You are on page 1of 94

Answers to Global Warming

Global Warming Defense F/L..................................................................................................................................................................3


Global Warming Defense F/L..................................................................................................................................................................4
Global Warming Defense F/L..................................................................................................................................................................5
Global Warming Defense F/L..................................................................................................................................................................6
Global Warming Defense F/L..................................................................................................................................................................7
Extns #1- No Impact................................................................................................................................................................................8
Extns #2- Natural Causes.........................................................................................................................................................................9
Extns #2- Natural Causes.......................................................................................................................................................................10
Extns #3- Global Warming Irreversible.................................................................................................................................................11
Extns #5- Scrutinize Their Ev / Biased..................................................................................................................................................12
Extns #6- No Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................13
Extns #7- C02 Emissions.......................................................................................................................................................................14
Extns #7- C02 Emissions.......................................................................................................................................................................15
************************Answers to Global Warming Bad Scenarios*********************................................................16
AT: Arctic Destruction / Ice Caps Melting.............................................................................................................................................17
AT: Arctic Destruction / Ice Caps Melting.............................................................................................................................................18
AT: Kilimanjaro Proves.....................................................................................................................................................................19
AT: Sea Level Rise (1/2)........................................................................................................................................................................20
AT: Sea Level Rise (2/2)........................................................................................................................................................................21
AT: Sea Levels - Tuvalu Island Proves..............................................................................................................................................22
AT: Sea Levels – Vanuatu and Tegua Prove...........................................................................................................................................23
AT: Sea Levels – Venetia Prove.............................................................................................................................................................24
AT: Sea Levels – Computer Data Prove................................................................................................................................................25
AT: Sea Levels – Maldives Prove..........................................................................................................................................................26
AT: Sea Levels – Small Island Prove.....................................................................................................................................................27
AT: Sea Levels – Glacier Melt Causing.................................................................................................................................................28
Morner Qualifications.......................................................................................................................................................................29
AT: Economic Collapse..........................................................................................................................................................................30
AT: War (1/3)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................31
AT: War (2/3).........................................................................................................................................................................................32
AT: War (3/3).........................................................................................................................................................................................33
AT: War - Extns #3- Tyranny.............................................................................................................................................................34
AT: Forests (1/2)....................................................................................................................................................................................35
AT: Forests (2/2)....................................................................................................................................................................................36
AT: Disease............................................................................................................................................................................................37
AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars.........................................................................................................................................................38
AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars.........................................................................................................................................................39
AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars.........................................................................................................................................................40
AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars.........................................................................................................................................................41
AT: Natural Disasters.............................................................................................................................................................................42
AT: Extreme Weather.............................................................................................................................................................................43
AT: Extreme Weather.............................................................................................................................................................................44
AT: Extreme Weather.............................................................................................................................................................................45
AT: Fires.................................................................................................................................................................................................46
AT: Refugees (1/2).................................................................................................................................................................................47
AT: Refugees (2/2)................................................................................................................................................................................48
AT: Refugees – Security K (1/3)............................................................................................................................................................49
AT: Refugees – Security K (2/3)...........................................................................................................................................................50
AT: Refugees – Security K (3/3)............................................................................................................................................................51
AT: Biodiversity (1/3)............................................................................................................................................................................52
AT: Biodiversity (2/3)............................................................................................................................................................................53
AT: Biodiversity (3/3)............................................................................................................................................................................54
AT: Biodiversity – Turn: Wetlands (1/2)...............................................................................................................................................55
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 2
AT: Biodiversity – Turn: Wetlands (2/2)................................................................................................................................................56
AT: Plankton – Turn: Pollution Good....................................................................................................................................................57
AT: Plankton – Turn: Marine Mammals (1/2)........................................................................................................................................58
AT: Plankton – Turn: Marine Mammals (2/2)........................................................................................................................................59
AT: Plankton – No Impact......................................................................................................................................................................60
************************Answers to Global Warming Science*********************..........................................................61
AT: Scientific Consensus (1/3)...............................................................................................................................................................62
AT: Scientific Consensus (2/3)...............................................................................................................................................................63
AT: Scientific Consensus (3/3)...............................................................................................................................................................64
AT: “Scientific Consensus- Oreskes”.....................................................................................................................................................65
AT: IPCC (1/4) ......................................................................................................................................................................................66
AT: IPCC (2/4).......................................................................................................................................................................................67
AT: IPCC (3/4).......................................................................................................................................................................................68
AT: IPCC (4/4)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................69
AT: Hockeystick Chart...........................................................................................................................................................................70
AT: Computer Models............................................................................................................................................................................71
************************Global Warming Good Scenarios*********************.................................................................72
Global Warming Good- S02...................................................................................................................................................................73
Global Warming Good- Economy (1/2).................................................................................................................................................74
Global Warming Good- Economy (2/2).................................................................................................................................................75
Extns- Warming key to Economy......................................................................................................................................................76
Global Warming Good- Winter..............................................................................................................................................................77
Global Warming Good- Agriculture.......................................................................................................................................................78
Deforestation Impact Module ...........................................................................................................................................................79
Water Wars Impact Module....................................................................................................................................................................80
Global Warming Bad- Arctic Conflict (1/2)...........................................................................................................................................82
Global Warming Bad- Arctic Conflict (2/2)...........................................................................................................................................83
AT: Russia won’t use Nukes..............................................................................................................................................................84
Global Warming Good- Famine.............................................................................................................................................................85
Global Warming Good- Hurricanes.......................................................................................................................................................86
Global Warming Good- Coral Reef (1/2)...............................................................................................................................................87
Global Warming Good- Coral Reef (2/2)...............................................................................................................................................88
Global Warming Good- Ice Age............................................................................................................................................................89
Global Warming Good- Rice (1/2).........................................................................................................................................................90
Global Warming Good- Rice (1/2).........................................................................................................................................................91
Random Economic Collapse Good Card...............................................................................................................................................92
Aff- Global Warming Bad  Terrorism................................................................................................................................................93
Aff- Global Warming Bad  Terrorism................................................................................................................................................94

2
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 3

Global Warming Defense F/L


1. No negative impact to global warming—history and modern science disproves all of their
scenarios; their arguments are propaganda so scientists can get research grants.

Jaworowski 8 [Professor, Zbigniew March,“Fear Propaganda”,


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap3.htm, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central
Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-1958, he measured the concentration
of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. During 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution
of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers—in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, in
the Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the
Peruvian Andes. He has published about 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements
in ice cores. M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.]

Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle Ages, when for a
few hundred years it was warmer than it is now, neither the Maldive atolls nor the Pacific archipelagos were
flooded. Global oceanic levels have been rising for some hundreds or thousands of years (the causes of this phenomenon are not
but it does not seem to be accelerated by the 20th Century
(24)
clear). In the last 100 years, this increase amounted to 10 cm to 20 cm,
warming. It turns out that in warmer climates, there is more water that evaporates from the ocean (and subsequently
(17)
falls as snow on the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps) than there is water that flows to the seas from melting glaciers.
Since the 1970s, the glaciers of the Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic have ceased to retreat, and have
started to grow. On January 18, 2002, the journal Science published the results of satellite-borne radar and ice core studies performed by scientists from
CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz. These results indicate that the Antarctic ice flow has
been slowed, and sometimes even stopped, and that this has resulted in the thickening of the continental glacier
(25 )
at a rate of 26.8 billion tons a year. In 1999, a Polish Academy of Sciences paper was prepared as a source material for a report titled "Forecast of the Defense
Conditions for the Republic of Poland in 2001-2020." The paper implied that the increase of atmospheric precipitation by 23 percent in Poland, which was presumed
to be caused by global warming, would be detrimental. (Imagine stating this in a country where 38 percent of the area suffers from permanent surface water deficit!)
The same paper also deemed an extension of the vegetation period by 60 to 120 days as a disaster. Truly, a possibility of doubling the crop rotation, or even
prolonging by four months the harvest of radishes, makes for a horrific vision in the minds of the authors of this paper. Newspapers continuously write about the
increasing frequency and power of the storms. The facts, however, speak otherwise. I cite here only some few data from Poland, but there are plenty of data from all
over the world. In Cracow, in 1896-1995, the number of storms with hail and precipitation exceeding 20 millimeters has
decreased continuously, and after 1930, the number of all storms decreased. (26)
In 1813 to 1994, the frequency and magnitude of floods of Vistula River
in Cracow not only did not increase but, since 1940, have significantly decreased. (27) Also, measurements in the Kolobrzeg Baltic Sea harbor indicate that the number
Similar observations apply to the 20th Century hurricanes over the
of gales has not increased between 1901 and 1990. (28)
Atlantic Ocean (Figure 4,) and worldwide.

3
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 4

Global Warming Defense F/L


2. Modern science is on our side-- Global Warming is not a product of human activity—natural
causes like cosmic rays are consistent with heat patterns.

Jaworowski 8 [Professor, Zbigniew Marc http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap7.htm,


chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the
winter of 1957-1958, he measured the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. During 1972
to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in
17 glaciers—in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, in the Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the
Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the Peruvian Andes. He has published about 20 papers
on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements in ice cores. M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. “The Cosmic
Ray Connection”]

The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 and other
trace greenhouse gases. However, they are consistent with the changes in Sun's activity, which run in
cycles of 11-year and 90-years' duration. This has been known since 1982, when it was noted that in the
period 1000 to 1950, the air temperature closely followed the cyclic activity of our diurnal star. (49) Data from
1865 to 1985, published in 1991, exhibited an astonishing correspondence between the temperature of the
Northern Hemisphere and the 11-year cycles of the sunspot appearances, which are a measure of Sun's
activity. ( 50,51) The variations in solar radiation observed between 1880 and 1993 could account for 71 percent
of the global mean temperature variance (compared to 51 percent for the greenhouse gases' part alone), and
correspond to a global temperature variance of about 0.4°C. (34) However, in 1997, it suddenly became
apparent that the decisive impact on climate change fluctuations comes not from the Sun, but rather from
cosmic radiation. This came as a great surprise, because the energy brought to the Earth by cosmic radiation
is many times smaller than that from solar radiation. The secret lies in the clouds: The impact of clouds on
climate and temperature is more than a hundred times stronger than that of carbon dioxide. Even if the CO2
concentration in the air were doubled, its greenhouse effect would be cancelled by a mere 1 percent rise in
cloudiness: The reason is simply that greater cloudiness means a larger deflection of the solar radiation reaching the surface of our planet. (See Figure 9.) In
1997, Danish scientists H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen noted that the changes in cloudiness measured by geostationary
satellites perfectly coincide with the changes in the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the troposphere: The
more intense the radiation, the more clouds. (52) Cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei
for water vapour, where the ice crystals— from which the clouds are created—are formed. The quantity of cosmic radiation
coming to the Earth from our galaxy and from deep space is controlled by changes in the so-called solar wind. It is created by hot
plasma ejected from the solar corona to the distance of many solar diameters, carrying ionized particles and magnetic field lines. Solar wind, rushing toward the
limits of the Solar System, drives galactic rays away from the Earth and makes them weaker. When the solar wind gets stronger, less
cosmic radiation reaches us from space, not so many clouds are formed, and it gets warmer. When the
solar wind abates, the Earth becomes cooler. Thus, the Sun opens and closes a climate-controlling umbrella
of clouds over our heads. Only in recent years have astrophysicists and physicists specializing in atmosphere research studied these phenomena and their
mechanisms, in the attempt to understand them better. Perhaps, some day, we will learn to govern the clouds. The climate is constantly changing. Alternate
cycles of long cold periods and much shorter interglacial warm periods occur with some regularity. The typical
length of climatic cycles in the last 2 million years was about 100,000 years, divided into 90,000 years for Ice Age periods and 10,000 years for the warm,
interglacial ones. Within a given cycle, the difference in temperature between the cold and warm phases equals 3°C to 7°C. The present warm phase is probably
drawing to an end—the average duration of such a phase has already been exceeded by 500 years. Transition periods between cold and warm climate phases are
dramatically short: They last for only 50, 20, or even 1 to 2 years, and they appear with virtually no warning.

4
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 5

Global Warming Defense F/L


3. Impacts inevitable—we’re too late.

Weather 7 [10/29, “James Lovelock on Global Warming”, Weather Forecast Blog,


http://www.360weather.mobi/2007/October/James-Lovelock-on-Global-Warming.htm, qualifications:
independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist, Fellow of the Royal Society, President
of the Marine Biology Association, Honorary Visiting Fellow at Oxford, awarded a number of prestigious
prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an ACS chromatography award (1980), the WMO Norbert Gerbier
Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the RGS Discovery Lifetime award
(2001). He became a CBE in 1990, and a Companion of Honor in 2003]

According to Lovelock, global warming is irreversible. Endeavors to decrease your carbon footprint by taking steps
such as purchasing a hybrid car cannot significantly reduce the effects of global warming now, because the damage
has already been done.

4. Even if they win that Global Warming is real—it’s impossible to solve without capping entire
world emissions by 80%

Singer 7 [March 19th, S. Fred Singer, “'The Great Global Warming Swindle”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm, S. Fred 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. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold
Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997]

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!

5
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 6

Global Warming Defense F/L


5. You should seriously scrutinize all their arguments-- All of their evidence are lies produced by
scientists who are paid to make up scenarios – their ‘consensus’ arguments are simply a product
of money.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the meteorological community and us: They work
with computers; we geologists work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these scenarios. So what should you change?
We cannot change observations, so we have to change the scenarios! Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side
which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in this thing: If you want a grant for a
research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global warming.
All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really
bad, because then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That's what dictatorships did, autocracies. They demanded that
scientists produce what they wanted....You frighten a lot of scientists. If they say that climate is not changing, they lose
their research grants. And some people cannot afford that; they become silent, or a few of us speak up,
because we think that it's for the honesty of science, that we have to do it.

6. Earth hasn’t actually warmed: satellite and ice-core data prove

Singer 7/18/00 [a degree in engineering from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University).:
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation on Climate Change http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html]

Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not
warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is
overwhelming: a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact,
if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend. b) Radiosonde data from balloons released
regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the
National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1]. c) The well-controlled and reliable
thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable
warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental
surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada. d) But tree-ring records for Siberia
and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact,
many show a cooling trend. Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers
is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph
(with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in
1000 years.

