx)
The interview by Lindsay Barnes with UVA climatologist Jerry Stenger ["Jerry gander: Stenger has his eyes on the
skies," February 7] posed the question "Does the new man in charge believe that global warming exists?"
The answer by Stenger is most troubling from the viewpoint of accepted scientific protocol. His answer that global
temperatures have "increased rather sharply over the last 30 years" and that this has occurred over a period of great
increase in the amount of greenhouse gases leads to the "reasonable conclusion" that ..."part of it is driven by
human activity."
There is no justification for such a conclusion.
As a scientist, Stenger should understand that mere association is not proof. Many events can
be selected to show association without the least bit of cause and effect. In most other sciences, this
would be grounds for a working hypothesis, at most.
Former UVA climatologist Michael Mann tried to prove this hypothesis in 1998 with the now infamous "hockey
stick" construct of global temperature history. Subsequent independent analysis exposed it to be fundamentally
wrong.
Stenger does not acknowledge that there has been no significant global warming for the past
ten years in spite of continuing atmospheric CO2 increases. Even the manmade global warming
activists at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] now acknowledge
this. Rajendra Pachauri, head of a UN panel, says he will look into this apparent temperature
plateau. The largest increases in global temperature had already taken place before 1940, and
the subsequent increases in atmospheric CO2, with 1934 as the warmest year of recent history,
according to corrected NASA records.
The record shows an average global warming of about 0.8 degree C over the past 100 years. No
"human fingerprint" has been proved. A lot of evidence does point to a recurring pattern of eons
of warmings and coolings.
43
Warming False
IPCC Not Credible
IPCC Intentionally Misleads Participants And Is An Unscientific, Uncredible Source
Man vs. Nature,Challenging Conventional Views About Global Warming, JOHN STOSSEL, Oct. 19, 2007, ABC
News-20/20 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=3751219&page=1
The globe is warming, it's our fault and the consequences are going to be terrible. So goes the rhetoric spouted by
politicians, celebrities and the media.
It's hard to turn on the TV or open a newspaper these days without hearing about the horrors caused by our
warming climate. We can expect more floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes as global warming continues,
and pretty soon we'll have to flee from the coasts as the polar ice caps melt and our shorelines flood.
Children are frightened, too. I spoke to a group of kids who said they worry about their future on our planet. One
girl feared that water might rise near her house in Rockaway, N.Y., "and it might flood the whole town."
A few of these kids learned about global warming from former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An
Inconvenient Truth." The movie has been seen by millions, won an an Academy Award and earned Gore
widespread praise in the media. People have proclaimed him a "prophet," a "cultural icon" and a "conquering
hero." Just last week, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. With all this news coverage, it's no surprise that 86 percent of
Americans think global warming is a serious problem and 70 percent want the government to do something now.
But is it a crisis? The globe is warming, but is it really all our fault? And is it true the debate is over? No. What you
think you know may not be so.
In the movie, for example, Gore says that if we allow the globe to warm, "sea levels worldwide would go up 20
feet." Then he shows his audience terrifying maps of Florida and San Francisco submerged under rising sea levels.
But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared last week's Nobel Prize with Gore, said that
would probably take thousands of years to happen. Over the next 100 years, sea levels are expected to rise seven to
24 inches, not 20 feet.
Gore also implies that polar bears are dying off, because receding Arctic ice has forced them to swim longer
distances. The kids I interviewed were especially worried about the fate of the polar bears. But the polar bears
appear to be doing all right. Future warming may hurt them, but right now data from the World Conservation
Union and the U.S. Geological Survey show most populations of polar bears are stable or increasing.
The Debate Is Over?
The most impressive demonstration in Gore's movie is that big graph of temperature and carbon dioxide levels
stretching back 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is thought to amplify temperature increases, but his graph seemed
to show clear cause and effect: When carbon dioxide levels rose, so did temperature. It suggested that carbon
levels controlled temperature. But a real inconvenient truth is that the carbon increase came after temperatures
rose, usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first.
I wanted to ask Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to an interview. According to Gore, the
"debate is over."
I interviewed some scientists who say the debate is by no means over. John Christy and Roy Spencer won NASA's
Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites.
"We all agree that it's warmed," Spencer said. "The big question is, and the thing we dispute is, is it because of
mankind?"
Climate changes, they say, always has, with or without man. Early last century, even without today's huge output
of carbon dioxide, the Arctic went through a warming period.
44
Warming False
Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s and reached higher average temperatures in the 1930s
and 1940s than today's temperatures.
Some scientists argue the warming might be caused by changes in the sun, or ocean currents, or changes in cloud
cover, or other things we don't yet understand. The debate is not over.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
But who's to say that yesterday's temperature is the perfect one?
"The fact is, when climate changes, there are gains and there are losses," said Tim Ball, who studies the history of
climate change. But, he points out, all we generally hear about is the bad news from the IPCC µ that massive
group of climate scientists.
Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute participated in one of the IPCC drafts and Christy was a
contributing author. Both say that this Nobel Prize-winning group is not what people think it is.
"The IPCC is the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change," Reiter said. "It is governments
who nominate people. You'll find in many chapters that there are people who are not scientists
at all." Reiter claims that some of these scientists are "essentially activists" and there are some
members with affiliations to groups like Greenpeace.
When the IPCC report came out, not all its members agreed with what was said. "We were not
asked to look at a particular statement and sign our names, at all," Christy said.
Reiter felt his objections were ignored and says he resigned in frustration. But in a draft of the
report, the IPCC still listed Reiter as a "contributing author" µ part of the so-called consensus.
"I contacted the IPCC and I said, 'Look, I've resigned. I don't want to have anything more to do
with this.' And they said, 'Well, you've been involved, so you're still on the list.'" Reiter says he
had to threaten to sue to get his name removed from the report, although the IPCC denies that.
In all the confusion surrounding the global warming debate, one thing is clear: Global warming activists don't
welcome the skepticism.
Those who call their extreme projections into question are compared with Holocaust deniers and accused of being
paid off by big business. I've questioned the extreme global warming predictions in the past, and for that I've been
branded a "corporate toadie" and a "flat-earther." I don't mind being called names, but is this what the global
warming debate has come to? One side saying, "Shut up. Dissent should not be heard?"
The truth is, that while everyone agrees that the earth has warmed, lots of good scientists don't agree that it's
mostly our fault, and don't agree that it's going to be a catastrophe. So when Gore says, "The debate is over," I say,
"Give Me a Break!"
45
Warming False
IPCC Fraudulent
IPCC Cannot Be Trusted Because They Mix Science And Religion.
Gasses Pg. 15-16 (So – salvation). //CNDI - RV
One thing scientists try to do is to keep the supernatural out of the natural world they so
objectively study. But it is clear that John Houghton, senior scientist for the IPCC, from the
organization's inception to the creation of the onerous climate treaties, has had no problem
mixing the two. On June 17, 1996, as a run-up to an important UN Geneva meeting whose goal was to
strengthen the climate treaty that subsequently grew out of the IPCC (chapter 11), Houghton wrote in the London
Times that climate change is a "moral issue" and that he welcomed "the current initiative of the World
Council of Churches which calls upon the Government. to adopt firm, clear policies and targets,
and the public to accept the necessary consequences." This sentiment echoes Al Gore's words in
Earth in the Balance about "the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching
transformation of society will not be necessary" to fight global warming. Houghton went on to say
that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of, the planet from
mankind's greed and indifference." Here he conveniently wedded his scientific authority, as an influential.
member of the IPCC, and religion, to create some virtuous, privation and "material salvation."
The IPCC Concealed Discrepancies From The Public In Their Report.
Gasses Pg. 18 (In fact – temperatures). //CNDI - RV
In fact, the 1992 supplementary report did more. For the first time, the IPCC was lowering its estimates
of future global warming because of the well-known (to scientists) but previously concealed (from
policymakers) discrepancies between computer forecasts of climate change and observed temperatures.
IPCC Has Admitted That They Have Lied And Been Wrong.
Gasses Pg. 18 (but – time?) //CNDI - RV
Six years later, in July 1998, the new head of the IPCC,
But the process went forward at its own peril.
Robert Watson, would admit in a congressional hearing that the models that were the basis for
the 1990 report were, in his word, "wrong." How could the IPCC invalidate its own
"consensus" in such a short time?
46
Warming False
IPCC Modeling Wrong
The IPCC’s Models Are Wrong And Hiding That Is Caused By Other Things.
Gasses Pg. 20 (Nonetheless – chapters). //CNDI - RV
Nonetheless, a much more important observation in the 500-page report got "missed" by the eager
press: When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account ... most GCMs produce a greater
mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity is used ....
There is growing evidence that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the
[warming] due to increases in greenhouse gases. This remarkable paragraph states the
following:
1) The models used in the original IPCC assessment were wrong.
2) Unless something is "hiding" the warming, the sensitivity of the surface temperature to
human greenhouse effect changes was overestimated-which is to say, it simply will not warm
up as much as previously forecast. (That "something" was supposed to be a pollutant called
sulfate aerosol, discussed extensively in the next chapters.)
47
Warming False
IPCC Not Qualified
Very Few Of The IPCC Climatologists Are Degreed, So Not Qualified.
Gasses Pg. 16-17 (In – qualification). //CNDI - RV
In devising the IPCC roster, members of the UNEP submitted lists of scientists to the World Meteorological
Organization (another UN body) secretariat and a group of senior administrators including John Houghton selected
the final list. One thing is certain: there are very few degreed climatologists in the IPCC. Prior to its founding in
1987, very few doctorates were awarded in climatology because the area was viewed as the
lowest-prestige specialty in atmospheric science. Now, of course, almost all atmospheric
scientists want to find a way to call themselves climatologists, because that is where the
funding (and therefore the prestige) resides. The list of authors and reviewers of the IPCC
documents includes just a small number of individuals specifically trained in climatology. In
the 1990 document, 70 of the 214 (33 percent) “lead authors” and “contributors” appear to meet
this qualification.
48
Warming False
Lindzen Prodicts
Lindzen Qualified
MIT, No date
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm, MIT, accessed on: 7/1/08
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves,
monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves
studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in
global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the
observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the
current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics
to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of
global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-
biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and
dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole to equator temperature difference, the
nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also
been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of
cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed
models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to
increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional
variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane
Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of
Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the
Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding
member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and
Climate and the Council of the AMS. He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)
49
Warming False
_________________
*******Indicators
AT: Ice Caps
There Is Little To Evidence That The Ice Caps Are Melting.
Johnson 2006 (Robert Johnson, phD in environmental science, “What if all the ice caps melt,” December 29, 2006,
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html//CDNI-SS)
Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare
mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?
Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has
come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles
in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original
levels.
Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third
more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing
arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
50
Warming False
AT: Polar Bears = Indicators
There Is A Common Misconception That Ice Caps Are Melting And The Polar Bears Are Dying. That Is False
The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his
"Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate. Gore fails
to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or
that the polar bear population has soared in recent years. As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined
the ranks of the skeptics. As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the
Around the world, vast

one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.
areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern
China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses
collapsed under the weight of snow. Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even
icy temperatures have just swept through south China,

Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents. AFP news reports
stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering
from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan
province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP. Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained
missing as of Saturday.
51
Warming False
AT: Ice Melt
Ice Caps Aren’t Melting.
Currently the Earth has permanent ice in the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, plus much smaller permanent glaciers in various mountain regions of the world. This ice is "permanent", however, only over the short timespan of
modern human civilization. Additionally there are two large ice sheets floating in seas off Antarctica, plus floating pack ice in the Arctic Ocean and surrounding Antarctica. Geological evidence indicates very clearly that at times in
the Earth's past icecaps were much larger in extent--and alternately, at other times icecaps were virtually nonexistent. Currently there are about 30,000,000 cubic kilometers of ice in the world's icecaps and glaciers. This volume of
ice is fairly well measured (within 5-15%) by surveying the top of the icecaps with methods like radar and laser altimetry, locating the bottom of the ice with methods like seismic soundings, and calculating the difference. A
Grounded ice is ice resting on the ground rather than floating. The melting of
breakdown is as follows:
floating ice will not change sea level: the mass of this ice is equal to that of the water it
displaces (watch the water level in a cup of floating ice cubes as they melt). For comparison,
globally ice (both grounded and floating) represents about 2% of the world's water, with about
1,350,000,000 km3 of water in the oceans. During the last Ice Age the maximum extent of glaciation was around 16,000 B.C. At that time large ice sheets covered all of
Canada, much of the American midwest and northeast, all of Scandinavia and some surrounding regions of Eurasia. The total volume of ice then was perhaps 80,000,000 cubic kilometers, or between two and three times as much
as today. Correspondingly, world sea level was about 120 meters lower [6,30].
Ice Caps Melting Is Not A Big Deal

such a change in climate would take thousands of years to accomplish. Note that it has taken 18,000 years
In either case,
to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is
isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which
accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by
surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years." [31] The IPCC is the United Nations' scientific committee on climate change; its members tend to be
the minority that predicts global warming and its statements tend to be exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the potential for sea level rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side
A common public
of the scientific debate on global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica's ice. Consider also this abstract of an article by Jacobs contrasting scientific and popular understanding:
perception is that global warming will accelerate the melting of polar ice sheets, causing sea level to rise. A
common scientific position is that the volume of grounded Antarctic ice is slowly growing, and will damp future
sea-level rise. At present, studies supporting recent shrinkage or growth depend on limited measurements that are
subject to high temporal and regional variability, and it is too early to say how the Antarctic ice sheet will behave
in a warmer world. [32] This statement alludes to the significant point that the Antarctic ice cap appears to currently be growing rather than shrinking. In fact, were the climate to warm significantly in the
next few centuries (not a certain future, but supposing it happened), current models suggest that Antarctica would gain ice, with increased snowfall more than offsetting increased melting.
Melting Is Much Too Slow

In either case, such a change in climate would take thousands of years to accomplish. Note that
it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is
almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and
Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years,
through wide ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a
The IPCC is the United Nations' scientific committee on climate change; its
period of at least 10,000 years." [31]
members tend to be the minority that predicts global warming and its statements tend to be
exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the
potential for sea level rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side of the scientific debate on
global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica's ice. Consider also this abstract of an
article by Jacobs contrasting scientific and popular understanding: A common public perception is that global warming will accelerate
the melting of polar ice sheets, causing sea level to rise. A common scientific position is that the volume of grounded Antarctic ice is slowly growing, and will damp future sea-level rise. At present, studies supporting recent
shrinkage or growth depend on limited measurements that are subject to high temporal and regional variability, and it is too early to say how the Antarctic ice sheet will behave in a warmer world. [32] This statement alludes to the
significant point that the Antarctic ice cap appears to currently be growing rather than shrinking. In fact, were the climate to warm significantly in the next few centuries (not a certain future, but supposing it happened), current
models suggest that Antarctica would gain ice, with increased snowfall more than offsetting increased melting.
52
Warming False
AT: Ice Melt
One Of The Major Claims By Global Warming Proponents Is That Greenland's Ice Cap Will Melt And Cause Sea
Levels To Rise Up To 20 Feet
But the journal "Science" reports an international team of scientists has found that the ice shield
remained frozen during the last major warming period 120,000 years ago. This suggests
computer models predicting a massive meltdown may be incorrect. Scientists found DNA from
ancient spiders and trees more than a mile beneath the surface — indicating the ice did not melt
during what is called earth's last "interglacial period" — when average temperatures were nine degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now.
Physics Says The Ice Caps Are Not Melting
Anyone who has ever spent time in a temperate climate following a snowy winter realizes that when the air
temperature rises above 32°F the snow and ice do not melt immediately. We may experience many balmy early
spring days with temperatures well above freezing while snow drifts slowly melt over days or weeks. Similarly,
lakes and ponds take some time to freeze even days or weeks after the air temperature has plunged below zero.
This is due to the latent heat of freezing/melting of water, a physical concept long quantified in thermodynamics.
That aspect of basic physics seems to have been overlooked by climatologists in their alarming
claims of dramatic and rapid sea-level rise due to melting of the Antarctic ice caps and
Greenland glaciers. But of course, we have learned that models predicting global warming also
failed to take account of precipitation, so overlooking important factors ("inconvenient truths")
should not cause much surprise anymore.
Scientific Data Disproves That The Ice Caps Are Melting
That aspect of basic physics seems to have been overlooked by climatologists in their alarming claims of dramatic and rapid sea-level rise due to melting of the Antarctic ice caps and Greenland glaciers. But of course, we have
The scientific
learned that models predicting global warming also failed to take account of precipitation, so overlooking important factors ("inconvenient truths") should not cause much surprise anymore.
data necessary to calculate the amount of heat necessary to melt enough ice to raise ocean
levels 20 feet is readily available on the internet, and the calculations needed to see if polar cap
melting passes the laugh test are surprisingly simple. Nothing beyond multiplication and division, and because we will use metric measures for simplicity's
sake, much of the multiplying is by ten or a factor of ten. This is where the latent heat of melting comes into the equation. As we all know, when we drop an ice cube into our glass of water, soft-drink or adult-beverage, it quickly
cools the drink. Heat is transferred to the ice from the liquid in order to melt the ice; this loss of heat cools and reduces the temperature of the liquid. This cooling continues until the ice melts completely. Scientists have long
known that a mixture if ice and water (ice-water) remains at the freezing / melting point (0° C = 32°F).Adding heat does NOT change the temperature, it
just melts more ice; withdrawing heat does NOT change the temperature it just freezes more
water. The temperature of ice-water will not rise until all the ice is melted; conversely, the temperature of ice-water will not fall until all the water is frozen. The heat that would have otherwise raised the ice temperature is
somehow "stored" in the melt water - hence "latent heat". As an aside, the transformation of the latent-heat of steam into work via steam-engines has had, and continues to have, vast industrial importance. The early systematic
study of steam-engines in order to improve their performance, laid the groundwork for the science of thermodynamics, which undergirds essentially all of physics and chemistry. It turns out that latent heats of melting (and
evaporation) are generally very large quantities when compared to the amount of heat necessary to change temperatures. Also, as usual in such analyses we normalize to units of mass. Since the density of water/ice is roughly a
thousand times higher than air, this also greatly impacts the magnitudes of energy involved, as you will see below. So let's proceed with the calculation. The latent heat of melting of water can be looked up here. It is 334 kJ/kg of
water. One of the benefits of the metric system is that 1 ml = 1 cm 3 = 1 g of water; this "built in" conversion simplifies many engineering calculations. Remembering this fact, we do not need to look up the density of
water. Converting this density, 1g/cm3, to MKS units, yields density of water = 1000 kg/m3. We now have all our data for the rough calculation:
53
Warming False
AT: More Hurricanes
Hurricane Patterns Are Similar To El Nino And La Nina Cycles As Well As Pacific Decadel Oscillation, Not Changing.