6
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 7

Global Warming Defense F/L


7. The earth has shown no sign of warming from greenhouse gases

SCIENCE DIRECTOR OF THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, 1-12-5 (Jay, Yearbook of Experts)

Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite and weather balloon
readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any
global warming) show no warming since readings began 25 years ago, when the satellite system was first
launched. Only land based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the
entire globe as satellite readings do, and these are often affected by heat generated by nearby urban
development. 2 - All predictions of global warming are based on computer models not historical data. In
order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers expectations, modelers make adjustments to unknown variables that are many
times greater than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. For example, knowledge of the amount of energy flowing from the
equator to the poles is uncertain by an amount equivalent to 25 to 30 Watts per square meter (W/m2) of the earth's surface. the amount of sunlight absorbed by
the atmosphere or reflected by the surface is also uncertain by as much as 25 W/m2. The role of clouds is uncertain by at least 25 W/m2. The heat added to the
atmosphere by a doubling of CO2 is not uncertain. It is easily measured in laboratory experiments and amounts to only 4 Watts per square meter (4 W/m2) of the
-
earth's surface. Obviously the uncertainties are many times larger than the input of energy resulting from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 3
When scientists analyzed the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures dating back 250,000
years in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, they found that sometimes concentration of CO2 was high when the
temperature was low and sometime CO2 was low when temperature was high. 4 - While we hear much
about one or another melting glaciers, a recent study of 246 glaciers around the world between 1946 and
1995 indicated a balance between those that are losing ice, gaining ice and remaining in equilibrium. There is
no global trend in any direction. 5 - The gases in the atmosphere that absorb outgoing radiation forming the greenhouse effect are water vapor (absorbing 90% of
outgoing heat), methane (4%), nitrous oxide (2%), carbon dioxide (4%). Thus a doubling of CO2 would not achieve a significant change in heat retained. 6 -
Temperature fluctuations during the current 300 year recovery from the Little Ice Age which ended around 1700AD, following the Medieval Warming Period
correlate almost perfectly with fluctuations in solar activity. This correlation long predates human use of significant amounts of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and
natural gas. 7 - In defining the tremendous impact the sun has on climate one must really understands the actual movement of the earth around the sun. There are
three variables, orbit shape, tilt and wobble which profoundly affect weather patterns. The earth's orbit does not form a circle as it moves around the sun - it
forms an ellipse passing further away from the sun at the one end of the orbit than at the other end. During the 100,000 year cycle the tug of other planets on the
earth causes its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short broad ellipse that keeps the earth closer to the sun to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move farther
from the sun and back again. 8 -
There is no consensus of scientists in favor of human caused global warming. While
opinion polls do not determine truth in science, more than 17,000 American scientists signed a petition
drafted by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which stated: "There is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in
the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." 9 - A
modest amount of global warming, should it occur would be beneficial to the natural world. The warmest period in
recorded history was the Medieval Warm Period roughly 800 to 1200AD when temperatures were 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today allowing great
prosperity of mankind. 10 - Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. On the contrary it makes crops and forests grow faster. Mapping by satellite
shows that the earth has become about 6% greener overall in the past two decades, with forests expanding into arid regions. The Amazon rain forest was the
biggest gainer, despite the much advertised deforestation caused by human cutting along their edges. Certainly climate change does not help every region
equally, but careful studies predict overall benefit, fewer storms (not more), more rain, better crop yields, longer growing seasons, milder winters and decreasing
heating costs in colder climates. The news is certainly not all bad and on balance may be rather good.

7
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 8

Extns #1- No Impact


Zero impact to Global Warming—rising sea levels is long-term and inevitable and global warming
increases standard of living.

Singer 7 [March 19th, S. Fred Singer, “'The Great Global Warming Swindle”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm, S. Fred 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. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold
Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997]
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?

8
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 9

Extns #2- Natural Causes


Current climate change is a product of natural heat fluctuations—human contribution is insignificant.

Jaworowski 8 [Professor, Zbigniew March, “Climate Change Reflects Natural Planetary Events”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap1.htm, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central
Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-1958, he measured the concentration
of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. During 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution
of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers—in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, in
the Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the
Peruvian Andes. He has published about 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements
in ice cores. M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.]
In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect a natural course of planetary
events. From time immemorial, alternate warm and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of
millions to several years. The cycles were most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun
and in the Sun's neighborhood. Short term changes—those occurring in a few years—are caused by terrestrial factors such as large
volcanic explosions, which inject dust into the stratosphere, and the phenomenon of El Niño, which depends
on the variations in oceanic currents. Thermal energy produced by natural radionuclides that are present in the
1-kilometer-thick layer of the Earth's crust, contributed about 117 kilojoules per year per square meter of the primitive
Earth. As a result of the decay of these long-lived radionuclides, their annual contribution is now only 33.4 kilojoules per square meter. (10) This nuclear heat,
however, plays a minor role among the terrestrial factors, in comparison with the "greenhouse effects" caused by absorption by some atmospheric gases of the solar
radiation reflected from the surface of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the average near-surface air temperature would be -18°C, and not +15°C, as it is now.
The most important among these "greenhouse gases" is water vapour, which is responsible for about 96 to 99
percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O, and O3), the
most important is CO2, which contributes only 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect. ( 11,12) The
manmade CO2 contribution to this effect may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent. (13) Now we are near the
middle of the Sun's lifetime, about 5 billion years since its formation, and about 7 billion years before its final contraction into a hot white dwarf, (14)
the heat of which will smother the Earth, killing all life. At the start of Sun's career, its irradiance was about 30 percent lower
than it is now. This probably was one of the reasons for the Precambrian cold periods. In 1989, Joseph Kirschvink found 700 million-year-old rocks, near
Adelaide, Australia, holding traces of the past glaciers. However, the magnetic signal of these rocks indicates that at that time, the glaciers were located at the
Equator. This means that the whole of the Earth was then covered with ice. In 1992, Kirschvink called this stage of the planet the "Snowball Earth," and found that
this phenomenon occurred many times in the Precambrian period. One such Snowball Earth appeared 2.4 billion years ago.[…]Similar evidence comes also from
more direct measurements of the temperature preserved in the Greenland ice cap (Figure 2). These studies stand in stark contradiction to the much smaller study,
(21b) which shows a "hockey stick" curve, with the outstanding high temperature in the 20th Century, and a rather flat and slightly decreasing trend during the rest of
the
the past millennium. The study, by Mann et al., is in opposition to the multitude of publications supporting the evidence that during the past 1,000 years,
phenomena of Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age had a global range, and that the contemporary
period does not differ from the previous natural climatic changes. However, the Mann et al. study was incorporated into the
IPCC's 2001 (TAR) report, as a main proof that the 20th Century warming was unprecedented, and it was enthusiastically used by aficionados of the Kyoto Protocol
to promote their case.

9
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 10

Extns #2- Natural Causes


History is on our side—temperature variations are a natural cause of cloud fluctuation.

Singer 7 [March 19th, S. Fred Singer, “'The Great Global Warming Swindle”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm, S. Fred 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. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold
Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997]

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.

10
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 11

Extns #3- Global Warming Irreversible


We’ve already reached the tipping point—it’s too late to do anything about global warming. There
evidence that says otherwise has a particular agenda and should be scrutinized.

Hymas 5 [Lisa, Feb 14th, “It’s too late to stop climate change”, writer for an environmental news service,
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/2/14/144947/873, GristMill environmental news commentary]
"At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: It is already too late to prevent global
warming and the climate change it sets off," writes environmental author and advocate Mark Hertsgaard in the San
Francisco Chronicler. Environmentalists won't say this for fear of sounding alarmist or defeatist. Politicians won't
say it because then they'd have to do something about it. The world's top climate scientists have been
sending this message, however, with increasing urgency for many years.

11
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 12

Extns #5- Scrutinize Their Ev / Biased


Scientists are influenced by politics and incentives – they alter their data to support warming- IPCC
study proves

Dr. David Demeritt (Professor of Geology at Kings College, London) 6/1 “The Construction of Global
Warming and the Politics of Science” http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0004-5608.00245

In this article, I reconsider the relationships between the


science and the politics of climate change. Although commonly thought of as
two separate domains, the two are linked in some important ways. Not only has the science of climate change largely driven the national and
international politics, the politics in turn have also influenced the practice of that science. It is my contention that
the demand for and expectation of policy relevance has subtly shaped the formulation of research
questions, choice of methods, standards of proof, and the definition of other aspects of “good” scientific
questions. This pattern of reciprocal influence belies the categorical distinction so often made between
science, based purely on objective fact, and politics, which involves the value-laden decision making that
is separable from the downstream of science. The global scaling aids and is underwritten by a second way
in which climate scientists universalize the objects of their knowledge ontologically. Physical sciences represent
GHGs in terms of certain objective and immutable physical properties. The specific global scaling of climate change highlights
more general concerns about the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on the earth’s radiation balance at the expense of other ways of
formulating the problem,, such as the structural imperatives of the capitalist economy driving those emissions, and
indeed of other problems, such as poverty and disease. Given the immensely contentious politics, it is
tempting for politicians to argue that climate policy must be based upon scientific certainty. This science-
led politics is attractive to some scientists since it enhances their power and prestige. The claim of the IPCC that GCM
“simulation of present climate is generally realistic” reflects the largely tacit and informal judgment of modelers not to take model outputs at face value, but
instead to “subjectively correct for known errors in the models”.
In the face of growing criticism from those who are concerned
about the role of models in the greenhouse policy debate, Mitchell and colleagues used recently published
global aerosol data to account more explicitly for aerosols through a physically constrained
parameterization. By providing an explanation for the slower than previously predicted onset of global
warming, their paper lent scientific weight to the politically symbolical and intergovernmentally negotiated
conclusion of the IPCC summary for policy makers that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernable
human influence on the climate”. Climate skeptics now charge that the addition of aerosols to the models,
ex post facto, is a desperate and politically motivated attempt to salvage an otherwise empirically falsified
hypothesis about global warming.

12
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 13

Extns #6- No Warming


1. Alarmist predictions wrong – data does not support these conclusions

Taylor and Bast 07[James M. Taylor and Joseph L. Bast, Environment Issue Suite, April 16, 2007]

Global warming is a prime example of the alarmism that characterizes much of the environmental movement.
Media coverage of the topic is heavily slanted toward alarmism because “bad news sells,” making it difficult
for climate realists to get a fair hearing. Al Gore’s recent movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has been severely
critiqued by many experts, yet it is being shown in high schools across the country as an educational
documentary. Climate science reveals that the world has warmed about 1 degree C during the past century,
with half of that warming occurring before human emissions could have been responsible. Even if human
activity is responsible for 100 percent of the warming since 1940, it is only about 0.5 degrees C., an amount
so small it is within the error range of the instruments used to measure global temperatures. There is no
consensus about the causes, effects, or future rate of global warming. Most climate scientists doubt the
reliability of computer models and the accuracy of land-based temperature records Reports by the IPCC are
unreliable due to political editing and rewriting of the reports’ conclusions. Some of the key evidence cited in
past IPCC reports has been shown to be fraudulent.

2. Human readings are ineffective. Satellites prove there is no global warming.

Taylor 01[James Taylor, December 16, 2001, “Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global
Warming Theories”]

Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is
certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.
However, precise satellite
readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have
shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago. "We have seen no sign of man-induced
global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the
'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully
checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for
Public Policy Research. Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature
readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-
control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show
no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming
associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading
stations. "While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world's climate is weak and far
from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4
Chicago Tribune. Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower
atmosphere only after a general warming of the Earth's surface.

13

19
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 14

Extns #7- C02 Emissions


C02 has nothing to do with climate change—historical inconsistencies and observational data prove.

Jaworowski 8 [Professor, Zbigniew March,“Fear Propaganda”,


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap4.htm, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central
Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-1958, he measured the concentration
of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. During 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution
of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers—in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, in
the Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the
Peruvian Andes. He has published about 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements
in ice cores. M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.]