Bill Gray, dean of hurricane forecasters, explained how the deep ocean currents that well up
along the western coast of South America account for the comings and goings of the familiar El
Nino and La Nina cycles and the longer-phased Pacific Decadal Oscillation. These cycles profoundly affect weather
patterns across North America and beyond.
54
Warming False
AT: Ocean Warming
Waters Are Getting Colder, Not Hotter. Temperatures Have Not Risen Since 1998. Multiple
Studies Agree
The deep sea around Antarctica is getting colder, the German research ship Polarstern, from the famous Alfred Wegener
Institute, has reported recently after summer studies as part of the International Polar Year.At the same time, satellite images showed the largest
amount of summer sea-ice on record. This was not surprising, as the sea- ice cover around Antarctica during the previous winter was the largest since measurements by satellite
begun in 1979.Since 2000, about 3000 buoys have been deployed in seas around the world. The project is called Argo.
The buoys automatically go up and down and measure sea temperatures (and salinity) to a depth of 2000m. After resurfacing, the buoys transmit their
data via satellites to land-based stations.Since the start of their deployment they have recorded a slight cooling of the
oceans.But global temperatures have also not shown an increase since 1998 - if anything they
have slightly cooled. This was reported by the UN World Meteorological Organisation, one of the two parent
organisations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.On May 4, the BBC published the following news item on its website: " Global temperatures will drop slightly
this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific. The World
Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that
La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean that global temperatures have not
risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."
55
Warming False
Global Cooling Now
Global Temperatures Are Low. We Are Currently In A Cold Phase So Severe Winters Are Affecting The Southern
And Northen Hemispheres.
La Nina, and its opposite El Nino, are natural climate oscillations. They are characterised by a change in air pressure between Darwin and
Tahiti and a change in equatorial sea surface temperatures between the West Pacific and Peru. These events can last between seven and eight years, but
there is an even longer-lasting oceanic oscillation, called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It
fluctuates between cool and warm phases and has a strong influence on world temperatures.
Last century it had a warm phase from 1905 to 1946, a cold phase from 1946 to 1977, and a
warm phase since 1977. Recently, the PDO changed back to a cool phase. It is therefore not
surprising that the last Southern and Northern Hemispheres experienced severe winters. We have all seen
the TV pictures and newspaper articles about the severe winter storms in China, the worst in 50 years. Last November, the European Alps received
their largest snow dump in 40 years. North America was hit by severe snowstorms. New Hampshire received the largest snowfall
since 1873. Even the Arctic was affected. Sea ice cover between Greenland and Canada was the
largest in 15 years and the ice was 10-20cm thicker than the year before. The entire Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover was the largest since 1966. It snowed in Baghdad and Jerusalem. The Southern Hemisphere
was not spared. Argentina had an exceptionally cold winter. Last November 17, Buenos Aires recorded its lowest temperature in 90 years. More dramatically, between January
2007 and January 2008, global temperatures plummeted by 0.6deg C. This is almost as much as
the total warming in the last 150 years.
Global Warming Actually Leads To Environment Cooling
Gasses Pg. 28 (the greenhouse effect – cooling.) //CNDI - RV
The greenhouse effect does not change the temperature of the entire earth -atmosphere system; it
merely distributes the heat within that system. For the overall temperature to change
significantly, our sole source of heat-the sun-must change. There is some evidence that this is the case,
but greenhouse gases alone will not alter the overall energy balance. The greenhouse gases are concentrated in the
lower atmosphere mainly in the earth's active weather zone known as the troposphere. The top of this zone
averages around 50,000 feet in midlatitude summer and down to around 35,000 feet in midlatitude winter. The
"greenhouse effect" is merely the capturing of some of the infrared radiation emanating from
the sun-warmed earth before that radiation passes directly out to space. When greenhouse gases
such as water vapor or carbon dioxide reemit this radiation, it is "recycled" in the troposphere.
So the lower layers of the atmosphere should warm with increased carbon dioxide, while the
stratosphere, which sits over the troposphere, will cool because of the slightly decreased flux of
radiation that has been recycled beneath it. Though some problems exist con cerning the amount
and distribution of measured warming in the troposphere, there is little doubt that the
stratosphere is cooling.
56
Warming False
Warming isn’t Happening
Warming isn’t human caused – even if it was it’d be impossible to stop.
Singer - an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite
Service. – in 2007(Fred, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, The Independent Institute, May 22 nd,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945)//CNDI – GP
The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:
1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from
human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases
have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the
warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant
greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future
warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not
accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our
control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past
century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For
example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle
atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in
cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current
warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back
almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the
Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850
A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests,
starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current
warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates
have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current
warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in
the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been
thoroughly discredited.
2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot
control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for
greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant,
useless, and wildly expensive:
Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes
would be ineffective—unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use
by 80 percent!
57
Warming False
__________________
*******Feedbacks
Volcanos
Land And Undersea Volcanoes Produce Gasses Preventing Warming
JUDD, 05
Mud Volcanoes, Geodynamics and Seismicity, NATO, Chapter 4, 2005 Alan Judd,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v2v02q5176q64161/
Abstract:
There are about 1,000 mud volcanoes on land and 5,500 offshore — mostly in deep water. Activity
varies between gentle emissions and violent eruptions accompanied by the release of enormous volumes
of gas — mainly (85%+) methane and carbon dioxide. Global gas emissions are provisionally estimated to exceed
27 billion cubic metres per year, of which more than 23 billion (15.8 Tg) is methane. More than 70% of this is from short-
lived eruptions, about 30% of which ignite to produce flames tens or hundreds of metres high. The majority of the methane is
emitted by submarine mud volcanoes, most in deep water. About 11.4 Tg per year is lost to the hydrosphere, but a tentatively
estimated 3.6 Tg per year escapes to the atmosphere. So, mud volcanoes are significant sources of atmospheric
methane, much of it ‘fossil’. Contributions are thought to increase when sea level is low (in glaciations),
providing negative feedback to global warming and working to limit climatic extremes.
58
Warming False
Clouds
IPPC Unable To Account For Cloud Negative Feedback In Calculations
Doyle 07
Clouds a puzzle for U.N. global warming panel, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2007-01-30-ipcc-
clouds_x.htm
Updated 1/30/2007, USA Today, Alister Doyle
Predicting how clouds will form in a warmer world remains a haze in a U.N. climate report due on Friday,
affecting projected rises in temperatures and sea levels, scientists say.
The U.N. climate panel, an authoritative group on global warming numbering 2,500 experts, is set to give
its strongest warning yet that human activities are heating the planet and that warming may cause
huge damage to nature by 2100.
A draft report has plugged many gaps since a last report in 2001, such as anomalies between temperatures
measured by satellites or at the earth's surface or how far tiny, glinting particles of air pollution reflect sunlight
back into space.
But cloud formation in the 21st century — hard enough for weather forecasters to predict for tomorrow — is among
the remaining puzzles.
"Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change,"
according to a draft of the report under review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), meeting in Paris.
Warmer air can absorb more moisture, meaning more clouds and so more rain and snow in
many regions. But much more cloud cover might also brake warming because more sunlight
will bounce off the white tops back into space.
The report, the first of four on global climate this year by the IPCC, is due to be issued on Friday and will guide
governments trying to work out policies to brake warming.
The report says more water vapour will bring more rains and snow to many regions towards the poles, such as
northern Europe, Canada, the northeast United States and the Arctic.
In winter, precipitation would also increase in northern Asia and the Tibetan plateau, it says.
By contrast, rains are likely to decrease in many subtropical regions. And parts of Africa and Europe around the
Mediterranean are likely to get drier, and winter rains would decrease in southwestern Australia, it says.
In many regions, downpours will be more intense.
More snows could also offset any thaw of the vast Antarctic ice cap and the smaller cap on Greenland. If both
melted over thousands of years world sea levels would be aboutaround 215 feet higher than today.
"In a warmer climate, models suggest that the ice sheets could accumulate more snowfall,
tending to lower sea level," the draft says. But it adds that rapid thawing at the fringes has probably
outweighed any such trend in recent years.
"In the interior of Greenland, the ice has been thickening," said Catherine Myrmehl, of the Nansen
Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway, based upon satellite readings. Many scientists reckon
Greenland is losing ice overall.
The IPCC is likely to predict a "best estimate" of a temperature rise of 5.4 Fahrenheit by 2100 over pre-industrial
times. And it is set to predict sea level rises this century of between 11 and 17 inches, a lower band than forecast in
the 2001 report.
59
Warming False
Cosmic Rays
Cosmic Rays Are True Cause Of Warming
Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 11/02/2007
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to
controversial new research. Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role
in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought. In a book, to be
published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere
directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet. How cosmic rays could seed clouds diagram
High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing
the planet to cool. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who
led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low
cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. This, he says, is responsible for
much of the global warming we are experiencing. He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human
activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that
mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate. The controversial theory comes one week after
2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their
fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the
end of the century. Article continues advertisement Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to
make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the
temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller. He said: "It was long thought that clouds were
caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds. "This has not been taken into
account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had. "We may see CO2 is responsible for
much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will
need to be adjusted." Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research
on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a
book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. A team of more than 60 scientists from
around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva,
Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. They hope this will prove whether this
deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate
their ideas about how global warming occurs. Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically
charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: " These particles attract water molecules from
the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds." Mr Svensmark
claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity
around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are
less clouds formed, resulting in warming. Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth. He said:
"Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar
activity we have had in at least 1,000 years. "Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not
including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be
much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted." Some climate change experts
have dismissed the claims as "tenuous". Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had
carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller
than Mr Svensmark claims. Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK
and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a
natural climate system but this is small." But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect
may be genuine. Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research
Councils in Rutherford. He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on
clouds."
60
Warming False
Oceans
The CO2 Secreted Sucked Into Ocean, Slowly Stopping Global Warming.
Gasses Pg. 26 (the – value). //CNDI - RV
The same activists often also contend that only a small fraction (about 5 percent) of the total
amount of carbon molecules that goes into the atmosphere each year is from human activity,
and therefore the human contribution is inconsequential. That is simply not true. Nonhuman
events that change the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect include not only volcanoes but also
forest and prairie fires (fires temporarily reduce the amount of photosynthesis while also
releasing carbon dioxide via the combustion process). But by and large, these are pretty random
variables. No one has yet come up with a scheme that reliably predicts the number, location, and timing of big
volcanoes decades in advance, and the burning of prairies and forests, though inevitable, is hardly constant. After,
say, a big volcano, plants eventually take in, or "capture," a bit more carbon dioxide, animals
eat the plants, the animals die, and the CO, is once again interred. The human contribution of
carbon dioxide has indeed been increasing for about 200 years, with the largest changes, about
75 percent of the total greenhouse effect change, occurring since World War II. Eventually the
plants, animals, and ocean will capture and sequester that amount, but it takes time. Studies of
atomic bomb tests show it takes about 10 years for vegetation to capture the "average" molecule. But then some of
that same carbon is roc, as the vegetation burns or is consumed and respired by an licihi No one really knows
ho%v long the averag' residence tim' out to be, but median estimates range from about 30 to SC y
Environmentalists like to cite the l,itter figure, conveniently roin up to a hundred years (so that the IPCC can call
carbon dioxj "century-scale" emission, as it did in its 1999 Special Report on tion and the Atmosphere). But the
true median figure is ceneidei below this value.
61
Warming False
Rain
Rainfall Is A Negative Feedback Loop, Which Leads To Climate Cooling.
Gasses Pg. 57-58 (That – environment). //CNDI - RV
That is just a simple example.

If the clouds are deep enough, they will produce precipitation. That
precipitation falls on the surface as either snow, which is white and will reflect away the sun’s
warming radiation, or rain, which is white and will reflect away the sun’s warming radiation, or
rain, which may serve to darken a soil surface, causing the earth to absorb more heat. The
moisture in the air is then recycled in the form of evaporation, but evaporation itself cools the
environment.
62
Warming False
AT: Positive Feedback Loops
"Positive Cloud Feedback Doesn't Exist" Rather Clouds Negate Warming
ScienceDaily, 08
(ScienceDaily, June 12, 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611184722.htm
Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?)
Climate experts agree that the seriousness of manmade global warming depends greatly upon how clouds in the
climate system respond to the small warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide mankind produces.
To figure that out, climate researchers usually examine natural, year-to-year fluctuations in clouds and temperature
to estimate how clouds will respond to humanity¹s production of greenhouse gases.
When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally
assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way
around. To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to
overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.
a new paper that will appear in the

This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of
"Journal of Climate." The paper¹s lead author, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a principal research
scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, believes the work is the first step in
demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming.
Spencer and his co-author, principal research scientist William (Danny) Braswell, used a simple climate model to
demonstrate that something as seemingly innocuous as daily random variations in cloud cover can
cause year-to-year variation in ocean temperature that looks like -- but isn't -- "positive cloud
feedback," a warmth-magnifying process that exists in all major climate models.
"Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had
over the years," said Spencer, "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather
than destabilizing processes -- that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."
The paper doesn't disprove the theory that global warming is manmade.
Instead, it offers an alternative explanation for what we see in the climate system which has the potential for
greatly reducing estimates of mankind's impact on Earth's climate.
"Since the cloud changes could conceivably be caused by known long-term modes of climate variability -- such as
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or El Nino and La Nina -- some, or even most, of the global warming seen
in the last century could simply be due to natural fluctuations in the climate system," Spencer
said.
While the paper's two peer reviewers, both climate model experts, agreed that the issue is a legitimate one,
Spencer knows the new paper will be controversial, with some claiming that the impact of the mix-up between
cause and effect will be small.
"But we really won't know until much more work is done," Spencer said.
"Unfortunately, so far we have been unable to figure out a way to separate cause and effect when observing natural
climate variability. That's why most climate experts don't like to think in terms of causality, and instead just
examine how clouds and temperature vary together.
63
Warming False
"Our work has convinced me that cause and effect really do matter. If we get the causation wrong, it can greatly
impact our interpretation of what nature has been trying to tell us. Unfortunately, in the process it also makes the
whole global warming problem much more difficult to figure out."
64
Warming False
_________________________
*******Advantage Answers
AT: Climate Flips
Climate Flips Are Normal.
Mary 06 (William Mary, doctorate of climatology, “Global Warming is not a big as a threat,” Lexis.com, January 19,
2008//CDNI-SS)
A popular idea in the media, exemplified by the soon-to-be-released movie The Day After Tomorrow, is that human-induced global warming will cause another ice age. But where did this idea come from? Several recent
magazine articles (1-3) report that abrupt climate change was prevalent in the recent geological history of Earth and that there was some early, albeit controversial, evidence from the last interglacial--thought to be slightly
warmer than preindustrial times (4)--that abrupt climate change was the norm (5). Consequently, the articles postulate a sequence of events that goes something like this: If
global warming were to boost the hydrological cycle, enhanced freshwater discharge into the North Atlantic would
shut down the AMO (Atlantic Meridional Overturning), the North Atlantic component of global ocean overturning
circulation. This would result in downstream cooling over Europe, leading to the slow growth of glaciers and the
onset of the next ice age.
Warming Does Not Cause Increasing Climate Flips, Our Evidence Shows, But Actually Decreases.
Wood 2008 (Richard Wood, et. All, Hadley Centre for Climate Protection., JSTOR, July 22, 2003., “Global Warming
and Circulation Stability)
The Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) plays an important role in global cli-mate.
Theoretical and palaeoclimatic evidence points to the possibility of rapid changes in the
strength of the THC, including a possible quasi-permanent shut-down. The climatic impacts of such a shutdown would be severe, including a
cooling throughout the Northern Hemisphere, which in some regions is greater in magnitude than the changes expected from global warming in the next 50 years. Other climatic impacts would likely include a severe alteration of
rainfall patterns in the tropics, the Indian subcontinent and Europe. Modelling the future behaviour of the THC focuses on two key questions. (i) Is a gradual weakening of the THC likely in response to global warming, and if so by
Most projections of the response of the THC to

how much? (ii) Are there thresholds beyond which rapid or irreversible changes in the THC are likely?
increasing concentrations of green-house gases suggest a gradual weakening over the twenty-
first century. However, there is a wide variation between different models over the size of the
weakening. Rapid or irreversible THC shutdown is considered a low-probability (but high-impact) out-
come; however, some climate models of intermediate complexity do show the possi-bility of
such events. The question of the future of the THC is beset with conceptual, modelling and
observational uncertainties, but some current and planned projects show promise to make
substantial progress in tackling these uncertainties in future
Climate Flips Are Not Solely Caused By Warming.
Global Warming.org 2000 (globalwarming.org, a site that is an accumulation of stories associated with perceived
warming, “Climate Flip Flop; Climate Change Clearly Overstated”, January 31,2000//CDNI 2008-SS)
we could easily be blindsided by stability problems if we
Combating global warming is obviously on the agenda for preventing a cold flip,
allow global warming per se to remain the main focus of our climate-change efforts. To
stabilize our flip-flopping climate we'll need to identify all the important feedbacks that control
climate and ocean currents -- evaporation, the reflection of sunlight back into space, and so on
-- and then estimate their relative strengths and interactions in computer models.
Feedbacks are what determine thresholds, where one mode flips into another. Near a threshold one can sometimes observe abortive responses, rather like the act of stepping back onto a curb several times before finally running
across a busy street. Abortive responses and rapid chattering between modes are common problems in nonlinear systems with not quite enough oomph -- the reason that old fluorescent lights flicker. To keep a bistable system
firmly in one state or the other, it should be kept away from the transition threshold. We need to make sure that no business-as-usual climate variation, such as an El Niño or the North Atlantic Oscillation, can push our climate onto
the slippery slope and into an abrupt cooling. Of particular importance are combinations of climate variations -- this winter, for example, we are experiencing both an El Niño and a North Atlantic Oscillation -- because such
combinations can add up to much more than the sum of their parts. We are near the end of a warm period in any event; ice ages return even without human influences on climate. The last warm period abruptly terminated 13,000
years after the abrupt warming that initiated it, and we've already gone 15,000 years from a similar starting point. But we may be able to do something to delay an abrupt cooling. Do something? This tends to stagger the
imagination,. Surprisingly, it may prove possible to prevent flip-flops in the climate -- even by means of low-tech schemes. Keeping the present climate from falling back into the low state will in any case be a lot easier than trying
to reverse such a change after it has occurred. Were fjord floods causing flushing to fail, because the downwelling sites were fairly close to the fjords, it is obvious that we could solve the problem. All we would need to do is open a
channel through the ice dam with explosives before dangerous levels of water built up. Timing could be everything, given the delayed effects from inch-per-second circulation patterns, but that, too, potentially has a low-tech
solution: build dams across the major fjord systems and hold back the meltwater at critical times. Or divert eastern-Greenland meltwater to the less sensitive north and west coasts. Fortunately, big parallel computers have proved
useful for both global climate modeling and detailed modeling of ocean circulation. They even show the flips. Computer models might not yet be able to predict what will happen if we tamper with downwelling sites, but this
problem doesn't seem insoluble. We need more well-trained people, bigger computers, more coring of the ocean floor and silted-up lakes, more ships to drag instrument packages through the depths, more instrumented buoys to
study critical sites in detail, more satellites measuring regional variations in the sea surface, and perhaps some small-scale trial runs of interventions. It would be especially nice to see another dozen major groups of scientists doing
Medieval cathedral builders learned from their

climate simulations, discovering the intervention mistakes as quickly as possible and learning from them.
design mistakes over the centuries, and their undertakings were a far larger drain on the
economic resources and people power of their day than anything yet discussed for stabilizing
the climate in the twenty-first century. We may not have centuries to spare, but any economy in
which two percent of the population produces all the food, as is the case in the United States
today, has lots of resources and many options for reordering priorities.
65
Warming False
AT: Climate Flips
The Climate Flips That We Are Facing Have Occurred Before And Are Not Associated With Global Warming.
One explanation may lie in a natural climate cycle that occurs every 20 to 30 years, known as
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). According to the scientists at the University of Washington who discovered the phenomenon, the Pacific Ocean goes
through cycles of warm and cool periods every 20 or 30 years. The years 1925 to 1946 and 1977 to 1998, for instance, were
dominated by a warm phase, while cooler Pacific waters dominated the period in between. This
cold phase leads to weather patterns in the U.S. similar to those produced by La Nia (Washington Post,
January 20, 2000). This may help explain global temperature trends over these time periods. The global temperature record measured at the
surface shows that the years 1911 to 1945 experienced a rate of warming similar to the one
from 1977 to the present. Of course, the cooling trend from 1945 to 1977 had some scientists,
such as Stephen Schneider, worried about global cooling. It may be that the PDO can go a long
way toward explaining many of the trends observed in the global temperature data as well as
the discrepancy between the satellite and surface temperature measurements. If we are indeed entering a cold phase,
winters will be colder and wetter, with a higher possibility of drought in the Southwest. This could also lead to heightened hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
Climate Flip Flop Is Not Caused By Global Warming.

A recent report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has
attempted to reconcile the difference in temperature trends between surface and atmospheric
observations. The surface data shows a strong warming trend, while the satellite data show a
zero to slightly positive trend. The climate models, however, predict that the troposphere would
warm more rapidly than the surface in response to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. The report noted in particular the ground-based warming observed over the last
20 years.
66
Warming False
AT: Climate Flips
Climate Flips Are Not Solely Caused By Warming.
we could easily be blindsided by stability problems if we
Combating global warming is obviously on the agenda for preventing a cold flip,
allow global warming per se to remain the main focus of our climate-change efforts. To
stabilize our flip-flopping climate we'll need to identify all the important feedbacks that control
climate and ocean currents -- evaporation, the reflection of sunlight back into space, and so on
-- and then estimate their relative strengths and interactions in computer models.
Feedbacks are what determine thresholds, where one mode flips into another. Near a threshold one can sometimes observe abortive responses, rather like the act of stepping back onto a curb several times before finally running
across a busy street. Abortive responses and rapid chattering between modes are common problems in nonlinear systems with not quite enough oomph -- the reason that old fluorescent lights flicker. To keep a bistable system
firmly in one state or the other, it should be kept away from the transition threshold. We need to make sure that no business-as-usual climate variation, such as an El Niño or the North Atlantic Oscillation, can push our climate onto
the slippery slope and into an abrupt cooling. Of particular importance are combinations of climate variations -- this winter, for example, we are experiencing both an El Niño and a North Atlantic Oscillation -- because such
combinations can add up to much more than the sum of their parts. We are near the end of a warm period in any event; ice ages return even without human influences on climate. The last warm period abruptly terminated 13,000
years after the abrupt warming that initiated it, and we've already gone 15,000 years from a similar starting point. But we may be able to do something to delay an abrupt cooling. Do something? This tends to stagger the
imagination,. Surprisingly, it may prove possible to prevent flip-flops in the climate -- even by means of low-tech schemes. Keeping the present climate from falling back into the low state will in any case be a lot easier than trying
to reverse such a change after it has occurred. Were fjord floods causing flushing to fail, because the downwelling sites were fairly close to the fjords, it is obvious that we could solve the problem. All we would need to do is open a
channel through the ice dam with explosives before dangerous levels of water built up. Timing could be everything, given the delayed effects from inch-per-second circulation patterns, but that, too, potentially has a low-tech
solution: build dams across the major fjord systems and hold back the meltwater at critical times. Or divert eastern-Greenland meltwater to the less sensitive north and west coasts. Fortunately, big parallel computers have proved
useful for both global climate modeling and detailed modeling of ocean circulation. They even show the flips. Computer models might not yet be able to predict what will happen if we tamper with downwelling sites, but this
problem doesn't seem insoluble. We need more well-trained people, bigger computers, more coring of the ocean floor and silted-up lakes, more ships to drag instrument packages through the depths, more instrumented buoys to
study critical sites in detail, more satellites measuring regional variations in the sea surface, and perhaps some small-scale trial runs of interventions. It would be especially nice to see another dozen major groups of scientists doing
Medieval cathedral builders learned from their

climate simulations, discovering the intervention mistakes as quickly as possible and learning from them.
design mistakes over the centuries, and their undertakings were a far larger drain on the
economic resources and people power of their day than anything yet discussed for stabilizing
the climate in the twenty-first century. We may not have centuries to spare, but any economy in
which two percent of the population produces all the food, as is the case in the United States
today, has lots of resources and many options for reordering priorities.
The Climate Flips That We Are Facing Have Occurred Before And Are Not Associated With Global Warming.
One explanation may lie in a natural climate cycle that occurs every 20 to 30 years, known as
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). According to the scientists at the University of Washington who discovered the phenomenon, the Pacific Ocean goes
through cycles of warm and cool periods every 20 or 30 years. The years 1925 to 1946 and 1977 to 1998, for instance, were
dominated by a warm phase, while cooler Pacific waters dominated the period in between. This
cold phase leads to weather patterns in the U.S. similar to those produced by La Nia (Washington Post,
January 20, 2000). This may help explain global temperature trends over these time periods. The global temperature record measured at the
surface shows that the years 1911 to 1945 experienced a rate of warming similar to the one
from 1977 to the present. Of course, the cooling trend from 1945 to 1977 had some scientists,
such as Stephen Schneider, worried about global cooling. It may be that the PDO can go a long
way toward explaining many of the trends observed in the global temperature data as well as
the discrepancy between the satellite and surface temperature measurements. If we are indeed entering a cold phase,
winters will be colder and wetter, with a higher possibility of drought in the Southwest. This could also lead to heightened hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
Climate Flip Flop Is Not Caused By Global Warming.

A recent report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has
attempted to reconcile the difference in temperature trends between surface and atmospheric
observations. The surface data shows a strong warming trend, while the satellite data show a
zero to slightly positive trend. The climate models, however, predict that the troposphere would
warm more rapidly than the surface in response to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. The report noted in particular the ground-based warming observed over the last
20 years.
67
Warming False
AT: Ice Age Advantage
Global Warming Will Not Cause An Ice Age.