Contrary to the global warmers' computer predictions, the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the most important among
the man-made greenhouse gases, were out of phase with the changes of near-surface air temperature, both recently and in the
distant past. This is clearly seen in Antarctic and Greenland ice cores, where high CO2 concentrations in air bubbles preserved in polar ice appear 1,000 to 13,000
In ancient times, the CO2 concentration
years after a change in the isotopic composition of H2O, signalling the warming of the atmosphere. (29)
in the air has been significantly higher than today, with no dramatic impact on the temperature. In the Eocene period
(50 million years ago), this concentration was 6 times larger than now, but the temperature was only 1.5°C higher. In the Cretaceous period (90 million years ago),
the CO2 concentration was 7 times higher than today, and in the Carboniferous period (340 million years ago), the CO2 concentration was nearly 12 times higher. (30)
When the CO2 concentration was 18 times higher, 440 million years ago (during the Ordovician period), glaciers
existed on the continents of both hemispheres. At the end of the 19th Century, the amount of CO2
discharged into the atmosphere by world industry was 13 times smaller than now. (31) But the climate at that
time had warmed up, as a result of natural causes, emerging from the 500-year long Little Ice Age, which prevailed approximately from 1350 to 1880.
This was not a regional European phenomenon, but extended throughout the whole Earth( 19,20) During this epoch, the average global temperature was 1°C lower than
now. Festivals were organized on the frozen Thames River, and people travelled from Poland to Sweden, crossing the Baltic Sea on sleighs and staying overnight in a
tavern build on ice. This epoch is well illustrated by the paintings by Pieter Breughel and Hendrick Avercamp. In the mountains of Scotland, the snowline stretched
down 300 to 400 meters lower than today. In the vicinity of Iceland and Greenland, the sea ice was so extensive that the access to a Greenland Viking colony,
established in 985, was completely cut off; the colony was finally smashed by the Little Ice Age. All this was preceded by the Middle Ages Warming, which lasted
for more than 300 years (900 to 1100), and during which the temperature reached its maximum (1.5°C more than today) around the year 990. Both the Little Ice Age
and the Middle Ages Warming, were not regional phenomena as implied by Mann and his co-authors, (32) but were global and were observed around the North
Atlantic Ocean, in Europe, Asia, South America, Australia, and Antarctica. (33,34) During the Medieval Warming, the forest boundary in Canada reached 130
kilometers farther north than today, and in Poland, England, and Scotland vineyards for altar wine production flourished—only to be destroyed by the Little Ice Age.
Still earlier, 3,500 to 6,000 years ago, a long-lasting Holocene Warming took place, when the average air temperature exceeded the current one by 2°C (Figure 5).
The Little Ice Age is not yet completely behind us. Stenothermal (warm-loving) diatom species, which reigned in the Baltic Sea during the Medieval Warming, have
not yet returned. (35) Diatom assemblages obtained from sediment core from the seabed of the north Icelandic shelf indicate that during the past 4,600 years the
warmest summer sea-surface temperatures, about 8.1°C, occurred at 4,400 years before the present. Thereafter the climate cooled, with a warmer interlude of about
1°C near 850 years before the present. This was followed again by a cold span of the Little Ice Age, which brought mean summer sea-surface temperatures down by
The fastest temperature growth
about 2.2°C. Today's temperature of only 6.3°C still has not reached the Holocene warming level of 8.1°C. (36)
occurred in the early 20th Century, and the maximum was reached around 1940. It was then that the mountain
and Arctic glaciers were shrinking violently, but their retreat from the record sizes (during the coldest part of Little Ice Age)
had started 200 years earlier, around 1750, when no one even dreamed of industrial CO2 emissions. An
illustration of this process is a map of glacier front changes between 1750 and 1961, at what is probably the best studied Storbreen Glacier in Norway, in which the
first measurements of CO2 in ice were performed in 1956 (Figure 6). The attack of glaciers on Swiss villages in the 17th and 18th centuries—sometimes the velocity
of ice movement reached 20 meters annually, destroying homes and fields—was perceived as a calamity. Yet, the withdrawal of glaciers in the 20th Century has been
Since the exceptionally hot 1940s, until 1975, the Earth's climate cooled down
deemed, somewhat foolishly, to be a disaster.
by about 0.3°C, despite a more than three-fold increase of annual industrial CO2 emission during this period. After
1975, meteorological station measurements indicated that the average global temperature started to rise again, despite the decline in "human" CO2 emissions.
However, it turns out that it was probably a measuring artifact, brought about by the growth of the cities and resulting "urban heat island" effect. Meteorological
stations, which used to be sited outside of urban centers, have been absorbed by the cities, where the temperature is higher than in the countryside. Outside the cities
of the United States and Europe, the observed temperature is lower, rather than higher, as demonstrated by the data of NASA's Goddard Institute, reviewed recently
by J. Daly. (37) The same is true also for the polar regions, where the models predict the largest increase in air temperature. As stated by Rajmund Przybylak, a
climatologist from the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland, in polar regions "warming and cooling epochs should be seen most clearly. . . and should
also occur earlier than in other parts of the world." Therefore, these regions, he says, "should play a very important role in the detection of global changes." (38)
Przybylak collected data covering the period 1874 to 2000, from 46 Arctic and subarctic stations managed by Danish, Norwegian, American, Canadian,

14
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 15

Extns #7- C02 Emissions


and Russian meteorological and other institutes. His study demonstrates the following: 1
In the Arctic, the highest temperatures occurred
clearly in the 1930s; 2 Even in the 1950s, the temperature was higher than in the 1990s; 3 Since the mid-1970s, the annual
temperature shows no clear trend; and 4 the temperature in Greenland in the last 10 to 20 years is similar to
that observed in the 19th Century.

15
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 16

************************Answers to Global
Warming Bad
Scenarios*********************

16
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 17

AT: Arctic Destruction / Ice Caps Melting


1. Their argument is categorically untrue—global warming is NOT heating up the arctic and even
if it did it would help the entire ecosystem—statistics, history, and modern studies concur.

Jaworowski 8 [Professor, Zbigniew March, “Climate Change Reflects Natural Planetary Events”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap1.htm, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central
Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-1958, he measured the concentration
of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. During 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution
of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 glaciers—in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, in
the Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the
Peruvian Andes. He has published about 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements
in ice cores. M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.]

Cold periods have always meant human calamities and ecosystem disasters. For example, the last cold
period, the so-called Little Ice Age, brought famine and epidemics to Europe and in Finland that contributed to
the extinction of two thirds of the population. On the other hand, during the warm periods, plants, animals,
and human communities thrived and prospered. For many years we have been taught that climate warming will cause a series of
disasters: ocean level rise, Arctic ecological disaster, droughts and floods, agriculture catastrophes, rising numbers and violence of hurricanes, epidemics of
Let's take a
infectious and parasitic diseases, and so on. The impacts of warming, so it seems, must be always negative, never positive. But is it really so?
look at the Arctic. At the request of the Norwegian government's Interdepartmental Climatic Group, together
with three colleagues from the Norsk Polar Institute, I have studied the impact of a possible climate warming
on the Arctic flora and fauna in the region of Svalbard. Special concerns involved possible polar bear extinction. Our report 23
states that in the period from 1920 to 1988, the temperature on Spitsbergen and on adjacent Jan Mayen isle dropped by
nearly 2°C, contrary to the predictions by Dr. Schneider and his followers. For the study's sake, however, we made an assumption that, by
some miracle, the Arctic climate would be warmed up by a few degrees Celsius, with a higher carbon dioxide concentration
in the air. Under this assumption, we investigated the fate of plants, sea plankton, fish, bears, reindeer, seals, and
millions of birds inhabiting this region. It turned out that at higher CO2 concentration and higher
temperatures, the productivity of the Arctic ecological system always rises. Historic records and modern
statistics show that in warmer periods, more fish have been caught in the Barents Sea, and the populations of
reindeer, birds, seals, and bears also expanded. Over land, the mass of vegetation for reindeer increased, and
in the sea, plankton became more plentiful. This allowed the fish population to increase, expanding food
resources for birds and seals, which, in turn, are eaten by polar bears. In conclusion: Climate warming would be
beneficial for the whole system of life in the Arctic, and polar bears would be more numerous than
today

17
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 18

AT: Arctic Destruction / Ice Caps Melting


2. Artic polar and Greenland ice caps increasing and thickening. No global warming.
Taylor 01(James Taylor, December 16, 2001, “Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global
Warming Theories”)
A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found
the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997."
Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little
variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in
Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P.,
Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no
statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data
indicated the ice
covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago. Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate
no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight
into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.

3. Glaciers are not melting—Antarctic icecaps disprove and the glaciers that are melting don’t
contribute to sea-level rise.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers are


And like this State of Fear (book), by Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice.
melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion
of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn't matter, because
they're already floating, and it has no effect.

18
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 19

AT: Kilimanjaro Proves


The melting of Kilimanjaro is caused by deforestation—not by global warming

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because of deforestation. At the foot of
the Kilimanjaro, there was a rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that came snow, and snow
became ice. Now, they have cut down the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat; heat melts the
ice, and there's no more snow to generate the ice. So it's a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature. It's the misbehavior of the people
around the mountain. So again, it's like Tuvalu: We should say this is deforestation, that's the thing. But instead they say, "No, no, it's global warming!"

19
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 20

AT: Sea Level Rise (1/2)


1. Law of physics, human observation, and satellite research prove there is no correlation between
warming and seal-level rise; any trend is induced by computer programmers forcing models to
produce information consistent with environmental community.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases as a result of sea level rise, then immediately
the Earth's rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when skaters rotate very
fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the
rotation and you see the same thing: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less,
because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter of physics. So, we have this 1
mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up
and down, but there's no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There's no trend, absolutely no
trend. Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in
the world. We have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), choose Hong
Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding
area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you should not use. And if that (2.3 mm) figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it
would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully.
Now back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean, as
measured by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, (the graph of the sea level) was a straight line, variability along a
straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year,
they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend. Data Fudged Then,
in 2003, the same data set, which in their (IPCC's) publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed,
and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they
had recorded something, but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original data which they suddenly twisted up, because they
entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure
introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences meeting in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors
from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they
answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of
fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They know" the answer;
the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists.
So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from observations. The
observations don't find it! I have been an expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first
time I read it (the report), I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them—
none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right
thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with
computers, simple computers. Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can
try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first thing.

20
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 21

AT: Sea Level Rise (2/2)


2. Sea levels aren’t rising—the shoreline is just eroding because of decreased sea levels.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

Isn't some of what people are talking about just shoreline erosion, as opposed to sea-level rise?
Yes, and I have very nice pictures of it. If you have a coast, with some stability of the sea level, the waves
make a kind of equilibrium profile—what they are transporting into the sea and what they are transporting
onshore. If the sea rises a little, yes, it attacks, but the attack is not so vigorous. On the other hand, if the sea
goes down, it is eating away at the old equilibrium level. There is a much larger redistribution of sand. We had
an island, where there was heavy erosion, everything was falling into the sea, trees and so on. But if you
looked at what happened: The sand which disappeared there, if the sea level had gone up, that sand would
have been placed higher, on top of the previous land. But it is being placed below the previous beach. We can
see the previous beach, and it is 20-30 cm above the current beach. So this is erosion because the sea level
fell, not because the sea level rose. And it is more common that erosion is caused by a falling sea level,
than by a rising sea level.

3. Sea level is not rising despite glacier melting—and their argument is empirically denied—there’s
been warming for 5000 years.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and Greenland east is not melting; Greenland west, the
Disco Bay is melting, but it has been melting for 200 years, at least, and the rate of melting decreased in the
last 50-100 years. So, that's another falsification. But more important, in the last 5,000 years, the whole of
the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees
warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level.

21
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 22

AT: Sea Levels - Tuvalu Island Proves


Tuvalu Island variograph records prove that there is no rise in sea level—rising salt water came from
over-extraction of freshwater.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear because they've put out too
much carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it's 30 years.
And again, if you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise. So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu
Islands? We know in the Tuvalu Islands that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which extracted too
much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation,
rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring seawater into the magazine,
which is not nice. So they took out too much freshwater and in came salt water. And of course the local
people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, "No, no! It's the global sea level rising! It has nothing
to do with our extraction of freshwater." So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn't pay.

22
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 23

AT: Sea Levels – Vanuatu and Tegua Prove


Vanuatu and Tegua are not rising—tide-guage records prove.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji—there is the island Tegua. They
said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record:
There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is
lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising. And again, where do they (the IPCC) get it from? They get it
from their inspiration, their hopes, their computer models, but not from observation, which is terrible.

23
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 24

AT: Sea Levels – Venetia Prove


Observational Data disproves Venice argument

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is tectonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding. The rate has been constant over time. A
rising sea level would immediately accelerate the flooding. And it would be so simple to record it. And if you
look at that 300-year record: In the 20th Century it was going up and down, around the subsidence rate. In
1970, you should have an acceleration, but instead, the rise almost finished. So it was the opposite.

24
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 25

AT: Sea Levels – Computer Data Prove


Sea level rise is a myth—the only proof is computer modeling which is falsified and intentionally
manipulated so others can complain and reap benefits.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there
is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have
a temperature rise, if it's a problem in one area, it's beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real "bad guy," and therefore they have talked very much about it.
But the real thing is, that it doesn't exist in observational data, only in computer modelling...

25
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 26

AT: Sea Levels – Maldives Prove


Maldives argument is incorrect—storm levels have gone down, the government has an incentive to lie to
get damage insurance from the West, and empirical scenarios disprove.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

.I'll tell you another thing: When I came to the Maldives, to our enormous surprise, one morning we were on an island, and I said, "This is
something strange, the storm level has gone down; it has not gone up, it has gone down." And then I started to check the level all around, and I asked
the others in the group, "Do you see anything here on the beach?" And after a while they found it too. And as we had investigated, and we were sure, I said we cannot
we made a very
leave the Maldives and go home and say the sea level is not rising, it's not respectful to the people. I have to say it to Maldive television. So
nice program for Maldive television, but it was forbidden by the government (!) because they thought that
they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for
our damage and the flooding. So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on. This tree, which I showed in the
documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the '50s, it was a marker
for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, "Ah, freedom!" ... I knew that this tree was in that terrible position
already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You
know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me.
Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came
to launch this film "Doomsday Called Off," right after that, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it
down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program.... They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A
scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.

26
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 27

AT: Sea Levels – Small Island Prove


Small Island scenarios are lies—research institutions lie to them to sustain the sea-level myth and in
turn the islands get damage payments from the West. If sea-level arguments were true—nobody would
live on the island because everyone would drown.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

Question: How does the IPCC get these small island nations so worked up about worrying that they're going to be
flooded tomorrow? Because they get support; they get money, so their idea is to attract money from the industrial countries. And
they believe that if the story is not sustained, they will lose it. So, they love this story. But the local people in the
Maldives—it would be terrible to raise children—why should they go to school, if in 50 years everything will
be gone? The only thing you should do, is learn how to swim....Yes, and it's much better to blame something
else. Then they can wash their hands and say, "It's not our fault. It's the U.S., they're putting out too much
carbon dioxide."

27
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 28

AT: Sea Levels – Glacier Melt Causing


Glaciers are not melting—Antarctic icecaps disprove and the glaciers that are melting don’t contribute
to sea-level rise.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers are


And like this State of Fear (book), by Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice.
melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion
of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but it doesn't matter, because
they're already floating, and it has no effect.

28
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 29

Morner Qualifications
Prefer our evidence—our author is best sea specialist in the world, president of a world renown sea-
level commission, invented practically every sea-theory that exists, and owns a research institution
dedicated to global warming.

Morner 7 [June 22, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, “Sea-Level Expert: It’s not Rising”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm, Has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas
for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at
Stockholm University, Mörner is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project]

I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's
beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on I have launched most of the new
theories, in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. I was the one who understood the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the
theory that it changes with time. I'm the one who studied the rotation of the Earth, how it affected the
redistribution of the oceans' masses. And so on. I was president of INQUA, an international fraternal association, their
Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, from 1999 to 2003. And in order to do something intelligent there, we
launched a special international sea-level research project in the Maldives, because that's the hottest spot on Earth for (this topic)—there are so many variables
interacting there, so it was interesting, and also people had claimed that the Maldives—about 1,200 small islands—were doomed to disappear in 50 years, or at most,
I have had my own research institute at Stockholm University, which was
100 years. So that was a very important target.
devoted to something called paleogeophysics and geodynamics. It's primarily a research institute, but lots of students came, I
have several Ph.D. theses at my institute, and lots of visiting professors and research scientists came to learn
about sea level. Working in this field, I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around
the Earth, and very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I
know what I'm talking about.
And I have interaction with other scientific branches, because it's very important to see
the problems not just from one eye, but from many different aspects. Sometimes you dig up some very important thing in some geodesic paper
which no other geologist would read. And you must have the time and the courage to go into the big questions, and I think I have done that. The last 10 years or so,
of course, everything has been the discussion on sea level, which they say is drowning us. In the early '90s, I was in Washington giving a paper on how the sea level
is not rising, as they said. That had some echoes around the world.