McGuire 2008 (Bill McGuire, The Guardian, “Global Warming will not Cause Ice Age,” LexisNexus, February 23,
2008//CDNI-SS)
If you can remember back to the bitter winters of the late 1970s and early 80s you might also recall that there was much discussion in scientific circles at the time about whether or not the freezing winter conditions were a portent of a new
Over the past couple of decades such warnings have been drowned out by the great global
ice age.
warming debate and by consideration of how society might cope in future with a sweltering planet
rather than an icebound one. Seemingly, the fact that we are still within an interglacial period, during which the ice has largely retreated to its polar fastnesses, has been forgotten - and replaced with the
commonly-held view that one good thing you can say about global warming is that it will at least stave off the return of the glaciers. Is this really true, or could the rapidly accelerating warming that we are experiencing actually hasten the
problem lies with the ocean

onset of a new ice age? A growing body of evidence suggests that, at least for the UK and western Europe, there is a serious risk of this happening - and soon. The
current known as the Gulf Stream, which bathes the UK and north-west Europe in warm water
carried northwards from the Caribbean. It is the Gulf Stream, and associated currents, that allow
strawberries to thrive along the Norwegian coast, while at comparable latitudes in Greenland
glaciers wind their way right down to sea level. The same currents permit palms to flourish in
Cornwall and the Hebrides, whereas across the ocean in Labrador, even temperate vegetation
struggles to survive. Without the Gulf Stream, temperatures in the UK and north-west Europe
would be five degrees centigrade or so cooler, with bitter winters at least as fierce as those of the so-called Little Ice Age in the 17th to 19th centuries. The Gulf Stream is part of a more complex system of
currents known by a number of different names, of which the rather cumbersome North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Namoc) is probably the most apt. This incorporates not only the Gulf Stream but also the cold return
currents that convey water southwards again. As it approaches the Arctic, the Gulf Stream loses heat and part of it heads back to warmer climes along the coast of Greenland and eastern Canada in the form of the cold, iceberg-laden current
responsible for the loss of the Titanic. Much, however, overturns - cooling and sinking beneath the Nordic seas between Norway and Greenland, before heading south again deep below the surface. In the past, the slowing of the Gulf Stream
has been intimately linked with dramatic regional cooling. Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10
degrees. Ten thousand years before that, at the height of the last ice age, when most of the UK was reduced to a frozen wasteland, the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now.
68
Warming False
AT: Ice Melt Advantage
The Ice Cap Melting Is Inconsequential.
Michaels 05 (Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental science at University of Virginia, “Global Warming—
Melting Ice caps” June 12, 2005, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4470//CDNI-SS)
Over 15 years ago, John Sansom published a paper in Journal of Climate that showed no net warming of
Antarctica. While it was widely cited by critics of global warming doom, no one seemed to take notice. After all, it
relied on only a handful of stations. Then, in 2002, Peter Doran published a more comprehensive analysis in
Nature and found a cooling trend.
At the same time, a deluge of stories appeared, paradoxically, about Antarctic warming. These studies concentrated
on the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, the narrow strip of land that juts out towards South America. That region,
which comprises less than one-half of one percent of Antarctica, is warming because the surrounding ocean has
warmed.
Warmer water evaporates more moisture. The colder the land surface over which that moisture passes, the more it
snows. So, Antarctica as a whole should gain snow and ice. Last year, C.H. Davis published a paper in Science
about how this accumulating snowfall over East Antarctica was reducing sea level rise. This year, Duncan
Wingham, at the 2005 Earth Observations summit in Brussels, demonstrated the phenomenon is observed all over
Antarctica.
Greenland is more complex. In 2000, William Krabill estimated the contribution of Greenland to sea level rise of
0.13 mm per year, or a half an inch per century. That's not very much different than zero. Just last month, using
satellite altimetry, O.M. Johannessen published a remarkable finding in Science that the trend in Greenland ice is a
gain of 5.4 cm (two inches) per year.
Global Warming Does Not Cause Glaciers To Melt
Michaels 05 (Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental science at University of Virginia, “Global Warming—
Melting Ice caps” June 12, 2005, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4470//CDNI-SS)
The "snows" of Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro inspired the title of an iconic American short story, but now its
dwindling icecap is being cited as proof for human-induced global warming.
However, two researchers writing in the July-August edition of American Scientist magazine say global warming
has nothing to do with the decline of Kilimanjaro's ice, and using the mountain in northern Tanzania as a "poster
child" for climate change is simply inaccurate.
They attribute the ice decline primarily to complex interacting factors, including the vertical shape of the ice's
edge, which allows it to shrink but not expand. They also cite decreased snowfall, which reduces ice buildup and
determines how much energy the ice absorbs -- because the whiteness of new snow reflects more sunlight, the lack
of new snow allows the ice to absorb more of the sun's energy.
Unlike midlatitude glaciers, which are warmed and melted by surrounding air in the summer, the ice loss on
Kilimanjaro is driven strictly by solar radiation. Since air near the mountain's ice almost always is well below
freezing, there typically is no melting. Instead ice loss is mainly through a process called sublimation, which
requires more than eight times as much energy as melting. Sublimation occurs at below-freezing temperatures and
converts ice directly to water vapor without going through the liquid phase. Mote likens it to moisture-sapping
conditions that cause food to suffer freezer burn.
Fluctuating weather patterns related to the Indian Ocean also could affect the shifting balance between the ice's
increase, which might have occurred for decades before the first explorers reached Kilimanjaro's summit in 1889,
and the shrinking that has been going on since.
69
Warming False
AT: Biodiversity
Warming Stops Weeds From Effecting Biodiversity.

ABC Premium News in 2008
(Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “Global warming slows weed invasion”, April 28th, pg. lexisnexis)
The School of Plant Science at the University of Tasmania has simulated those conditions so they can see how
global warming will affect important biosystems.
The seven-year study by the University of Tasmania has found climate change can slow the invasion of some types
of weeds threatening native grasslands.
Dr Mark Hovenden from the School of Plant Science says it has been predicted that increasing levels of carbon
dioxide will promote the growth of weeds.
But he says higher temperatures could change that.
"When you add warming to an experiment as well, the warming actually knocks the weeds out very strongly," he
said.
"The type of weeds that we're talking about are the big problem weeds for grasslands across the country and these
are the introduced flat weeds like dandelions and plantagos."
70
Warming False
Warming = Moderate Temps
No impact to warming
Singer - an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of
Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite
Service. – in 2007(Fred, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, The Independent Institute, May 22 nd,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945)//CNDI – GP
3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The
much–feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short–term temperature changes, as
the rate of sea–level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact,
many economists argue that the opposite is more likely—that warming produces a net benefit,
that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small,
and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out. But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce
resources to what is essentially a non–problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces:
hunger, disease, denial of human rights—not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear
wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out
most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the
dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our
limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions
emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the only habitable continent by 2100, with
a few surviving breeding couples propagating the human race. Seriously!
71
Warming False
AT: Diseases
Global Warming Has No Negative Effect But Many Benefits. (Response To Warming Advantages)
Thomas Gale Moore Ph.D. 5/1/98

Environment & Climate News 5/1/98, The Heartland Institute pg online @
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13860
Pundits, politicians, and the press have argued that global warming will bring disaster to the world. Their dire
predictions aside, there are many good reasons to believe that, if global warming occurs, we will like it.
Where do retirees go when they are free to move? Certainly not to Duluth. People generally like warmth. When a
television weather reporter says, “it’s going to be a great day,” he usually means the weather will be warmer than
normal. The weather can, of course, be too warm, but that is unlikely to become a major problem if the Earth’s
temperature warms as projected.
How Warm, When, and Where?
Even though it is far from certain that global temperatures will rise noticeably, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the United Nations body that has been studying this
possibility for more than a decade) has forecast that, by the end of the next century, the world’s
climate will be about 3.6o Fahrenheit warmer than today. Precipitation worldwide, it is
projected, will increase by about 7 percent.
IPCC scientists predict that most of the warming will occur at night and during the winter . In
fact, the temperature record shows that, over this century, summer high temperatures have actually fallen, while
winter lows have gone up.
Temperatures are expected to increase the most towards the poles. Thus, Minneapolis should enjoy
more warming than Dallas. But even the Twin Cities should find that most of its temperature increase will occur
during its coldest season, making the climate more livable.
Warmer Winters Are Good
Warmer winters will produce less ice and snow to torment drivers, facilitating commuting and making snow
shoveling less of a chore. Families will have less need to invest in heavy parkas, bulky jackets, earmuffs, mittens,
and snow boots.
Department of Energy studies have shown that a warmer climate would reduce heating bills
more than it would boost outlays on air conditioning. If we currently enjoyed the weather
predicted for the end of the next century, expenditures for heating and cooling would be cut by
about $12.2 billion annually.
Most economic activities would be unaffected by climate change. Manufacturing, banking, insurance, retailing,
wholesaling, medicine, education, mining, financial, and most other services are unrelated to weather. Those
activities can be carried out in cold climates with central heating or in hot climates with air conditioning. Certain
weather-related or outdoor-oriented services, however, would be affected.
Transportation generally would benefit from a warmer climate, since road travelers would suffer less
from slippery or impassable highways. Airline passengers, who often endure weather-related delays in the winter,
would gain from more reliable and on-time service.
72
Warming False
Warmer Is Healthier, Too
The doomsayers have predicted that a warmer world would inflict tropical diseases on Americans. They neglect to
mention that those diseases--such as malaria, cholera, and yellow fever--were widespread in the
United States in the colder 19th century. Their absence today is attributable not to a climate
unsuitable to their propagation, but to modern sanitation and the American lifestyle, which
prevent the microbes from getting a foothold. It is actually warmer along the Gulf Coast, which is free of
dengue fever, than on the Caribbean islands, where the disease is endemic.
My own research shows that a

warmer world would be a healthier one for Americans and would cut
the number of deaths in the U.S. by about 40,000 per year, roughly the number killed on the highways.
73
Warming False
AT: Sea-Level Rise
Global Warming Will Slow Sea Level Rise Not Speed It Up
Singer 1997
Global Warming Will Not Raise Sea Level, 1997, Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, S. Fred Singer,
Ph.D., http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/slr-agu.html
Global sea level (SL) has undergone a rising trend for at least a century; its cause is believed to
be unrelated to climate change [1]. We observe, however, that fluctuations (anomalies) from a
linear SL rise show a pronounced anti-correlation with global average temperature --and even
more so with tropical average sea surface temperature. We also find a suggestive correlation between negative sea-
level rise anomalies and the occurrence of El Nino events. These findings suggest that--under current conditions--
evaporation from the ocean with subsequent deposition on the ice caps, principally in the Antarctic, is more
important in determining sea-level changes than the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water. It
also suggests that any future moderate warming, from whatever cause, will slow down the
ongoing sea-level rise, rather than speed it up. Support for this conclusion comes from
theoretical studies of precipitation increases [2] and from results of General Circulation Models
(GCMs) [3,4]. Further support comes from the (albeit limited) record of annual ice accumulation in polar ice
sheets [5].
1. A. Trupin and J. Wahr. Geophys J. Int., 100, 441-453 (1990)

2. D. Bromwich. "Ice sheets and sea level" Nature, 373, 18 (1995)
3. S.L. Thompson, and D. Pollard. Eos 76, No. 46 Suppl.(1995); J. Clim. (1997)
4. H. Ye and J.R. Mather, Int. J. Climatol., 17, 155-162 (1997)
5. D.A. Meese et al., Science 266, 1680-1682 (1994)
74
Warming False
AT: Storms
The Weather Is Not Changing, The Storms Were Already There, Now We Can Predict Them.
Gasses Pg. 53 (That – sensors). //CNDI - RV
That is about to become common knowledge. The new National Weather Service Doppler radars,
designated WSD-88, measure both precipitation and the velocity of precipitation. Older radars
simply painted a picture. And what these WSD-88s are finding more and more tornado vortices in
thurnderstorms that show rotary motion but are not strong enough to condense a solid funnel. As a result, more
and more specific tornado warnings are being generated on stormy afternoons, but in reality,
there is no real change. There is not more weather – just better weather sensors.
75
Warming False
AT: War Scenarios

Your War Scenario Is A Terrible Lie – It Is Based On Impossible Scientific Calculations – The Authors Are Not
Qualified To Make The Claims They Do, And Even If They Were, They Would Have To Be On Crack To Make The
Predictions That They Do
MICHAELS 2004
[Patrick J. Michaels, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, “Meltdown” CATO Institute
2004 226-227// cndi-ef]
At the agency level, the interaction of politics and science is more direct. It's interesting to run a thought scenario demonstrating the logic and the inevitability of this dynamic. Some examples are brutal and blatant, some more
subtle.In late winter, 2004, Fortune magazine trumpeted an illogical study of an extreme-case climate
change scenario published by two Pentagon contractors, Peter Schwartz and Douglas Randall, with
little experience in climate science and no track record of scientific publication in the field . The
report, titled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," made little sense. Fortune wrote about the
climate of Great Britain possibly becoming like "Siberia" in 15 years. That's simply impossible.
Siberia is extremely cold in the winter because it is the center of a huge land basin, with considerable mountains on
three sides and the North Pole on the other. The snow- covered land radiates outward into the long winter nights, and the resultant cold air is trapped by the mountairm,
forming a deeper and deeper pile. For England to become Siberia, then, it is necessary to drain the Atlantic Ocean for
thousands of miles around London. Then some considerable mountains need to build up on the
edges of this dry basin. That might take a few dozen million years, not a dozen single ones. But the report received considerable
coverage, which put it in the political sphere. Within a month the Senate Committee on Com- merce,
Science and Transportation, under the direction of John Mccain (R-Ariz.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R- Maine), and Ted Stevens (R-Ark.), approved legislation creating a $60 million
study of the impact of "abrupt climate change" on federal property. That's a small example of a pretty gross
scientific excess. Other excesses are more subtle, expensive, and pervasive, and demonstrate how paradigms create funding.
76
Warming False
___________________
*******Blame Game
Climate Change = Natural
We Have Threats Like This Before.
Mary 06 (William Mary, doctorate of climatology, “Global Warming is not a big as a threat,” Lexis.com, January 3,
2006//CDNI-SS)
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive
challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. I was as
opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir
These climate changes are well within natural variability

of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.
and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. Since I
obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England
my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the
early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and
Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer
personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in
University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
The Earth Goes Through Periods Of Warming And Cooling; We Are Going Through One Now
Wood 2008 (Richard Wood, et. All, Hadley Centre for Climate Protection., JSTOR, July 22, 2003., “Global Warming
and Circulation Stability)
That leads us to conclude that the meltdown and warming resulted from
The Ice Age did not end because of anything people did.
"natural causes" of many kinds that still are not well understood. As recently as about 30 years
ago, a popular national magazine had a cover story warning that we were on the brink of a "New
Ice Age"! That alarmed many, until a new prediction supplanted it: We are now told we face
"global warming." It is obvious we have had milder winters in many places and hotter summers in some recently. Weather changes; climate does, too. And there are many causes. In some Northern
states, we are told, whole winters usually bring a little more than 100 inches of snow. But some of them have had more than 100 inches of snow in just one recent week! Are they suffering "global warming" or "global cooling"? It is
significant that the global warming enthusiasts have explained all that snow by saying global warming kept the Great Lakes from freezing over, so when cold air passed over and picked up moisture, freezing air dumped the snow -- so
Things we do not understand cause great changes in temperature

global warming was really the cause of the snowdrifts. So it goes.
-- things like ocean currents, air currents, dust storms, volcanic eruptions, etc., all things over which
we have no control. It would be foolish, however, for us not to face the fact that some things
people do will make a difference. These things may run from burning coal and oil to paving over
lots of land for highways and parking lots, or cutting down trees or planting more of them, etc. We should be
thoughtful and careful about what we do -- while realizing that nature is really much bigger in its effects, and out of our control. It would be stupid, for example, for us to adopt the Kyoto accord. That would ruin our national economy and
our standard of living, while letting Communist China and India run rampant doing all of the highly polluting "bad things," in competition with our economy, while it would self-destruct because of controls that supposedly might cure what
may or may not be global warming. This issue is one that should have our attention -- and good judgment -- without being one of fanaticism based on varying assertions that may be all wrong. Are we getting warmer? In Chattanooga
those looking long term might note that we have had Ice Ages and
we might say "Yes." In New York they might say "No." And
warming periods over thousands of years. There have been times when Britain was under ice,
and times when Britain grew grapes the way France and Italy do today. There have been times when
New Jersey was covered with ice, just as ice is now building up in Antarctica. And today some
polar bears are swimming rather than hunting seals on icy white stuff way up north.
Surface Temperature Varies Every Some 100,000 Years About 5 Degrees Celsius. Pg. 12 (2. The – Emerged).
Michaels and Balling 2000 - Prof Environmental Sciences @ U Virginia, and Prof Climatology @ ASU //CNDI - RV
The earth's surface temperature is not constant. For reasons that are not at all clear, the mean surface
temperature of the planet varies by about 5°C (9°F) on the 100,000-year time horizon and has
been doing so for millions of years. On the 1,000-year scale, variation is about 1°C to 2° C (1.8°F to 3.6°F).
In the last 10,000 years there were two well-known excursions of temperature. One was a
warming on that order that occurred around 5,000 years ago, and another was a cooling of
about 1°C (1.8°F) that occurred in the past 1,000 years and from which we have only recently
emerged.
77
Warming False
CO2 Doesn’t Match Warming
Ancient Ice Shows Warming Ahead Of CO2
United Press International March 14, 2003

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=20979
SAN DIEGO, March 13 (UPI) -- A new study released Thursday on how ancient glaciers melted shows increases
in atmospheric carbon dioxide actually tended to lag behind warming temperatures by 700 to 900 years.
The findings, coupled with other new data showing an increase in cloudiness in the Arctic from 1982-1999, are
adding further insights for computer climate modelers, researchers said.
"The warming during a transition from glacial to interglacial period is due (more) to solar forcing (increased
temperatures caused by more sunlight) than to CO2 forcing (increased atmospheric CO2)," Nicolas Caillon, a
climatologist at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, told United Press International.
Caillon, who is lead author of the study, which appears in the March 14 issue of the journal Science, said the
findings are based on analyses of an isotope of the inert gas argon, along with CO2 trapped in air bubbles in a
240,000-year-old core drilled in an Antarctic glacier. Caillon said the analytical method has not been used before.
The findings suggest CO2 increases followed -- rather than preceded -- increases in Earth's temperature some
2,400 centuries ago.
Instead of CO2 buildup, the ancient warming was driven by the Earth's position relative to the sun and the angle of
its axis, explained co-researcher Jean Jouzel, a climatologist at the Pierre Simon Laplace Scientific Laboratory
near Paris.
"You have changes in the oceanic circulation, which expels CO2, which is deep in the ocean," Jouzel continued.
Although the exact mechanism expelling the CO2 is not certain, what is clear -- said both Caillon and Jouzel -- is
the role of CO2 in causing the melting of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. There, they said, CO2 "may serve
as an amplifier" of warming caused by the sun.
"When you start to warm the ocean you have more water vapor in the atmosphere, for example, and this causes
positive feedback," producing warming temperatures, Jouzel told UPI.
"By studying the details of the timing of events, we should better understand how the natural climate system
works, and thus better understand what the future might hold," said Penn State University geoscientist Richard
Alley, who was not involved in the research.
"We still don't know what ... controlled the carbon dioxide changes over ice-age cycles," Alley told UPI. "We do
know that the natural changes were much smaller and slower than what humans are now in the process of doing."
Meanwhile, a study of Arctic cloud patterns, also appearing in the March 14 issue of Science, suggests an increase
in cloudiness in the polar regions has tended to counteract the effect of global warming.
Using data from dozens of meteorological stations, researchers found although surface and water temperatures
have been increasing across the Arctic, because of a not-yet-understood process, Arctic clouds seem to be
producing a cooling effect.
The researchers, at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration report satellite data show cloudiness increased across the Arctic between 1982 and 1999 during the
spring and summer, accompanied with higher temperatures. Then the polar region cooled and became less cloudy
during the winter.
Although many researchers have monitored Arctic temperatures and sea ice extent, few have studied other climate-
related factors in the region, including how all the factors interact.
78
Warming False
"To understand how and why the climate is changing, you have to think about the feedback systems," said Xuanji
Wang, the study's lead author.
Clouds play an important role in such systems, Wang explained. Not only do they reflect the sun's energy, but they
also can trap heat emitted by the Earth, thereby contributing to warming.
Team member Jeffrey Key, an atmospheric scientist working both at NOAA and at UW-Madison's Cooperative
Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, told UPI he is not sure why there has been an increase in atmospheric
moisture in the Arctic and a corresponding increase in clouds, but the phenomenon demonstrates how the Arctic is
linked with rest of the planet.
"We're speculating that the increase in moisture is coming from outside the Arctic so the change is related to large-
scale circulation, rather than local processes," Key said.
He said a weather pattern, known as the Arctic Oscillation -- which links Arctic weather to meteorologic patterns
as far south as the Mediterranean -- likely is responsible for the cloud changes. But the details are not yet clear, he
added.
For example, although spring and summer cloud cover over the Arctic has increased by 2 percent to 4 percent per
decade, the researchers said, winter cloud coverage has decreased. The average result was no change.
Therefore, Key said, "the average annual change doesn't tell the whole story (about Arctic warming)." On the other
hand, he explained, "the Arctic is a place where small changes can have big effects. These effects can signal
climate changes elsewhere. That's why it's so important to monitor the Arctic."
79
Warming False
Convection
No Warming – Convection Proves.
WCR in 2007
(World Climate Report, “The Iris Opens Again?”, August 14th,
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/08/14/the-iris-opens-again/)//CNDI - GP
Back in 2001, Richard Lindzen and colleagues made quite a stir in the climate community when they published a paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in which they describe having possibly identified an
“adaptive infrared iris” that opens and closes to keep the earth’s temperature fairly steady even in light of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. It was proposed to work something like this—when the temperature in the
tropical oceans begins to warm up, it causes in increase in the amount of low-level water clouds and an even greater decrease in total coverage of high-altitude ice clouds. Since ice clouds are net warmers (that is, they trap more
outgoing longwave radiation (heat) than they reflect away incoming shortwave (solar) radiation) and water clouds are (generally) net coolers (reflecting back to space more incoming solar shortwave radiation than they absorb
outgoing longwave radiation), more of the latter and a lot less of the former leads to a net cooling, and the temperatures of the tropical oceans decrease. However, cooler tropical ocean temperatures lead to less low-level (water)
clouds and more high altitude ice clouds. This configuration tends to lead to a net radiation increase and to higher temperatures. And the cycle starts over again. Lindzen’s moniker “adaptive infrared iris” refers to the mechanism in
which the tropical ice cloud cover opens and closes in response to tropical ocean temperatures to allow more heat to escape to space when the oceans are warm and less heat to escape to space when the oceans are relatively cool
(much like the iris of an eye which opens and closes in response to varying light levels to try to maintain a constant level falling on the retina). Lindzen et al. proposed that the iris acts as a global thermostat that will keep the
earth’s temperatures from rising very far even as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase. Needless to say, Lindzen’s iris hypothesis ran into opposition soon after it was published (e.g., Hartman et al., 2002). The
biggest problem with it was that it was based on temperature and cloudcover data from only a portion of the tropical western Pacific for a limited amount of time (about 20 months). Other researchers came along and declared that
they could not find the iris mechanism operating in the cloud and temperature datasets that they looked at, and the idea generally fell into disfavor. Even Lindzen was forced to admit that it likely did not operate as strongly as he
had initially theorized. Nevertheless, the idea has not altogether died and research shows up in the literature from time to time that describes various efforts to look for the iris effect. The latest of these just appeared in Geophysical
Research Letters. Satellite gurus Roy Spencer and John Christy teamed up again, along with colleagues William Braswell and Justin Hnilo to examine the associations between cloud cover and temperature that occur during
intraseasonal oscillations that occur in the tropics. Oftentimes, tropical convective rainfall goes through a 30-60 day cycle, from suppressed to enhanced activity and then back again. Along with rainfall variations, these oscillations
are accompanied by variations in atmospheric cloud cover, temperature, and circulation patterns (see here for more information on this phenomenon). What Spencer and colleagues did, was to examine the relationship between the
types of cloudcover, the patterns of temperature, and the type and amount of radiation that the earth was losing to space over course of the intraseasonal oscillations. Since the surface temperature change during the oscillation is
substantial, on the order of 0.5ºC during the stronger events, the accompanying changes in the other attributes, such as cloud type, may reflect the types of processes that would occur under conditions of an overall warming climate
—just on a smaller time scale (weeks rather than decades). What Spencer and colleagues found breathes new life into the iris hypothesis. Spencer’s team identified an increase in low-level water clouds during the warming phase
of the tropical intraseasonal oscillations, but found that while the amount of high altitude ice clouds increased initially, they unexpectedly reversed course and rapidly declined as the temperatures continued to climb. This decline in
ice clouds progressed until the temperatures peaked and began to fall again. Figure 1 shows how the two types of cloud cover (water and ice) evolved over the course of the rise and fall of temperature during a composite of the
nine strongest intraseasonal oscillations identified by Spencer’s team.
80
Warming False
Warming = Natural
There are other reasons perhaps for the climate change other than global warming.
Michaels and Balling 2000 - Prof Environmental Sciences @ U Virginia, and Prof Climatology @ ASU //CNDI – RV
Ch. 2. pg. 12-13
There have been many such documents. Those produced subsequently, mostly by the United Nations, have
repeatedly demonstrated that very little has changed scientifically in the last 15 years. A summary of the 1985
DOE report (and the many United Nations follow-ups) might run as follows:
1. The earth's climate is complicated. Though it is easy to calculate the gross temperature of the planet as a
whole, we have only limited understanding of what defines the climate at any given location. As a result, our
knowledge about how climate changes over time at any location is even more inadequate . The
only way we know how to improve our understanding is with the use of increasingly complex computer models
that attempt to simulate the atmosphere's behavior over long time and space scales. The belief that this is indeed
even possible and that the current models are realistic is the reigning paradigm.
2. The earth's surface temperature is not constant. For reasons that are not at all clear, the mean surface
temperature of the planet varies by about 5°C (9°F) on the 100,000-year time horizon and has been doing so for
millions of years. On the 1,000-year scale, variation is about 1°C to 2° C (1.8°F to 3.6°F). In the last 10,000 years
there were two well-known excursions of temperature. One was a warming on that order that occurred around
5,000 years ago, and another was a cooling of about 1°C (1.8°F) that occurred in the past 1,000 years and from
which we have only recently emerged.
3. The earth's surface temperature has warmed in the last 100 years.
Although there are problems associated with measurement, such as the well-known fact that heat-retaining
concrete cities tend to grow up around their weather stations, supplying an artificial "urban warming," the mean
surface temperature has warmed a bit more than 0.6°C (1.1°F) in the last century.
4. Human activity is changing the composition of the atmosphere in 45,000 feet and cool it at that
level.
Earth’s Surface Has Warmed In Last 100 Years In The 1800’s, Not Just Recently.
Gasses Pg. 12 (3. The – century). //CNDI - RV
The earth's surface temperature has warmed in the last 100 years.
Although there are problems associated with measurement, such as the well -known fact that
heat-retaining concrete cities tend to grow up around their weather stations, supplying an
artificial "urban warming," the mean surface temperature has warmed a bit more than 0.6°C
(1.1°F) in the last century.
81
Warming False
Water Vapor
Global Warming Being Oversimplified, Since Plan Doesn’t Solve For Water-Vapor, Which Is Just One Of The Major
Contributors To Global Warming.
Gasses Pg. 27 (one – thing). //CNDI - RV
One of the major complications has to do with water vapor carbon dioxide's absorbing and
reradiating much of the same w lengths of infrared radiation emanating from the surface. This
only so much to go around, and an increasing density of ci molecule results in successively less
greenhouse warming. contributed on a molecule-for-molecule basis. This is called the "water
vapor-carbon dioxide overlap" and it has important consequences. Dry air will have very little
natural greenhouse warming from either water vapor or carbon dioxide, so increasing its carbon
dioxide content (or its moisture content) results in a very sharp initial heating. This then allows
more moisture to evaporate, further raising the temperature. Very moist air, as is often found in
summer, especially in the tropics, will not warm as much as very dry air for a given increment of carbon dioxide.
Further, warm, moist air has a way of becoming unstable and bubbling up into clouds, which reflect more radiation
than they absorb and therefore cool the surface. So the big warming should largely be in the coldest air masses,
found most often in winter, especially over northwestern North America and Siberia. As we will see later, this is
one of the aspects of global warming most underappreciated by those who sound the current alarm. For the
moment, let us put forth the proposition that warming up Siberia in the dead of winter is probably a good thing.
82
Warming False
Urban Heating
No Warming, The Heating Is Just Seen In Urban Cities.
Gasses Pg. 76 (This – city). //CNDI - RV
This situation induces a slight but real warming trend that has nothing to do with the "true"
temperature. Sometimes this "urban effect" is recognized, and the "official" station is moved to
a more rural location. In Chicago, for example, the "official" station was first moved from the
central city out to Midway Airport. As one of the nation's busiest airports during the
piston-powered era, Midway attracted a lot of commerce, and the city eventually grew out to
and around it. In the 1960s, the "urbanization" of the Midway record became obvious, so the
"official" station became O'Hare field, then a largely underused concrete elephant amidst fertile
cornfields. Anyone who travels knows it is now a very different environment whose urban
characteristics do not differ much from Midway or the rest of the city.
83
Warming False
___________________
*******Adaptation
Tech Solves Warming
Gasses Pg. 52 (Further – time). //CNDI - RV
Further, hurricanes require more than just a warm ocean. As the air ascends skyward in the thunderstorm
columns, it must be diverged from the top-otherwise the entire process will stagnate. (Imagine a fireplace, which
must have a chimney with an open flue to draw properly.) This "outflow" mechanism is critical to hurricanes.
Favorable outflow conditions are less common than sufficiently warm water is; some theoretical considerations
indicate that favorable outflow conditions might become even less frequent with greenhouse warming. El Nino
suppresses hurricane activity in the crowded Atlantic Basin even as it enhances activity in the
remote central Pacific. Those who claim global warming will increase El Nino frequency or
intensity, which, in turn, will cause a net change toward more severe or frequent hurricane
destruction, are on very thin ice indeed. Atlantic storms are costly, owing to the huge valuations for
vacation property along the U.S. East Coast and in the Caribbean; but central Pacific storms find little land and
few people to run into. Those hurricanes that make it to crowded, affluent places such as Hong
Kong or Japan kill very few people, many fewer than a storm of the same strength in, say,
Vietnam, proving once again that wealth and infrastructure r trump climate almost every time.
84
Warming False
______________________
*******Ice Age Turn
1nc Turn – Ice Age
A. There’s an ice age coming.