29
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 30

AT: Economic Collapse


1. There is an inconsequential impact-- Economists overestimated the impact of warming – only a
small portion of the GDP is affected

Washington 6 [The Washington Post, October 31 2006, “Warming Called Threat to Global
Economy”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103000269.html]

Some economists questioned the British study's projections, however, saying they overestimated the impact
of global warming on the world's economies, especially those of developed nations. At the same time, these critics said the report's
assertion that it would cost only 1 percent annually of global GDP to curb climate change underestimated how much spending would be required. "There's
just a very small part of GDP" in industrialized nations "that's affected by weather in a direct or indirect
way," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, which accepts some contributions from fossil-fuel companies. "It's very difficult
to sketch out this disaster scenario." Yale University economics professor William Nordhaus, who has estimated that climate change will
cost developed countries less than 1 percent of GDP over the next half-century, said the Stern report "appears to be an
impressive effort to summarize the science and economics of climate change" despite the controversy surrounding its projections

30
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 31

AT: War (1/3)


1. No Impact and Turn—climate change does not cause resource shortages and even if it did—it
would solve conflict

Idean Salehyan 2007 (August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The
New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be
to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922,
Accessed 6/28/08)

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

2. No impact and turn—cooperation not conflict happens as a result of resource scarcity—and


resource abundance fuels conflict.

Hartmann 2007 [November 26, “War Talk and Climate Change”, http://www.truthout.org/article/betsy-
hartmann-war-talk-and-climate-change, Accessed 6/28/08]

These climate scare stories ignore the ways many poorly resourced communities manage their affairs
without recourse to violence. Violent conflict in the Global South is generally more connected to
resource abundance (competition over rich mineral reserves in the Congo or diamonds in Sierra Leone)
than resource scarcity. Moreover, people and nations are as capable of cooperating as they are prone to
fighting. The 1990s specter of violent water wars never materialized because of diplomacy and water-
sharing agreements. Despite grandiose claims that hundreds of millions of 'climate refugees' will roam the
planet, we simply don't know how many people global warming will displace. So much will depend on
how effectively the international community rises to the challenge of reducing poor people's vulnerability
to drought, storms, floods and sea-level rise, and implements strong disaster-response strategies.

31
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 32

AT: War (2/3)


3. Turn: Tyranny

A. Blaming climate change for conflicts fuels tyrannical governments by diverting blame.

Salehyan 2007 [Idean, August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The
New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be
to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922,
Accessed 6/28/08]

Second, arguing that climate change is a root cause of conflict lets tyrannical governments off the hook. If
the environment drives conflict, then governments bear little responsibility for bad outcomes. That’s why
Ban Ki-moon’s case about Darfur was music to Khartoum’s ears. The Sudanese government would love to
blame the West for creating the climate change problem in the first place. True, desertification is a serious
concern, but it’s preposterous to suggest that poor rainfall—rather than deliberate actions taken by the
Sudanese government and the various combatant factions—ultimately caused the genocidal violence in
Sudan. Yet by Moon’s perverse logic, consumers in Chicago and Paris are at least as culpable for Darfur as
the regime in Khartoum. To be sure, resource scarcity and environmental degradation can lead to social
frictions. Responsible, accountable governments, however, can prevent local squabbles from spiraling into
broader violence, while mitigating the risk of some severe environmental calamities. As Nobel laureate
Amartya Sen has observed, no democracy has ever experienced a famine. Politicians who fear the wrath of
voters usually do their utmost to prevent foreseeable disasters and food shortages. Accountable leaders are
also better at providing public goods such as clean air and water to their citizens

B. Totalitarian tyranny renders individuals into docile subjects at the disposal of the government
making nuclear extinction inevitable

Kateb 92, Director of the Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton (George, The Inner Ocean, p.121-122)
I have said that statism is one of the main ideas that are implied in official (and lay) rhetoric rationalizing the use of nuclear weapons. But the role of statism in the nuclear
situation is not confined to this function. In another form it makes another contribution. The form is best called-once again a French name is most apt-dirigisme, the unremitting
"state activism." The contribution is indirect but insidious and pervasive, and consists of
direction by the state of all facets of life. Let us translate the word as
the general tendency to leave citizens in a condition of dependence which borders on helplessness. The
virulent practitioners of state activism are, of course, the police state, tyranny, despotism, and totalist rule in
all their varieties. Whenever a nuclear power is also one of the latter regimes, then the disposition among a
compliant population is to get used to the idea that the state, as the source of practically all benefits and penalties-all those outside the
intimate sphere and many inside it-has the right to dispose of the fate of the people in any way it sees fit. The way it sees fit seems the
unavoidable way. Such compliance strengthens the readiness of officials to think seriously about using nuclear
weapons. Just as the people are used to the idea that the state has the right to dispose of their fate, so the
state gets used to the idea that it may even use nuclear weapons in disposing of its people's fate. My concern here, however, is not
with the mentality of unfree societies but rather with that of democratic societies. I propose the idea-it is no more than a hypothesis-that the growth of state activism in a democracy is the growth, as well, of that compliance creating and resting on dependence which
makes it easier for the government to think of itself as a state-not only in our earlier sense of an entity whose survival is held to be equivalent to the survival of society itself, but in the related but separate sense of an entity that is indispensable to all relations and
transactions in society. The state, in this conceptualization, is the very life of society in its normal workings, the main source of initiative, response, repair, and redress. Society lives by its discipline, which is felt mostly as benign and which is often not felt as

The government becomes all-observant, all-competent; it intervenes everywhere; and as new


discipline or felt at all.

predicaments arise in society, it moves first to define and attempt a resolution of them. My proposed idea is that as this
tendency grows-and it is already quite far advanced-people will, to an increasing degree, come to accept the government as a state. The tendency of executive officials (and
some in the legislative and judicial branches) to conceive of government as a state will thus be met by the tendency of people to accept that conception. People's dependence on
it will gradually condition their attitudes and their sentiments. Looking to it, they must end by looking up to it. I believe the "logic" of this tendency, as we say, is that officials
become confirmed in their sense that they, too (like their counterparts in unfree societies), may dispose of the fate of the people. Entrusted with so much

32
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 33

AT: War (3/3)


<continues>

everyday power, the entire corps of officials must easily find confirmation for the rationalization of the use of
nuclear weapons proposed by the foreign-policy sector of officialdom. There may be a strong, if subterranean, bond between the state
as indispensable to all relations and transactions in everyday society and the state as entitled to dispose of the fate of society in nuclear war, even though officials receive no
explicit confirmation of this bond by the people. Under pressure, however, a people that habitually relies on the state may turn into a too easily mobilizable population:
mobilizable but otherwise immobile. My further sense is that a renewed understanding of the moral ideas of individualism is vital to
the effort to challenge state activism. Continues (p. 122-124)I say this, knowing that some aspects of individualism do help to push democratic
government in the direction of becoming a state, and to push the state into state activism. Tocqueville's prescient analysis of democratic despotism must never be forgotten.
Even more important, we must not forget that he thought that democratic despotism was much more likely in those democracies in which individualism was narrowly or weakly
developed and in which, therefore, the power of a full moral individualism had never corroded the statist pretensions of political authority. His main anxiety was for France and
the Continent, not for America. Thus, following Tocqueville, we may say that anti-individualism provides no remedy for the deficiencies: the remedy is to be sought from
the
individualism itself. One task of a renewed and revised individualism is to challenge every-day state activism. Remote as the connection may seem,
encouragement of state activism, or the failure to resist it, contributes to nuclear statism and thus to the disposition to
accept and inflict massive ruin and, with that, the unwanted and denied possibility of extinction. In the nuclear
situation, one must be attentive to even remote connections that may exist between human activity and human extinction. There are no certainties of analysis on these possible
connections. And so far the worst speculative connection is not exemplified in American society. I only mean to refer to the hypothesis offered independently first by Hannah
where the state is regarded both by itself and by the population not as a mere
Arendt and then by Michel Foucault; namely, that
protector of life against domestic or foreign violence but as the source of contented and adjusted and
regularized life (through its welfarist policies and other interventions), it is subtly empowered to take the next step and become
the source of mass death. What it gives it can take away, like God. But though still short of this extreme, American society is full of serious
tendencies of state activism which indirectly cooperate with the possibility of extinction. By continuously
expanding the scope of governmental activity, these tendencies work against one of the principal constituent
elements of individualism, the idea that each person should be subject to the smallest possible amount of
government regulation. The protection of rights and the restriction of governmental activity are jointly at the
service of an individual's free life. One's life is not supposed to be arranged or designed by government or have meaning or coherence given to it by
government; nor is one supposed to be helped too much, or saved from oneself, or looked at closely or continuously. One is supposed to be free, autonomous, self-reliant.
Individual rights are not always abridged when government acts to substitute itself for the individual and tries to lead our lives for us. Government may abide by the
constitutional limitations on itself and nevertheless fill up too many vacant places in a person's life, thus leaving too little raw material out of which a person develops on his or
her own. This ideal of free being is under relentless attack, but the attack could not score its successes unless we cooperated. In cooperating we
forget the ideal, or let preliminary aspects of it, like the pursuit of interests, exhaustively define the whole ideal. The very notion of rights becomes bloated because of obsession
Resistance must be offered from within the ideal, not from collectivism or
with interests and turns false to itself.
communitarianism, which are both on the side of making a people systematically docile and ready for
mobilization. Even if nuclear weapons did not exist and there were no possibility of extinction, the fight against state activism would have to be carried on. But the link
between state activism and extinction suggests itself, and a cultivated individualism must be enlisted against such activism and in
behalf of avoiding massive ruin and the possibility of extinction.

33
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 34

AT: War - Extns #3- Tyranny


Viewing conflict in Darfur as part of climate change ignores the role of a corrupt government.

Betsy Hartmann 2007 (November 26, “War Talk and Climate Change”,
http://www.truthout.org/article/betsy-hartmann-war-talk-and-climate-change, Accessed 6/28/08)

Above all, the nature of institutions and power structures at the local, regional, national and
international levels determines whether conflict over resources turns violent or not. Blaming the deaths
in Darfur on drought and land degradation caused by climate change naturalizes profoundly political
forces. Sudan is one of the most unequal countries in the world, with wealth and power concentrated in
the capital Khartoum. Government agricultural policies that stole land from small peasants and
redistributed it to large mechanized farms not only triggered political and ethnic grievances in Darfur,
but caused ecological damage. It is to history and human agency we should look to understand the roots
of crises like Darfur, not to a weather map.

34
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 35

AT: Forests (1/2)


Warming promotes forest growth

Times Online 07 [“Climate Change may help Rainforests” September 21, 2007.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2500311.ece]

Climate change may lead to lush growth rather than catastrophic tree loss in the Amazonian forests,
researchers from the US and Brazil have found. A study, in the journal Science, found that reduced rainfall had led to greener
forests, possibly because sunlight levels are higher when there are fewer rainclouds.

Warming has positive effects on Ecosystems


Owen 07 [James Writer for National Geographic) “Global Warming: Good for Greenland?” October 17, 2007.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071017-greenland-warming.html ]

For some in Greenland these days, the grass is looking greener. Rapid thawing brought on by global warming
on the world's largest island has opened up new opportunities for agriculture, commercial fishing, mining, and
oil exploration. The island's native people, though, may not be on the "winning" side of warming. Scientists now report Arctic temperatures are rising almost
twice as fast as elsewhere in the world. (Related news: "Greenland Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster, Study Says" [August 10, 2006].) A new WWF Denmark report
released last week studied the effects of climate change on the people of Greenland, which is a self-governing territory of Denmark. "The warmer climate
will have a definite positive effect on Greenland's economic possibilities and development," the report said. In
southwestern Greenland, for example, the grass-growing season gets longer each year, boosting productivity for some
60 sheep farms now established in the region. Up to 23,500 sheep and lambs are slaughtered annually. Dairy cattle have recently
been reintroduced, and a government-led project is expected to yield 29,058 gallons (110,000 liters) of milk annually, according to the new report. Locally
grown potatoes have appeared in supermarkets, alongside broccoli and other vegetables never before cultivated in Greenland. Commercial fishermen are anticipating
bumper cod catches after the fish recently moved north into Greenland's waters. Halibut are also increasing in size.

35
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 36

AT: Forests (2/2)


Warming stops famine and assists the environment
Stampf 07 [Olaf (Writer for Spiegel Online) “Not the end of the World as we Know it” May 07, 2007
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html]
How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible droughts headed our way? Despite
widespread fears of a greenhouse
hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow's climate.
Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are
common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising -- and
that it would be a blessing for all. Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the release of
carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known -- through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise in
temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the
atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor
harvests and famine a thing of the past. Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the
day: warm times are good times; cold times are bad. During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300
A.D., for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North America. New cities were
built all across Europe, and the continent's population grew from 30 million to 80 million.

36
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 37

AT: Disease
1. Warming doesn’t cause diseases

Donnelly 7 (John, 12-5, Staff,


http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/12/05/a_tussle_over_link_of_warming_disease/)

Donald S. Burke, dean of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, noted that the 2001 study found
that weather fluctuation and seasonal variability may influence the spread of infectious disease. But he also
noted that such conclusions should be interpreted with caution. "There are no apocalyptic
pronouncements," Burke said. "There's an awful lot we don't know." Burke said he is not convinced that
climate change can be proven to cause the spread of many diseases, specifically naming dengue fever,
influenza, and West Nile virus.

2. Other factors outweigh – Disease link limited

World Press 7 [http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/does-global-warming-necessarily-mean-more-


disease]

A much hyped claim about global warming — that it will lead to an increase in infectious disease —
is simply not true. Or more precisely, there is a decided lack of evidence to demonstrate the hypothesis
according to a recent National Academy of Sciences report. Donald Burke, professor of international health
for John Hopkins School of Public Health, headed the panel and said that, “The potential exists for
scientists one day to be able to predict the impact of global climate change on disease, but that day is not
yet here.” Climate conditions do certainly play a role in how diseases are distributed, but today housing
conditions, vaccination, and sanitation systems play an enormous role in the spread of disease. As many
commentators have noted, malaria was an enormous problem in North America well into the 20th century.
The disease was eradicated in the United States and Canada thanks to a large public health intervention to
rid the continent of the disease. Climate change could cause some changes in infectious diseases, but it is
more likely that socioeconomic factors would play the key role in the spread, or lack thereof, of disease.

3. No link between climate and disease – Temperature records prove

Kuennen 4 (Tom, http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/diseases.html, Expressways)

"Some scientists fear the effects [of global warming] will be disastrous in numerous ways," reported Dan Vergano in USA Today in January 2000. "Tropical
diseases, such as dengue fever and malaria, might move north into vulnerable populations." But a new article published by a journal of the federally funded U.S.
(CDCP) points out that malaria was most frequent in England and
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Europe during the well-documented "Little Ice Age" of the 16th and 17th centuries, and already was
endemic throughout North America and elsewhere. The article puts ice on the idea that presumed global
warming will lead to catastrophic spread of infectious disease. In From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in
England in the Little Ice Age, CDCP disease entomologist Dr. Paul Reiter proves that spread of so-called
"tropical" infectious diseases is a function of depressed public health, not warmer average
temperatures. Claims that malaria's reappearance is due to climate change ignore reality and disregard
history, Reiter said. "For example, the many statements that recent climate change has caused malaria to
ascend to new altitudes are contradicted by records of its distribution in 1880 to 1945," he said. "Public
concern should focus on ways to deal with the realities of malaria transmission, rather than on the weather."

37
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 38

AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars


1. Experts say that Water Wars Will Not Occur—fuels cooperation centuries of history prove.

Deen ’06 (IPS, Thalif, http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=88823, August 25th


The world's future wars will be fought not over oil but water: an ominous prediction made by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the British ministry of
defence and even by some officials of the World Bank. But experts and academics meeting at an international conference on water management in the Swedish
capital are dismissing this prediction as unrealistic, far-fetched and nonsensical. "Water
wars make good newspaper headlines but
cooperation (agreements) don't," says Arunabha Ghosh, co-author of the upcoming Human Development Report 2006 themed on water
management. The annual report, commissioned by the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), is to be released in December. In reality, Ghosh told the meeting in
Stockholm, there are plenty of bilateral, multilateral and trans-boundary agreements for water-sharing -- all or most of which do not make good newspaper copy.
Asked about water wars, Prof. Asit K. Biswas of the Mexico-based Third World Centre for Water
Management, told IPS: "This is absolute nonsense because this is not going to happen -- at least not during the
next 100 years." He said the world is not facing a water crisis because of physical water scarcities. "This is
baloney," he said. "What it is facing is a crisis of bad water management," argued Biswas, who was awarded the 2006
international Stockholm Water Prize for "outstanding achievements" in his field. The presentation ceremony took place in Stockholm Thursday. According to the
Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), one-third of all river basins are shared by more than two countries. Globally, there
are 262 international river basins: 59 in Africa, 52 in Asia, 73 in Europe, 61 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 17 in North America. Overall, 145 countries
have territories that include at least one shared river basin. Between 1948 and 1999, UNESCO says, there have been 1,831 "international interactions" recorded,
including 507 conflicts, 96 neutral or non-significant events, and most importantly, 1,228 instances of cooperation. "Despite the potential problem, history has
demonstrated that cooperation, rather than conflict, is likely in shared basins," UNESCO concludes. The Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) says that
10- to 20-year-old arguments about conflict over water are still being recycled. "Such arguments ignore massive amounts of recent research which shows that water-
scarce states that share a water body tend to find cooperative solutions rather than enter into violent conflict," the institute says. SIWI says that during the entire
"intifada" -- the ongoing Palestinian uprising against Israel in the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza -- the only thing on which the two warring parties
"Thus, rather than reaching for arguments for the 'water war
continued to cooperate at a basic level was their shared waters.
hypotheses,' the facts seem to support the idea that water is a uniting force and a potential source of peace
rather than violent conflict." SIWI said. Ghosh, co-author of the UNDP study, pointed out several agreements which were "models of cooperation",
including the Indus Waters Treaty, the Israel-Jordan accord, the Senegal River Development Organisation and the Mekong River Commission. A study sponsored by
the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars points that despite newspaper headlines screaming "water wars are coming!", these
apocalyptic warnings fly in the face of history.
"No nations have gone to war specifically over water resources for thousands
of years. International water disputes -- even among fierce enemies -- are resolved peacefully, even as
conflicts erupt over other issues," it says. The study also points out instances of cooperation between riparian
nations -- countries or provinces bordering the same river -- that outnumbered conflicts by more than two to
one between 1945 and 1999. Why? "Because water is so important, nations cannot afford to fight over it.
Instead, water fuels greater interdependence. By coming together to jointly manage their shared water
resources, countries can build trust and prevent conflict," argues the study, jointly co-authored by Aaron Wolf, Annika Kramer, Alexander
Carius and Geoffrey Dabelko. The study also says most of the conflicts have been within nations, and that international rivers are a different story, although a vice
president of the World Bank predicted in 1995 that "the wars of the next century will be about water." In the early 1990s, California farmers bombed pipelines
moving water from Owens Valley to Los Angeles, and in 2000 Chinese farmers in Shandong clashed with police to protest government plans to divert irrigation
water to cities and industries. Ghosh cited two recent incidents impacting on water supplies. When Israeli fighter jets recently reduced parts of the Lebanese capital
Beirut into rubble, the U.S.-made F-16s also destroyed an important source of life sustenance: water pipelines from the Litani River to farmland along the coastal
plain and parts of the Bekaa Valley. The longstanding conflict in Sri Lanka -- which has been dragging for over 20 years -- was resumed last month over the
diversion of a canal by the rebel group, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, fighting for a separate nation state. "These are two more cases for those who predict water
wars," Ghosh said.

38
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 39

AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars


2. Water wars would never happen – it is too critical a resource to provoke a lasting war.
Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August,
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm]

have battles been fought over water? Is water scarcity a casus belli? Does it in fact
With all due respect to my friends,
divide nations? My own answer is no, no and no. I recognise the obvious value to sensational Water War rhetoric. Alarmists awaken people to
the underlying reality of water scarcity, and rally troops to become more progressive and interdependent. By
contrast, to challenge or dispute that rhetoric is to risk making us passive or smug about the status quo, or delay badly
needed innovations or co-operation against stress. And yet I do challenge 'Water War' rhetoric. For there is no hard evidence
to back it up. If the 'water's-for-fighting' chorus is off key, then its disharmony affects lives as well. It shifts
energy and resources from local priorities to foreign affairs. It scares off investment where it is most in need.
It inverts priorities, delays implementation of policy. And it forgets that water management is, ultimately,
about real people. Mahatma Gandhi said, "When you are unsure of a course of action, remember the face of the poorest, weakest person in society and ask
yourself what impact the action you are about to take will have on that person." More recently Nelson Mandela reiterated that democratic systems lose their validity
if they fail to combat and eradicate poverty. We thus would be well advised to remember that, for the poorest and weakest, water's for
drinking, not fighting over. The poor are most affected by rhetoric, just as they are by war. It is easier to ignore their thirst than to divert attention to
potential foreign threats, real or imagined. Easier, not better. To help the poor and weak, let us reform our unstable, consumptive, ultra-
nationalistic habits to share our resource.

3. Disputes over water lead to peaceful agreements and further negotiations, not wars – it's easier
to share such a valuable resource than fight a war.
Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August,
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm]

Indeed,just as rain does not start but rather cools and suppresses fire, so water, by its very nature, tends to induce even
hostile co-riparian countries to co-operate, even as disputes rage over other issues. The weight of historical evidence
demonstrates that organised political bodies have signed 3600 water related treaties since AD 805. Of seven minor
water-related skirmishes in that time all began over non-water issues. Most dealt with navigation and borders,
but since 1814 states have negotiated a smaller proportion of treaties over flood control, water management, hydropower projects and allocation for consumptive and
Of all the 261 trans-boundary waters, in only a few cases: 1. is the
non-consumptive use. There are strategic reasons.
downstream country utterly dependent on the river for water; 2. can the upstream country restrict the river's
flow; 3. is there a legacy of antagonism between riparians; and 4. is the downstream country militarily
stronger than upstream. Another reason involves scale and focus. For water peace to emerge, negotiators
think local, act local, and draft treaties that stem from local water project on a specific local river, lake or aquifer that straddles two or more
nations. These appear to have more real and lasting authority than broad, vague, undefined agreements with far
reaching scope but little impact. This does not mean that states should not ratify the UN Convention on Shared Water Courses, as such ratification
would reflect a willingness to be bound by co-operative incentives, in which agreement over water leads to other things. North America's water treaties covering
fisheries, acid rain, navigation, climate change, the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence and the Columbia Basin -- expanded directly from that tiny, focused accord between
Yet another reason involves communication: keep talking before, during and after a project.
farmers a century ago.
Prior notification of water development plans goes a long way towards water security. This does not mean
nations must obtain consent, or permission, for national interest comes first. To notify is not to end water
disputes, or potential for stress and tension. But it engages both, or all-riparian parties, in a frank discussion
from which "good faith negotiation" helps define where national interests, for a finite resource, compete and
where, like a river or aquifer, they overlap and can be shared. In the treaty between Argentina and Brazil, the very principles that were
at issue in the dispute -- prior notification and consultation -- were enshrined in the agreement that resolved it.

39
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 40

AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars


4. Their arguments are the efforts of the press to obscure the truth – in reality, water is a catalyst
for peace – empirically proven across the globe.
Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August,
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm, bcs)

Water also becomes a catalyst for peace over equity. Most treaties that allocate quantity or quality
between states, or establish ground rules for management, reflect the principle of equity, or equitable use. This
may seem odd, when there is not a perfect balance of power between nations. And the definition of equitable
varies from case to case, and according to facts and circumstance. But in this regard water, a potentially
renewable resource, can be a common denominator, a leveller in the search for equity. The negotiated result
may not be what a national spokesman or leader tells in the press. Between Pakistan and India, or the US
and Mexico, both countries announced "they don't have the right to our water," then sat down and work out
an equitable solution. Altruism and solidarity, as in the agreement between India and Bangladesh, can
provide the basis for future collaboration, if the political will is there. Nations may vow war, and then quietly
broker equitable water for peace.

5. Water tensions spur treaties, which lead to further beneficial cooperation – water wars have
never and will never happen.
Asmal 00 (Professor Kader, Stockholm Water Symposium, 14 August,
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2000/000911340p1001.htm, bcs)

For some of these reasons, nations repeatedly unite over water. In all cases, what could -- and by all
indications, should -- erupt into violence and escalation over resource competition and environmental stress
instead healed, like a scar or broken bone, into something stronger than before tensions flared. Hot words over
resources were cooled by shared water. The first small water treaties spur later agreements over trade,
weapons, transport, communications or fisheries.
Somehow nations resolve their trans-national water stress without the help of great powers; and yet when
looking at potential water conflicts elsewhere in the world, superpowers appear to forget their own history.
Insofar as Secretary of State seeks to foster the growth of these river-specific treaties through the United Nations, World Bank or International Court of Justice has
done in the past, fine. Judicial or multi-lateral dispute settlements is the only way, if we are to move away from great power politics that verges on hegemony:
"Water War" rhetoric should not replace the vacuum left by the Cold War's end.
For no nations have gone to war strictly over water and, even with supply running low, let me go on record to
say that I doubt they ever will. That is not naivete, or even blind optimism. That is a belief -- based on our
growing awareness of water scarcity weighed against the historical evidence of water as a catalyst for co-
operation -- that we can infuse each generation who comes with the capacity, understanding and political will
to experience, use and enjoy waters as much as our own generation has.

40
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 41

AT: Water Shortages / Water Wars


6. Water shortages wont be widespread – increased rainfall will compensate
M. Falkenmark 7 (Prof at Stockholm International Water Institute)“Global warming: water the main
mediator”
http://www.uneca.org/awich/Reports/Global%20warming%20and%20Water%20WF2_07_globalwarming.pdf

In terms of freshwater, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase by 10-40%
at high latitudes but decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics. It
shows that large low- and mid-latitude areas will get up to 40% less runoff already some 40 years from now,
while other low and high latitude areas will get up to 40% more runoff.

41
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 42

AT: Natural Disasters


1. Warming doesn’t cause disasters and status quo tools mitigate impact

Grist`5 (Grist.com, environmental news & commentary, written by David Roberts, 2005,
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/1/6/162641/5470)

Empirical research strongly suggests that global warming has not increased the harmfulness of weather-
related natural disasters in the past century, though it is likely to do so in the future. But even that future
increase pales beside the ongoing rise in disaster-related deaths, which is precipitous and immediate and calls
out for an equally urgent response. Most tools needed to reduce disaster vulnerability already exist, such
as risk assessment techniques, better building codes and code enforcement, land-use standards, and
emergency-preparedness plans. The question is why disaster vulnerability is so low on the list of global
development priorities. Sarewitz and Pielke are too hard on greens in their piece, saying those who link global
warming and natural disasters are either "ill-informed or dishonest" -- even as they acknowledge such a link
exists. Their point, though, is that the link is tenuous and speculative, while the death toll of natural disasters
is not. There's a larger point here for environmentalists. Global warming is a serious issue and warrants
concerted action. But it is not the only issue, and it will not serve the environmental cause well to be
associated exclusively with unremitting climate-change alarmism as a response to every issue. Deforestation,
wetlands loss, and over-development are all ecological issues more directly pertinent to disaster preparedness
than global warming. And on a broader level, the only thing that will prevent these ecological losses is
development: lifting the poor of the world out of poverty, reducing the distance between the gap and the core.
Enviros are, as I've said before, often hobbled by their single-issue focus. If we, not as enviros but as
progressives, really want to reduce human suffering and protect the global environment, our energy and time
is often best spent tackling ecological problems indirectly -- by fighting poverty, pushing for third-world debt
relief, lobbying for fairer and more progressive tax policy in developed nations, and working to find and
celebrate examples of the kind of entrepreneurial innovations in energy, transportation, urban planning,
medicine, politics, etc. that will create a world where ecological health is a natural (pardon the pun) side
effect.