Brockwell, 1-15-08
(Ian, American Chronicle, “And now the weather...Earth can expect an Ice Age in the next few years”,
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49157)
According to a Press Release from the SSRC (Space and Science Research Center) in Orlando, Florida (dated
January 2, 2008), "substantial changes" on the Sun´s surface will bring about the next climate change, and a long spell of cold
weather. The changes they are referring to are "Sunspots", or to be more precise, a lack of them. In an article published by
spaceandscience.net called "Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change", they say "We today confirm the
recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun´s surface. This will have
only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet... . Further
according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series
of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles´ behavior over the last 1,100 years
relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%."
B. Warming prevents ice age from happening, which risks massive population deaths
Times Herald in ‘6
(“Global warming? It’s the ice we should watch out for”, 12-17, pg. lexisnexis)//CNDI - GP
If you could turn back the clock 13,000 years, Port Huron would be a much different place. For starters, you could not help
but notice a 2-mile-high wall of ice towering over the city. In fact, Port Huron has loaned its name to one of the major
advances of the Wisconsin glaciation. Randall J. Schaetzl, a geologist at Michigan State University, reports the boundaries of
the Port Huron Ice Advance can be traced from the Genessee Valley in New York to the Lake Michigan shore north of
Ludington. If global warming seems ominous, imagine the effects of global cooling. Half of the planet would be frozen.
Canada, Siberia and northern Europe would be buried beneath miles of ice. Cities such as Boston, Toronto, Detroit and
Chicago - not to mention London, Paris and Berlin - would be uninhabitable iceboxes. Starvation, disease and war would
doom billions of people as humanity crowded into equatorial lands. * Christy, the Alabama earth scientist, is something of
a contrarian himself. He wonders why the Al Gores of the world are so reluctant to mention the benefits of man-made climate
change. "They never speak of global warming in terms of longer growing seasons or beneficial rains," he said. "They never
talk about how it has increased the energy production that we depend on for the world we live in. ... Global warming has
more than a silver lining. Much more." The main greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide - is what you produce when you exhale.
Vegetation thrives upon it. Good old CO2 makes for fat tomatoes and tall trees. It's the difference between bleak and lush.
"Carbon dioxide invigorates the plant world," Christy said, mentioning a study that links excess carbon dioxide to a 16%
increase in global crop yields. One can only wonder how such a detail seems to have escaped the scrutiny of the global-
warming-is-going-to-get-you crowd. Will global warming prevent the next ice age? Christy said researchers are working
to answer that question. Many experts believe man-made climate change will, at a minimum, postpone the return of the polar
ice caps. It may not eliminate the next Ice Age, but it could buy mankind a few millennia of sunshine and blue skies. If so,
global warming - accidental or not - may wind up ranking with fire and the wheel as mankind's greatest inventions.
85
Warming False
Ice Age – Uniqueness Extensions
An Ice Age Is Coming, Warming Prevents It.

Bloomberg, 07
(The Star Phoenix, August 31, 2007, Global warming may delay next ice age: report, Bloomberg)//CNDI -DV
Carbon dioxide from burning of coal, oil and gas will affect ocean chemistry and the climate long after the fuels
are used, according to the report from researchers at the University of Southampton in England. Models of ocean
chemistry show that the effects of greenhouse gases might be seen for "many hundreds of thousands of years," the
report said.
The impact may delay the onset of the next ice age, Toby Tyrrell , a lecturer at the university and co-
author of the report, said in a telephone interview. Previous assumptions suggested that the effects of
greenhouse gases would fade soon after fuels are used.
"We're just beginning to realize that burning fossil fuels is going to be a factor for longer time scales," Tyrrell said
in an interview. The report presents "probably the longest duration effect that's been suggested from human
activity."
Earlier this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report that global
warming is very likely caused by human activities, including emissions from burning fossil fuels. A report from
the same UN panel in May said that greenhouse gases can be held at levels that avoid the worst impacts of global
warming by using available technologies and strategies.
Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the pattern of the Earth's orbit around the sun
varies over time, changing the distribution of sunlight over the planet. A combination of greenhouse
gases, global warming and variations in the Earth's orbit determines when an ice age will occur,
Tyrrell said.
Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean it will require "a more
extreme distribution of sunlight to get you into an ice age," Tyrrell said. "You can take it as a
warning or you can take it as a silver lining. Preventing ice ages is presumably a good thing."
No Warming, Ice Age Is Coming
Gasses Pg. 75 (This – indeed). //CNDI - RV
This Ice Age is hardly over. We are merely between glacial phases; indeed, we are due for
reglacialtion, if the history of the last million years or so is any guide.
The Ice Age Earth is a planet whose temperature fluctuates wildly, and we just happen to be here during that era,
cheerily emitting compounds into the atmosphere that are themselves known to change the
surface temperature. Finding the human fingerprint on an atmosphere at the height of chaos is a daunting task
indeed.
86
Warming False
Ice Age – Uniqueness
Warming Can Stop The Coming Ice Age