42
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 43

AT: Extreme Weather


1. There is no consensus and insufficient data to support the idea that warming increases weather
extremes.

Green Facts Digest 01 (peer-reviewed summary of scientific consensus, “Are recent extreme weather events
due to global warming?”, Scientific Facts on Climate Change: 2001 Assessment
http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/l_2/global_warming_7.htm)

7.2.Is the occurrence of extreme temperatures increasing? "Data on climate extremes in many
regions of the world are inadequate to draw definitive conclusions about possible changes that may
have occurred on a global scale. However, in some regions where good data are available, there have been some significant increases
and decreases in extreme events over time. For example, there has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum
temperatures in several widely separated areas in recent decades (e.g., Australia, the United States, Russia, and China). The
impact of such changes can manifest itself in fewer freezing days and late season frosts, such as have been documented in Australia and the United
States. Indeed, we expect that the number of days with extremely low temperatures should continue to decrease as global temperatures rise.
Widespread, extended periods of extremely high temperatures are also expected to become more frequent with continued global warming , such as
the unprecedented high nighttime temperatures during the 1995 heat wave in Chicago, Illinois, and the midwestern United States that caused an
estimated 830 deaths. However, the global frequency of such heat waves has not been analyzed at this time."7 .3. Are precipitation levels changing?
"Higher temperatures lead to higher rates of evaporation and precipitation. As the Earth warms, we expect more precipitation and it is likely to fall
over shorter intervals of time, thereby increasing the frequency of very heavy and extreme precipitation events. Analyses of observed changes in
precipitation intensity have been conducted only for a few countries. Perhaps the best evidence of increases in extreme and very heavy precipitation
events comes from data in North America as depicted for the United States in Figure 8.1. In Australia, which is historically prone to heavy
precipitation, an increase in rainfall amount from major storms has also been observed. Analyses for South Africa also show increases in extreme
precipitation rates. In another area, China, where data have been analyzed for the last several decades, no obvious trends are apparent, but high
concentrations of air pollution (such as sulfate particles that can cool the climate) may be counteracting such changes in this region.
There is as
yet no evidence for a worldwide rise in the frequency of droughts. In the future, however, it is expected that many
regions will experience more frequent, prolonged, or more severe droughts, primarily due to the more rapid evaporation of moisture from plants,
soils, lakes, and reservoirs. This is expected to occur even as precipitation increases and heavy precipitation events become more common." 7.4. Are
storms affected by global warming? "Blizzards and snow storms may actually increase in intensity and frequency in some colder locations as
atmospheric moisture increases. In more temperate latitudes, snowstorms are likely to decrease in frequency, but their intensity may actually increase,
as the world warms.
Observations show that snowfall has increased in the high latitudes of North
America, but snow accumulations have melted faster because of more frequent and earlier thaws.
There is evidence of an increase in the frequency of intense extra- tropical storms in the northern North Atlantic and adjacent areas of Europe, such as
It
the British Isles, but there has been a decrease in such events in the southern North Atlantic (south of 30°N) over the past few decades.
remains uncertain as to whether these changes are natural fluctuations or relate to global warming ,
because there is little consensus about how global warming will affect these non-tropical, yet
powerful storms. There is little evidence to support any significant long-term trends in the
frequency or intensity of tropical storms, or of hurricanes in the North Atlantic during the past
several decades. Although the hurricane frequency was high during 1995 and 1996, an anomalously
low number of hurricanes occurred during the 1960s through the 1980s, including those hitting the United States
during that period (Figure 8.2). Reliable data from the North Atlantic since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has
There is also some evidence for a decrease in
not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased.
the frequency of cyclones in the Indian Ocean during the past two decades relative to earlier
records and an increase in the frequency of typhoons in the western Pacific. Wide variations in the total number
of tropical storms including hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones occurring per decade have been observed, with no apparent long-term trends in most
There is little consensus about how global warming will affect the intensity and frequency
ocean basins.
of these storms in the future."

43
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 44

AT: Extreme Weather


2. Alternate factors drive extreme weather such as El Nino effect.

Terra Daily 07 (“Extreme weather? Sure. Blame global warming? Not so fast”, 8/10,
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/070810015035.5a0gocwm.html)

But establishing a link between climate change and extreme weather is a controversial matter. The UN's weather
agency says its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has found that "the warming of the climate is unequivocal." Preliminary observations
indicated global land surface temperatures in January and April reached the highest levels ever recorded for those months, it said. "Climate change projections
indicate it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent," it said recently. A study by
researchers from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Georgia Institute of Technology says about twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form
each year on average than a century ago. It blames warmer sea surface temperatures and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change for "fueling
much of the increase," the center said in a statement. But scientists
caution there is not enough evidence to blame global
warming for recent extreme weather, and there are those who say there is no proof that extreme weather
events are becoming more frequent. Barry Gromett of Britain's Met Office weather service said much of the extreme weather
was down to variability in the climate, which is affected by greenhouse gases but also other factors such as El Nino. El
Nino events are when drastic changes in sea temperatures in tropical areas affect atmospheric pressure in the Pacific Ocean region, having a knock-on effect on
rainfall. "There's a danger in taking isolated incidents in any given year and attributing this to something like climate change," he said. "It's
really
important to look for trends over a longer period of time. More heat equals more moisture equals probably
higher rains, so in that respect some of it ties in quite nicely (with climate change). "But there are many
different facets that appear to contradict each other." A study by British Met Office experts released on Thursday found that natural
weather variations actually helped offset the effects of global warming the past couple of years, but with temperatures set to rise to new records beginning in
"several more years would be needed to establish a link,
2009. Jean Jouzel, a climatologist who represents France on the IPCC, said
or to not establish a link, between these extremes and global warming." "Are the extremes really changing? It's not so
simple, because by definition, the extremes are rare events, and to come up with statistics, some hindsight is needed," he added.

44
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 45

AT: Extreme Weather


3. No crazy weather – ocean temperatures are constant and their scientists have bad data.

World Climate Report 07 (climate change blog, category “Sea Level Rise”, “Questioning Ocean Warming”,
5/14, http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/questioning-ocean-warming/)

We just did an internet search on “Ocean Warming” and found an incredible 7.2 million sites!We sampled a few and found exactly what we expected –
endless stories of how the oceans of the world are heating up at an unprecedented rate; absolutely anything and
everything related to the ocean is currently in peril according to these sites. Even if you live thousands of miles from the sea, ocean
warming will negatively impact you given how ocean temperatures influence weather and climate any place on
the planet. Our survey of “Ocean Warming” internet sites did not reveal anyone questioning whether or not the oceans are actually warming up – “Ocean
Warming” is simply assumed to be a fact. Well, in a recent issue of the Journal of Physical Oceanography, an article appears entitled “Is the World Ocean
Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000”. Once again, we at World Climate Report are attracted to research that dares to question any of the
pillars of the greenhouse scare, and from just the title alone, we knew we would enjoy this article. We were not disappointed. The article is written by scientists
at the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington and the research was funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Harrison
and Carson begin their article noting that interest in ocean temperatures is at an all-time high given the buzz about climate change and the greenhouse effect.
below-surface ocean temperature data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial
They state that
“interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging” that may compromise the integrity of results from such data
sets. Harrison and Carson “present results that involve very little manipulation of the data and do not
depend upon an analyzed field.” The scientists organized the temperature observations into 1° latitude by 1° longitude boxes, and over the
past 50 years, huge areas of the southern oceans have no data whatsoever. Many other oceanic areas have
data, but many of the 1° by 1° grid boxes have only one observation per year. They note that “Our results raise a number of questions about
the uncertainty that should be assigned at present to basin-scale integral ocean thermal quantities, whether zonal averages, basin averages, or averages over the
World Ocean.” Harrison and Carson present a figure showing different characteristics of their data. Their figure is below (Figure 1)
along with their own figure caption. Do you notice anything odd in the figure? Unless you are looking at this upside-down, you cannot help but notice
cooling in all five graphs for the 1980-1999 time periods (note: the graphs are for different individual
gridcells, not a worldwide average). Another figure in their article is just as interesting. As seen in Figure 2,
temperature trends over the past 50 years reveal some areas of warming, but also many areas of cooling, as
well. In their own words, we learn “The ocean neither cooled nor warmed systematically over the large
parts of the ocean for the entire analysis period.” Also evident in the figure is the oceanic expanse without data for making such any such
assessment; note in their figure caption that five observations in a decade for at least four decades is all that is required to stay in the analysis! They conclude
“Evidently, oceanic regional trend estimates pose substantial sampling challenges and very long records are needed.” There are 1,000 ways to interpret their
results, but several themes from the research are inescapable. First and foremost, the authors asked the question “Is the World Ocean Warming” and the answer is
At no point in the article do we find any global assessment of “World Ocean Warming” and
definitely not “yes.”
no statement is made about any global trend over the past 50 years. Second, the ocean could be warming or
cooling, and we may not have the data needed to detect such a change in heat content. The research pair
tells us “There are no results to offer for most of the ocean south of 20°S.” Go look at a globe, look down at it with the South Pole
pointing upward. Literally everything you see is south of 20°S, and with little exception, everything you see is water. Oops, there are no data available to assess
whether the water you are looking at is either warming or cooling.

45
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 46

AT: Fires
1. Warming doesn’t cause fires

Carpenter, Amanda (Political and Environmental Commentator) “Global Warming Examines committee
analyzes forest fires” November 1, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2007/11/01/global_warming_committee_examines_f
orest_fires

After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) blamed climate change for California’s raging forest
fires, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D.-Calif.) newly created global warming committee tried to
prove Reid’s contention true. In an October 24 news conference Reid told reporters, “One reason that we
have fires burning in Southern California is global warming.” Soon after, the House Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Pelosi formed in one of her first acts as Speaker,
scheduled a Thursday morning hearing devoted to “examining the scientific link between a changing
climate and the frequency and intensity of wildfires." The committee’s website features a “skeptic watch”
and labels California as a “global warming impact zone.” Other listed U.S. impact zones include Alaska, Florida and the Midwest. At
his hearing, Chairman Rep. Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) said global warming was not the sole cause of the wildfires
but was a contributing factor. He said, “Global warming does not cause an individual fire or hurricane, and
global warming is not the cause of the California fires.” Rather, “Global warming’s contribution to
wildfires is more subtle and more complex, and scientists and the firefighting community are just
beginning to tease out this complex climate record from those factors which may be influencing these
natural disasters in unnatural ways,” Markey’s written testimony said. He noted that it was important that authorities determine which fires
were caused by a “young boy playing with matches…from what started with lighting or a power line collapse or some other common cause of such fires.”
Ranking Member Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wisc.) expressed strong dissent from Markey. He said “global warming alarmists” were making Hurricane
“Global warming alarmists are using these natural
Katrina and the California fires “the poster children for global warming.”
disasters to promote regulations that will have little or no effect on these forces of nature,” Sensenbrenner
said.

46
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 47

AT: Refugees (1/2)


1. There are many alternate causalities to displacement of refugees: Viewing them as climate
refugees distorts the situation and leaves out many other factors.

Kolmannskog 2008 [Vikram Odedra, April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A
comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf,
Accessed 6/28/08]

The term “climate refugees” implies a mono-causality that one rarely finds in human reality. No one factor,
event or process, inevitably results in forced migration or conflict. It is very likely that climate change impacts will contribute
to an increase in forced migration. Because one cannot completely isolate climate change as a cause however, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to stipulate any numbers. Importantly, the impacts depend not only on natural
exposure, but also on the vulnerability and resilience of the areas and people, including capacities to adapt.
At best, we have “guesstimates” about the possible form and scope of forced migration related to climate
change.

2. Empirically, migration isn’t dangerous

Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A comment on climate
change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)

Importantly, not all migration related to environmental change is necessarily forced migration. Migration is
one of the oldest coping strategies for dealing with environmental change. Particularly in semi-arid regions
such as the Sahel (the area between Sahara and the more fertile region in the south), there are traditions of
migration such as nomadic pastoralism and long-distance trade. Much of this migration is internal and
temporary following weather cycles. Where people have a history of crossing borders, it may be considered legitimate and legal due to custom
and tradition, but the control of borders has increased drastically in the last decades. Having looked at case studies and historical material from the Sahel, Black
concludes that much of the migration could be seen as an essential part of the economic and social structure of the region, rather than forced migration caused by
environmental degradation.17 Migration can depend both on personal characteristics of the affected individuals and
on various other external conditions. Vulnerability can be defined as the “susceptibility of individuals and
societies to such hazards as conflict and climate change, and their capacity to plan for, adapt to and resist
changes in their environment and living conditions.”18 The degree of vulnerability and resilience is
contextual and depends on socio-economic condition (poverty often makes people vulnerable), gender,
age, disability, ethnicity, the realisation of human rights and other criteria that influence people’s ability to
access resources and opportunities. Factors often overlap or reinforce each other: families’ economic vulnerability may be increased by the
regional economic structure or activity, such as unequal rights of ownership or the absence of social security arrangements.19 Migration is
significantly determined by the role of local and national institutions, which in turn can be influenced by
global socioeconomic and political factors.

47
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 48

AT: Refugees (2/2)


3. There are many factors associated with refugees besides the environment including poverty and
disease.

Norman Myers 2005 (May, Professor at Oxford University, “Environmental Refugees: An


Emergent Security Issue”, http://www.osce.org/documents/eea/2005/05/14488_en.pdf,
Accessed 6/28/08)

Poverty serves as an additional "push" factor associated with the environmental problems displacing
people. Other factors include population pressures, malnutrition, landlessness, unemployment, over-rapid
urbanisation, pandemic diseases and faulty government policies, together with ethnic strife and
conventional conflicts. In particular, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between refugees driven by
environmental factors and those impelled by economic problems. In certain instances, people with
moderate though tolerable economic circumstances at home feel drawn by opportunity for a better
livelihood elsewhere. They are not so much pushed by environmental deprivation as pulled by economic
promise. This ostensibly applies to many Hispanics heading for the United States. But those people who migrate because they suffer outright poverty are
frequently driven also by root factors of environmental destitution. It is their environmental plight as much as any other factor that makes them economically
impoverished. This generally applies to those refugees who migrate to areas where economic conditions are little if any better than back home, as is the case
with many people who migrate within Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. In this instance, with poverty and "life on the environmental limits" as
the main motivating force, it matters little to the migrants whether they view themselves primarily as environmental or economic refugees.

48
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 49

AT: Refugees – Security K (1/3)


[___]: Blaming climate change for conflict is only a security reason to intervene in African countries
and divert attention away from the real solutions to climate change.