Agence France Presse in 07(“Global warming could delay next ice age: study”, August 29th, pg. lexisnexis)//CNDI
- CV
Burning fossil fuels could postpone the next ice age by up to half a million years, researchers at a British
university said Wednesday.
Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by burning fuels such as coal and oil may cause
enough residual global warming to prevent its onset, said scientists from the University of Southampton
in southern England.
The world's oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but in doing so they are becoming more acidic, said a team led by Doctor Toby Tyrrell, which
conducted research based on marine chemistry.
This, in turn, dissolves the calcium carbonate in the shells produced by surface-dwelling marine organisms, adding even more carbon to the oceans. The outcome is
elevated carbon dioxide levels for far longer than previously assumed, the scientists argued.
Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for between five and 200 years before being absorbed by the oceans, reckons the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
However, up to one-tenth of the carbon dioxide currently being emitted will remain in the air for at least 100,000 years, argued Tyrrell.
"Our research shows why atmospheric carbon dioxide will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels," said Tyrrell.
"It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.
"The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."
Ice ages occur around every 100,000 years as the Earth's orbit round the Sun alters. However, carbon
dioxide levels can affect their onset.
Humans have already burned about 300 gigatonnes of carbon of fossil fuels. If 1000 Gt C are burnt then
it is likely the next ice age will be skipped. Burning all possible fossil fuels (about 4,000 Gt C) could
lead to avoidance of the next five, the study said.
87
Warming False
Ice Age – Impacts
Cooling will trigger global food wars and mass starvation

Calvin 02, Affiliate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at University of Washington
(William H., A Brain for All Seasons, http://williamcalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/NAcoast.htm)//CNDI – GP
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try
to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both
at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely,
to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern
weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem –
and could easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt
cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650
million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming
from the North Atlantic. There is another part of the world with the same good soil, within the same latitudinal band, which
we can use for a quick comparison. Canada lacks Europe's winter warmth and rainfall; it has, for example, no equivalent of
the North Atlantic Current to preheat its eastbound weather systems. Canada's agriculture supports about 28 million people. If
Europe had weather like Canada's, it could feed only one out of twenty-three present-day Europeans. Any abrupt switch in
climate would also disrupt food-supply routes. The only reason that two percent of our population can feed the other 98
percent is that we have a well-developed system of transportation and middlemen – but it is not very robust. The system
allows for large urban populations in the best of times, but not in the case of widespread disruptions. Natural disasters such as
hurricanes and earthquakes are less troubling than abrupt coolings for two reasons: they're brief (the recovery period starts the
next day) and they're local or regional (unaffected citizens can come to the assistance of the overwhelmed). There is,
increasingly, international cooperation in response to catastrophe – but no country is going to be able to rely on a stored
agricultural surplus for even a year, and any country will be reluctant to give away part of its surplus. In an abrupt cooling the
problem would get worse for decades, and much of the earth would be affected. A meteor strike that killed most of the
population in a month would not be as serious as an abrupt cooling that eventually killed just as many. With the population
crash spread out over a decade, there would be ample opportunity for civilization's institutions to be torn apart and for hatreds
to build, as armies tried to grab remaining resources simply to feed the people in their own countries. The effects of an abrupt
cold last for centuries. This might not be the end of Homo sapiens – written knowledge and elementary education might well
endure – but the world after such a population crash would certainly be full of despotic governments that hated their
neighbors because of recent atrocities. Recovery would be very slow.
88
Warming False
A2: Warming leads to Ice Age
This Is A Double-Turn With Any Of Their Warming Bad Impacts – Ice Age Would Trigger A Drawback In CO2 And
Temperatures In The Atmosphere. The IPCC Concedes.
New York Times in ‘7

(Walter Gibbs, “Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming World”, 5-15, pg. lexisnexis)//CNDI -
GP
Mainstream climatologists who have feared that global warming could have the paradoxical effect of cooling northwestern
Europe or even plunging it into a small ice age have stopped worrying about that particular disaster, although it retains a
vivid hold on the public imagination. The idea, which held climate theorists in its icy grip for years, was that the North
Atlantic Current, an extension of the Gulf Stream that cuts northeast across the Atlantic Ocean to bathe the high latitudes of
Europe with warmish equatorial water, could shut down in a greenhouse world. Without that warm-water current,
Americans on the Eastern Seaboard would most likely feel a chill, but the suffering would be greater in Europe, where major
cities lie far to the north. Britain, northern France, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway could in theory take on Arctic
aspects that only a Greenlander could love, even as the rest of the world sweltered. All that has now been removed from the
forecast. Not only is northern Europe warming, but every major climate model produced by scientists worldwide in recent
years has also shown that the warming will almost certainly continue. ''The concern had previously been that we were close
to a threshold where the Atlantic circulation system would stop,'' said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ''We now believe we are much farther from that threshold, thanks to improved
modeling and ocean measurements. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current are more stable than previously
thought.'' After consulting 23 climate models, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in
February it was ''very unlikely'' that the crucial flow of warm water to Europe would stall in this century. The panel did say
that the gradual melting of the Greenland ice sheet along with increased precipitation in the far north were likely to weaken
the North Atlantic Current by 25 percent through 2100. But the panel added that any cooling effect in Europe would be
overwhelmed by a general warming of the atmosphere, a warming that the panel said was under way as a result of rising
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. ''The bottom line is that the atmosphere is warming up so
much that a slowdown of the North Atlantic Current will never be able to cool Europe,'' said Helge Drange, a professor at the
Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway. Temperate Europe is vulnerable because of its
northern perch. The latitude of Britain equals that of frigid Newfoundland. Norway corresponds to the southern half of
Greenland. The annual mean temperature difference of 10 to 20 degrees across the North Atlantic (all temperature units
shown here are in Fahrenheit) is often entirely attributed to the North Atlantic Current. But in recent years, climatologists
have said prevailing winds and other factors independent of the current are responsible for at least half of the temperature
anomaly. For the European warm-water current to stop altogether, the Greenland ice sheet would have to melt fast enough
to create a vast freshwater pool in the North Atlantic. Freshwater dilution on that scale would make the current less dense,
preventing its two main strands from sinking south of Iceland and west of Norway as they must before they can double back
toward the Equator on the underside of what is often called the Atlantic conveyor belt. ''The ocean circulation is a robust
feature, and you really need to hit it hard to make it stop,'' said Eystein Jansen, a paleoclimatologist who directs the Bjerknes
Center for Climate Research, also in Bergen. ''The Greenland ice sheet would not only have to melt, but to dynamically
disintegrate on a huge scale across the entire sheet.''
89
Warming False
AFF AT: Ice Age D.A.
First, They Are Just Wrong—Climate Would Be Stable For 15,000 More Years Without Warming, Meaning There Is
Only A Risk Of Warming Impacts**
CANBERRA TIMES (nqa) 6/12/04

[staffwriter, p. B8, LN]
T FIB DEEPEST and oldest ice core yet drilled in the Antarctic suggests that the world's climate is headed for an
unprecedented period of turmoil brought about by man-made greenhouse gases. Chemical analysis of the ice in the
core - about 3km long - has revealed details of the eight previous ice ages that have affected the Earth in the past
740,000 years. Scientists said this week that the present climate resembled most closely the warm "interglacial"
period about 470,000 years ago but with the difference that, this time, temperatures were set to spiral upwards as a
result of global warming. In a study published in the journal Nature, the international team of scientists from 10
European countries warns that the Earth's climate would be in a highly stable period now if it were not for the
extra carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by human activities. "Given the similarities between this earlier
warm period and today. our results may imply that, without human intervention, a climate similar to the present
one would extend well into the future," they say. Eric WolIL a senior member of the team from the British
Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, said anyone who suggested that human-induced global warming was beneficial
because it would avert the next ice age was misguided. "if the climate is left to its own devices we have about
another 15,000 years to go before the next ice age," he said. "if people say global warming is good because it stops
us going into another ice age, they are wrong because we are not about to go into another ice age."
Second, Warming Will Shut Down The Nac And Cause An Ice Age Withing Two Years
ZALESKI (staffwriter) ‘04

[Rob, Capital Times, LN, 3/13]
Now, a flurry of controversial articles - including one in Fortune magazine titled "Climate Collapse: The
Pentagon's Weather Nightmare" and another on Commondrearns.org by international commentator Thom
Hartmann -- suggests we may be facing those consequences far sooner than anyone imagined. How much sooner?
Well, in the worst case scenario, maybe two years, according to Hartmann. (Seriously, folks.) It's a complicated
thesis, but the abbreviated version goes like this: "If enough cold. fresh water coming from the melting polar ice
caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic," Hartmann maintains. "it will shut
down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. `The worst-case scenario
would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as two to three years from its onset. And the
mid-case scenario would be a period like the little ice age' of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather
patterns, leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures and wars around
the world."
90
Warming False
AFF AT: Ice Age D.A.
Third, Shutdown Of The Gulf Stream Causes Climatic Disruptions Throughout The Planet
MCGUIRE (nqa) 11/13/03

[Bill, Prof., Univ. College London, The Guardian, LN]
One of the scariest aspects of the current dramatic changes occurring in the system of North Atlantic currents is
that the deep, southward-flowing limb of the Namoc can be thought of as representing the headwasters of the
worldwide system of ocean currents known as the Global Thermohaline Circulation. The possibility exists,
therefore, that a disruption of the Atlantic currents might have implications far beyond a colder UK and north-west
Europe, perhaps bringing dramatic climatic changes to the entire planet.
91

CNDI - Warming False

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CNDI - Warming False

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forslund/Lazarevic Lab CNDI 2K8

1NC Warming Frontline (1/

Warmer night-time temperatures,

a warmer climate would push up yields, but also that the

3. Warming Will Be Slow And Linear In The Status Quo

Clouds Cause Warming To Only Happens At Night.

APC in 2008(American Policy Center, “There is No Global Warming”, United Nations,

2NC Warming Slow/Linear

AT: Sea-Level Rise

There Is Nothing We Can Do About Sea Level Rise

. The principal conclusion is that this melting of the WAIS will

There Is Currently A Lack Of Sunspots.

Balgord, head of Environmental & Resources Technology, June 22nd 2008

Alt Caus - Sun = Warming

This kind of gross calculation-relating geological-scale events such as mountain-building to the

GCM’s Bad: Flawed Results

is devastating to the alarmists. They amassed additional scientific evidence convincingly

In a comprehensive analysis of 42 different experiments, appearing in 1994 in

[Read Specific Source Indicts Of Their Arguments]

The research proves that

What idiot decided that seismic activity was a global warming

One doesn't have to be a scientist to know this is beyond nutty.

No Consensus, 31,000 Scientists Sign Global Warming Rejection

There is much climatologist dissent on global warming

AT: Fossi Fuel Industry Taints

Oil Companies Cut Ties To Skeptics

MSNBC Jan. 12, 2007

Global Warming skeptics are all qualified

Oriana Zill de Granandos, april 24, 2007

Here are profiles of five of the most famous skeptics:

Frederick Seitz, Ph.D.

Area of Expertise: Dubbed by Business Week "the

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.

A meteorologist, Lindzen is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.

Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D

Robert C. Balling, Jr. Ph. D.

received his Ph.D. in geography from University of Oklahoma in

IPCC Says No Warming

There is no justification for such a conclusion.

IPCC Intentionally Misleads Participants And Is An Unscientific, Uncredible Source

The Debate Is Over?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

But who's to say that yesterday's temperature is the perfect one?

IPCC Cannot Be Trusted Because They Mix Science And Religion.

The IPCC Concealed Discrepancies From The Public In Their Report.

IPCC Modeling Wrong

IPCC Not Qualified

Very Few Of The IPCC Climatologists Are Degreed, So Not Qualified.

Around the world, vast

icy temperatures have just swept through south China,

Ice Caps Melting Is Not A Big Deal

Melting Is Much Too Slow

Balgord, head of Environmental & Resources Technology, June 22nd 2008

IPPC Unable To Account For Cloud Negative Feedback In Calculations

In many regions, downpours will be more intense.

Cosmic Rays Are True Cause Of Warming

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Rainfall Is A Negative Feedback Loop, Which Leads To Climate Cooling.

That is just a simple example.

"Positive Cloud Feedback Doesn't Exist" Rather Clouds Negate Warming

a new paper that will appear in the

Most projections of the response of the THC to

Medieval cathedral builders learned from their