Betsy Hartmann 2007 (November 26, “War Talk and Climate Change”,
http://www.truthout.org/article/betsy-hartmann-war-talk-and-climate-change, Accessed 6/28/08)

Why are climate change threat scenarios taking hold when there is so little credible evidence to support
them? It is one of the oldest games in town to dress up issues as dangerous security threats to garner media
attention, funding and political support. The climate change case is no exception. In Washington, DC,
environmental lobbyists are linking climate change to national security in order to persuade conservative
members of Congress to pass legislation capping carbon emissions.[…] Those who pursue such strategies
usually claim they are simply being pragmatic in the service of worthy goals, but their appeals to fear and
security have negative consequences. They buttress and expand national security agendas while
undermining the role of civilian institutions seeking practicable, democratic solutions. And intentionally or
not, they reinforce racial stereotypes. Take the notion of climate refugees. The image drawn is not of rich,
white landowners losing their beachfront property, but of poor, dark people swarming toward our borders.
A 2003 Pentagon-sponsored Abrupt Climate Change Scenario warned of the need to strengthen US defenses against "unwanted starving immigrants" from the
Caribbean, Mexico and South America. Fomenting fear of climate refugees adds fuel to the fire of the anti-immigrant backlash in both the US and Fortress
Europe. In January 2007, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root won a contract from the US government to augment existing immigration
The term climate refugee is also
detention and removal facilities "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the US."
wantonly applied to poor African-Americans internally displaced by Hurricane Katrina. "The first massive
movement of climate refugees has been that of people away from the Gulf Coast of the United States," stated environmentalist Lester Brown, director of the
Even if we knew - which we don't - that Katrina was definitively caused by climate
Earth Policy Institute, in 2006.
change, would it make sense to describe evacuees in such a manner? The extent of the disaster in New
Orleans had much more to do with racial inequality and government incompetence than the strength of
Katrina's winds. Equally worrying, climate change war talk gives the US military added justification for
overseas interventions, especially in Africa. American defense officials are currently citing the threat of
climate-induced disorder and terrorism to legitimize the establishment of AFRICOM, the Bush
administration's controversial new regional military command for Africa. The CNA defense think tank's
influential 2007 report, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," emphasizes how resource
scarcity, environmental degradation and climate change are likely to trigger violent conflict in Africa.
According to its recommendations: Some of the nations predicted to be most affected by climate change
are those with the least capacity to adapt or cope. This is especially true in Africa, which is becoming an
increasingly important source of US oil and gas imports. Already suffering tension and stress resulting
from weak governance and thin margins of survival due to food and water shortages, Africa would be yet
further challenged by climate change. The proposal by the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish a
new Africa Command reflects Africa's emerging strategic importance to the US, and with humanitarian
catastrophes already occurring, a worsening of conditions could prompt further US military engagement.
Concern is also rising that the (DOD) may invest in expensive and risky technological schemes to control
the climate. The Pentagon's Abrupt Climate Change Scenario, for example, recommended the DOD "explore geo-engineering options that control the
climate." A far better approach would be for the military to clean up its own act. The DOD is the largest single consumer of fuel in the US, and the present war in
Iraq is not only wasting lives, but millions of gallons of oil daily.
In the climate change arena, the appeal to the "high politics"
of national security is low politics. It demonizes the people who have the least responsibility for global
warming, turning them into a dangerous threat. Solutions to the urgent problem of climate change lie not in
beating the war drums, but in taking responsibility for our own actions and working together across
borders, in peace.

49
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 50

AT: Refugees – Security K (2/3)


[___]: The use of the term “climate refugees” is just used to create a security agenda after the Cold War
where the developed north feels scared of the refugees from the south.

Vikram Odedra Kolmannskog 2008 (April, Norweigan Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees: A
comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”, http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf,
Accessed 6/28/08)

Arguably, the prevalent use of the term today is linked to the agendas of environmentalists, conflict
researchers and a heterogeneous group of security people. The estimated numbers of climate or
environmental refugees are often used to sensitise public opinion and decision-makers to the issue of
global warming. There seems to be some fear in the developed countries that they, if not literally flooded, will most certainly be flooded by the ”climate
refugees”. With the end of the Cold War, attention shifted away from super-power rivalry, and the
environment as a potential cause for conflict and forced migration has provided new material for conflict
and security researchers. By “securitizing” the issue of climate change, environmentalists and others may
have succeeded in getting it on the international agenda and into the minds of decision-makers. On the
other hand, the security discourse can serve to make new areas relevant for military considerations and
promote repressive tendencies. A fundamental critique is found in the context of north-south discourse
where “environmental security” is seen as a colonisation of the environmental problems, suggesting that
the underdeveloped south poses a physical threat to the prosperous north by population explosions,
resource scarcity, violent conflict and mass migration.10

[___]: Securitizing conflict through military solutions only shifts focus away from technological
solutions, which are the real solution to climate change, turning the case.

Idean Salehyan 2007 (August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The
New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be
to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922,
Accessed 6/28/08)

Third, dire predictions about the coming environmental wars imply that climate change requires military
solutions—a readiness to forcibly secure one’s own resources, prevent conflict spillovers, and perhaps gain
control of additional resources. But focusing on a military response diverts attention from simpler, and far
cheaper, adaptation mechanisms. Technological improvements in agriculture, which have yet to make their way to many poor farmers, have
dramatically increased food output in the United States without significantly raising the amount of land under cultivation. Sharing simple
technologies with developing countries, such as improved irrigation techniques and better seeds and
fertilizers, along with finding alternative energy supplies and new freshwater sources, is likely to be far
more effective and cost saving in the long run than arms and fortifications. States affected by climate
change can move people out of flood plains and desert areas, promote better urban planning, and adopt
more efficient resource-management systems.

50
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 51

AT: Refugees – Security K (3/3)


[___]: Securitizing climate change only takes responsibility away from governments and prevents true
solutions of climate change.

Idean Salehyan 2007 (August, Assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, “The
New Myth About Climate Change: Corrupt, tyrannical governments-not changes in the Earth’s climate-will be
to blame for the coming resource wars”, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922,
Accessed 6/28/08)

Dire scenarios like these may sound convincing, but they are misleading. Even worse, they are
irresponsible, for they shift liability for wars and human rights abuses away from oppressive, corrupt
governments. Additionally, focusing on climate change as a security threat that requires a military response
diverts attention away from prudent adaptation mechanisms and new technologies that can prevent the
worst catastrophes.

51
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 52

AT: Biodiversity (1/3)


1. C02 saves more species than global warming hurts

Center for Science and Public Policy 6 (Jan 12.,


http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
In concluding his analysis, Wallace says "there can be no greater global challenge today on which physical and social scientists can work together than the goal
of producing the food required for future generations," and in this regard he notes that a "concerted focus on improving water use efficiency ... will increase the
if we do nothing unwise or counter-productive
productivity of both rain fed and irrigated agriculture." If this approach is taken, and
with respect to the effort (such as trying to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions), then, as Wallace states in
his final sentence, "the prize is that more areas of the world, and especially those arid and semi-arid areas
where population growth is greatest, will be able to sustain their future populations." In light of the many significant
problems we face in attempting to produce the food we will need to sustain ourselves in the not too distant future, one may well wonder, as did Waggoner
human populations "have encroached on
(1995): "How much land can ten billion people spare for nature?" As noted by Huang et al. (2002),
almost all of the world's frontiers, leaving little new land that is cultivatable." And in consequence of humanity's ongoing
usurpation of this most basic of natural resources, Raven (2002) notes that "species-area relationships, taken worldwide in relation
to habitat destruction, lead to projections of the loss of fully two-thirds of all species on earth by the end
of this century." If one were to pick the most significant problem currently facing the biosphere, this would probably be it: a single species of life,
Homo sapiens, is on course to completely annihilate fully two-thirds of the ten million or so other species
with which we share the planet within a mere hundred years, simply by taking their land. Global warming, by comparison,
pales in significance. Its impact is nowhere near as severe, being possibly nil or even positive. In addition, its
root cause is highly debated; and actions to thwart it are much more difficult, if not impossible, to both define and implement. Furthermore, what many people
believe to be the cause of global warming, i.e., anthropogenic CO2 emissions, may actually be a powerful force for preserving
land for nature.

2. C02 means more animal habitat- key to biodiversity

Gregory 8 (B.A.Sc. Mechanical Engineering,


http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html)

higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations enhance plant growth, especially for
As indicated previously, both
trees. This increases the habitat available for many animals. The bulk of scientific studies show an increase
in biodiversity almost everywhere on Earth that is not restricted by habitat destruction in response to global
warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment.

52
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 53

AT: Biodiversity (2/3)


3. Arial fertilization of C02 increases agricultural efficiency, decreases demand on scarce land
resources and prevents the largest species die-off in history.

Center for Science and Public Policy 6 (Jan 12,


http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)

increases in the air's CO2 content pay huge


Thus, with respect to all three of the major needs noted by Tilman et al. (2002),
dividends, helping to increase agricultural output without the taking of land away from nature. In
conclusion, it would appear that the extinction of two-thirds of all species of plants and animals on the face
of the earth is essentially assured within the next century, unless world agricultural output is dramatically
increased. This unfathomable consequence hangs over us simply because we will need more land to
produce what is required to sustain ourselves and, in the absence of the needed productivity increase,
because we will simply take land from nature to keep ourselves alive. It is also the conclusion of scientists who have studied
this problem in depth that the needed increase in agricultural productivity is not possible, even with anticipated
improvements in technology and expertise. With the help of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content,
however, we should be able - but just barely - to meet our expanding food needs without bringing down the
curtain on the world of nature. That certain forces continue to resist this reality is truly incredible. More CO2 means life for the planet; less CO2
means death ... and not just the death of individuals, but the death of species. And to allow, nay, to cause the extinction of untold millions of unique plants and
animals has got to rank close to the top of all conceivable immoralities. We humans, as stewards of the earth, have got to get our priorities straight by getting our
facts straight. We have got to do all that we can to preserve nature by helping to feed humanity; and to be successful, we have got to let the air's CO2 content
rise. Any policies that stand in the way of that objective are truly obscene.

53
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 54

AT: Biodiversity (3/3)


4. Arial fertilization of C02 raises agricultural efficiency and saves natural habitat and is key to
sustaining biodiversity.

Center for Science and Public Policy 6(Jan 12,


http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
What parts of the world are likely to be hardest hit by the human land-eating machine? As described in our Editorials " 2 May 2001 and 13 June 2001, Tilman et
al. (2001) note that developed countries are expected to actually withdraw large areas of land from cultivation over the next 50 years, leaving developing
countries to shoulder essentially all of the burden of feeding the growing numbers of our species. In addition, they calculate that the loss of these
countries' natural ecosystems to cropland and pasture will amount to about half of all potentially suitable remaining
land, which "could lead to the loss of about a third of remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and
grasslands," along with the many unique species of both plants and animals that they support, which scenario has also been
discussed. What can be done to alleviate this bleak situation? In another analysis of the problem, Tilman et al. (2002) introduce a few more facts before
suggesting some solutions. They note, for example, that by 2050 the human population of the globe is projected to be 50% larger than it is today and that global
grain demand could well double, due to expected increases in per capita real income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat. Hence, they but state
the obvious when they conclude that "raising yields on existing farmland is essential for 'saving land for nature'." So how is it
to be done? Tilman et al. (2002) suggest a strategy that is built around three essential tasks: (1) increasing crop yield per unit of land area, (2) increasing
crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3) increasing crop yield per unit of water used. With respect to the first of these requirements, Tilman et al. note that
in many parts of the world the historical rate of increase in crop yields is declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield potential is being approached. This
observation, they say, "highlights the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield potential ceiling." With respect to the second requirement, they note that
"without the use of synthetic fertilizers, world food production could not have increased at the rate it did [in the past] and more natural ecosystems would have
been converted to agriculture." Hence, they say the ultimate solution "will require significant increases in nutrient use efficiency,
that is, in cereal production per unit of added nitrogen, phosphorus," and so forth. Finally, with respect to the third requirement, Tilman et al. note that "water is
regionally scarce," and that "many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan, and the Middle East to North Africa either currently or will soon
fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food production from irrigated land." Increasing crop water use efficiency, therefore, is also a must. Although
the impending biological crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined, Tilman et al. (2001) report that "even the best
available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems." However, we have a
powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that can provide what we can't. For a
nominal doubling of the air's CO2 content, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by 30 to
50% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 80% (Saxe et al.
1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Hence, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the land use efficiency
of the planet rise right along with it. In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically increases plant nutrient use
efficiency and plant water use efficiency

54
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 55

AT: Biodiversity – Turn: Wetlands (1/2)


Turn – sea level rise increases wetland area.

Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, p. 2,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.ht
ml)
17 Although most marshes could probably not keep pace with a substantial acceleration in sea level rise, three possible exceptions are the marshes found in river
might be
deltas, tidal inlets, and on the bay sides of barrier islands. River and tidal deltas receive much more sediment than wetlands elsewhere; hence they
able to keep pace with a more rapid rise in sea level. For example, the sediment washing down the Mississippi river for a long time
was more than enough to sustain the delta and enable it to advance into the Gulf of Mexico, even though relative sea level rise there is approximately one
centimeter per year, due to subsidence (Gagliano, Meyer Arendt, and Wicker 1981). A global sea level rise of one centimeter per year would double the rate of
relative sea level rise there to two centimeters per year; thus, a given sediment supply could not sustain as great an area of wetlands as before. It could, however,
In response to sea level rise, barrier islands tend to migrate
enable a substantial fraction to keep pace with sea level rise.
landward as storms wash sand from the ocean side beach to the bay side marsh (Leatherman 1982). This
"overwash" process may enable barrier islands to keep pace with an accelerated rise in sea level. However, it is
also possible that accelerated sea level rise could cause these islands, to disintegrate. In coastal Louisiana, where rapid subsidence has resulted in a relative sea
level rise of one centimeter per year, barrier islands have broken up. The Ship Island of the early twentieth century is now known as "Ship Shoal" (Pendland,
Marshes often form in the flood (inland) tidal deltas (shoals) that form in the inlets
Suter, and Maslow 1986).
between barrier islands. Because these deltas are in equilibrium with sea level, a rise in sea level would
tend to raise them as well, with sediment being supplied primarily from the adjacent islands. Moreover, if
sea level rise causes barrier islands to breach, additional tidal deltas will form in the new inlets, creating
more marsh, at least temporarily. In the long run, however, the breakup of barrier islands mould result in a loss of marsh. Larger waves would strike the
wetlands that form in tidal deltas and in estuaries behind barrier islands. Wave erosion of marshes could also be exacerbated if sea level rise deepens the
estuaries. This deepening would allow ocean waves to retain more energy and larger waves to form in bays. Major landowners and the government of
Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, consider this possibility a serious threat and are taking action to prevent the breakup of Isle Demiere and others around
Terrebonne Bay (Terrebonne Parish 1984).

Loss of wetlands causes ecosystem destruction and species extinction


Eco-Pros 6 http://eco-pros.com/wetlandsloss.htm
DESTRUCTION FROM DEFORESTATION AND DEVELOPMENT Commercial deforestation and development in wetland areas
have resulted in significant declines in habitat, species populations, and critical ecosystem functions. This
destruction continues in unregulated regions of the world. TOXIC POLLUTION OF WETLANDS AND WILDLIFE Along with the destruction of wetlands, human
beings added pesticides and pollution, so over the years wildlife and bird populations greatly declined. DECLINE OF WATER SOURCES AND WETLANDS
FUNCTIONS Critical water changes occurred with alteration of wetlands; water tables dropped and wetland
vegetation water filtration was no longer available to purify the wastes of civilization. Loss of water from
various changes, led to inability of wetlands areas to maintain through normal dry periods. CHANGES TO
ECOSYSTEMS AND WEATHER In some areas, weather even changed. As the wetlands were converted for all the
various reasons, natural wetland ecosystems drastically changed or disappeared entirely. Many species were
left without life-support systems. DECLINE AND LOSS OF NATIVE AND MIGRATORY SPECIES Some resident native
mammals, nesting birds, amphibians, insects, reptiles and organisms which inhabited the wetlands have been
lost or seriously impacted.

55
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 56

AT: Biodiversity – Turn: Wetlands (2/2)


Sea level rise creates new wetlands

Titus 88 (James G., EPA, “Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Wetlands, p. 2,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSLRCoastalWetlands.ht
ml)

Offsetting this potential threat are two compensating factors. A rise in sea level would flood areas that are now dry land,
creating new wetlands. Moreover, wetlands can grow upward by accumulating sediment and organic
material. The potential of these two factors to prevent a major loss of wetlands in the next century, however, may be limited. People who have developed
the land just inland of today's wetlands may be reluctant to abandon their houses, which new wetland creation would require. Although wetlands have
been able to keep pace with the rise in sea level of the last few thousand years, no one has demonstrated that they could
generally keep pace with an accelerated rise.

56
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 57

AT: Plankton – Turn: Pollution Good


1. Pollutants from sulfur are critical to increasing photosynthesis in phytoplankton.

Science Daily 2005 (February 17, “Pollution Can Convert Airborne Iron Into Soluble Form Required for
Phytoplankton Growth”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050213130304.htm, Accessed
6/28/08)

So even though small storms are limited in the amount of dust they transport to the ocean and may not
cause large plankton blooms, small storms still produce enough soluble iron to consistently feed
phytoplankton and fertilize the ocean. This may be especially important for high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll waters, where phytoplankton
production is limited because of a lack of iron. Natural sources of sulfur dioxide, such as volcanic emissions and ocean
production, may also cause iron mobilization and stimulate phytoplankton growth. Yet emissions from
human-made sources normally represent a larger portion of the trace gas. Also, human-made emission sites
may be closer to the storm's course and have a stronger influence on it than natural sulfur dioxide, Meskhidze
said. This research deepens scientists' understanding of the carbon cycle and climate change, he added. "It appears that the recipe of adding
pollution to mineral dust from East Asia may actually enhance ocean productivity and, in so doing, draw
down atmospheric carbon dioxide and reduce global warming," Chameides said. "Thus, China's current
plans to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, which will have far-reaching benefits for the environment and
health of the people of China, may have the unintended consequence of exacerbating global warming," he
added. "This is perhaps one more reason why we all need to get serious about reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

2. Air sulfur pollution increases the activity of plankton.

Science Daily 2005 (February 17, “Pollution Can Convert Airborne Iron Into Soluble Form Required for
Phytoplankton Growth”, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050213130304.htm, Accessed
6/28/08)

A surprising link may exist between ocean fertility and air pollution over land, according to Georgia Institute of
Technology research reported in the Feb. 16 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres. The work provides new insight into the role that
When dust storms pass over
ocean fertility plays in the complex cycle involving carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in global warming.
industrialized areas, they can pick up sulfur dioxide, an acidic trace gas emitted from industrial facilities
and power plants. As the dust storms move out over the ocean, the sulfur dioxide they carry lowers the pH
(a measure of acidity and alkalinity) level of dust and transforms iron into a soluble form, said Nicholas Meskhidze,
a postdoctoral fellow in Professor Athanasios Nenes' group at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and lead author of the paper "Dust and
dissolved iron is a necessary micronutrient
Pollution: A Recipe for Enhanced Ocean Fertilization." This conversion is important because
for phytoplankton — tiny aquatic plants that serve as food for fish and other marine organisms, and also
reduce carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere via photosynthesis. Phytoplankton carry out almost half of Earth's
photosynthesis even though they represent less than 1 percent of the planet's biomass. In research funded by the National Science Foundation, Meskhidze began
studying dust storms three years ago under the guidance of William Chameides, Regents' Professor and Smithgall Chair at Georgia Tech's School of Earth and
large storms from the Gobi deserts in northern China and
Atmospheric Sciences and co-author of the paper. "I knew that
Mongolia could carry iron from the soil to remote regions of the northern Pacific Ocean, facilitating
photosynthesis and carbon-dioxide uptake," Meskhidze said. "But I was puzzled because the iron in desert dust is primarily hematite, a
mineral that is insoluble in high-pH solutions such as seawater. So it's not readily available to the plankton." Using data obtained in a flight over the study area,
Meskhidze analyzed the chemistry of a dust storm that originated in the Gobi desert and passed over Shanghai before moving onto the northern Pacific Ocean.
When a high-concentration of sulfur dioxide mixed with the desert dust, it acidified the dust to a
His discovery:
pH below 2 — the level needed for mineral iron to convert into a dissolved form that would be available to
phytoplankton.

57
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 58

AT: Plankton – Turn: Marine Mammals


(1/2)
Turn: Marine Mammals

[___]: Loss of sea ice due to global warming is causing the death of whales.

Geoffrey Lean and Robert Mendick 2001 (August 1, The Independent, “Whale Population Devastated by
Warming Oceans, Scientists Say”,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0801_wirewhales2.html, Accessed 6/29/08)

Global warming has caused an unexpected collapse in the numbers of the world's most hunted whale,
scientists believe. They think that a sharp contraction in sea ice in the Antarctic is the likeliest explanation
behind new findings, which suggest that the number of minke whales in the surrounding seas has fallen by
half in less than a decade. The findings—which were the talk of the annual meeting in London last week of the International Whaling Commission
(IWC), the body that regulates whaling—has greatly strengthened the arguments of conservationists who are resisting moves to lift a 15-year-old official ban on
the hunt. It also further underlines the importance of last week's agreement in Bonn on how to implement the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to combat
climate change. Commercial whaling has been banned officially since 1986, but Japan and Norway each continue to kill about 500 minke whales a year. Japan
does so under the guise of "scientific research," allowed under the WIC's treaty; Norway by exempting itself from the ban, which is also permitted under the
agreement. For years environmentalists have struggled to justify opposing the killing for conservation reasons. The last attempt to count the number of minke
whales in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, between 1985 and 1991, estimated that there were some 760,000 of them—far more than could be endangered
by any conceivable catch. But the latest counts, during the 1990s, suggest that there are now only about 380,000
left. The minkes in the Southern Ocean are a distinct species, far more abundant than their cousins in the
northern hemisphere. Whales are notoriously difficult to count at sea, and no one is certain of the true figures. But the IWC's Scientific Committee is
reassessing its official estimate of their numbers as a result of the new evidence that they are sharply declining. No one knows why their
numbers are crashing. But global warming is the main suspect because the krill on which they feed live at the edge of the sea ice,
and so their abundance depends on its circumference. Until recently scientists thought the sea ice in the area had not shrunk much, because satellite
measurements have shown little change since they began in 1973. But Australian government research, based on more than 40,000 records from whaling ships
since 1931, suggest that it dropped by a quarter between the mid-1950s and early 1970s, when global warming was beginning to take hold. As minke whales
Last week Sidney Holt—who served on the Scientific
live for 60 years, it could have taken until now for the effects to become clear.
Committee between 1960 and 1997, and is the world's senior scientist in the field—said he thought global
warming was "the likeliest hypothesis" for the crash.

58
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 59

AT: Plankton – Turn: Marine Mammals


(2/2)
[___]: Climate change is killing whales

Veronique LaCapra 2007 (September 17, “Despite Gains, Gray Whale Population Still Not Recovered”,
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-17-
voa26.cfm?CFID=6848366&CFTOKEN=10841436, Accessed 6/29/08)
The new whale numbers may also help to explain more recent changes in the species' population dynamics. Between 1999 and 2001, gray whales began starving
to death. Scientists hypothesized that the population might have recovered too well, that there were now more gray whales than the ocean could support.
But
the new research suggests that the ocean once supported many more whales than exist today. Liz Alter says
that this finding supports an alternative explanation for why the whales are starving: large-scale, ecosystem
level changes are affecting the whales' feeding grounds in the Bering Sea. Other research has suggested
that climate change may have reduced the gray whale's food supply, by warming deep arctic waters.

[___]: Blue whales are critical predators of plankton: A decrease in either one of them would ensure a
huge increase in plankton every day.

Enchanted Learning 2005 (May 11, “BLUE WHALES”,


http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/Bluewhale.shtml, Accessed 6/29/08)

Blue whales (like all baleen whales) are seasonal feeders and carnivores that filter feed tiny crustaceans
(krill, copepods, etc.), plankton, and small fish from the water. They are gulpers, filter feeders that
alternatively swim then gulp a mouthful of plankton or fish - they lunge into dense groups of small sea organisms (krill or tiny
fish) with an open mouth. 50 to 70 throat pleats allow the throat to expand a great deal, forming a gular pouch. The water is then forced through the baleen plates
hanging from the upper jaw. The baleen catches the food, acting like a sieve. The blue whale has about 320 pairs of black baleen plates with dark gray bristles in
the blue whale's jaws. They are about 39 inches long (1 m), 21 inches wide (53 cm), and weigh 200 pounds (90 kg). The tongue weighs 4 tons (3.8 tonnes).
An average-sized blue whale will eat 2,000-9,000 pounds (900-4100 kg) of plankton each day during the
summer feeding season in cold, arctic waters ( about 120 days).

[___]: Minke whales have the same diet as blue whales, so a decrease in minke whales would also have
the same effect of increasing plankton.

Enchanted Learning 2004 (“MINKE WHALES”, August 31,


http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/Minke.shtml, Accessed 6/29/08)

Minke whales (like all baleen whales) are seasonal feeders and carnivores. They sieve through the ocean
water with their baleen. They filters out small polar plankton, krill, and small fish, even chasing schools of
sardines, anchovies, cod, herring, and capelin. They have the same diet as blue whales.

59
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 60

AT: Plankton – No Impact


Populations of plankton are resilient to climate change: Empirically proven.

Messer 2006 [February 16, “Phytoplankton bounce back from abrupt climate change”, http://news.bio-
medicine.org/biology-news-3/Phytoplankton-bounce-back-from-abrupt-climate-change-8096-1/, Accessed
6/29/08]

The majority of tiny marine plants weathered the abrupt climate changes that occurred in Earth's past and
bounced back, according to a Penn State geoscientist. "Populations of plankton are pretty resilient," says Dr. Timothy J.
Bralower, head and professor of geoscience. Bralower looked at cores of marine sediments related to thousands of years of deposition, to
locate populations of these plankton during three periods of abrupt climate change. These abrupt changes were caused either by Oceanic Anoxic Events during
the middle Jurassic to late Cretaceous when the oceans became uniformly depleted of oxygen or by a warming event in the early Paleocene around 55 million
years ago. Marine sediment cores contain calcareous plankton -- single-celled organisms with a coating or
shell of calcium carbonate -- as fossils. These tiny photosynthesizing plants float in the ocean and move
with the currents. They are around 10 micrometers in size, about half the width of a human hair. Anything bigger than phytoplankton eat them.
Eventually, their calcium carbonate shell falls to the ocean floor to become part of the sediment. The factors that were altered in the upper
marine environment during the abrupt climate change events included increases in temperature and
changes in thermal structure, changes in salinity and alkalinity, and changes in nutrient patterns and trace
elements. In every case, changes in surface habitats resulted in transient plankton communities," Bralower told
attendees at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Although we have a poor
understanding of ancient plankton ecology, it appears that extinctions were selective and targeted more
specialized and often deeper-dwelling species." For example, about 55 million years ago there was a warming event that geologists call
the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum. During that time, there were mass extinctions of organisms living on the ocean floor, but surface phytoplankton
populations dipped and for the most part came back. During this event one genus of phytoplankton - Fasciculithus -- which had about five species went extinct.
"We do not have anything like Fasciculitus in the oceans today," says Bralower. "But, these organisms were probably highly specialized and existed in a very
narrow ecological niche. The other thing is that, as soon as some group disappears, another species comes in to occupy that niche." About 120 million years ago,
during an episode of oxygen depletion another genus inhabiting surface waters -- Nannococus -- which also had about five species, went extinct. Otherwise only
a few species here and there were unable to survive these abrupt changes. However, on the ocean floor during these same times, mass extinctions occurred.
Other extinctions, such as that at the Cetaceous Tertiary boundary (K/T) that caused the demise of the dinosaurs, are thought to be caused by other than abrupt
climate changes. The K/T event had mass extinctions on land and in the upper portions of the oceans, but not on the ocean floors. During the abrupt climate
changes that Bralower investigated, the temperature of the oceans changed about 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the course of 1,000 years. "This rate of change in
ocean temperature is probably slower than what is happening today in the oceans," the Penn State researcher adds. "We are not yet seeing the same effect in
today's phytoplankton." Besides being a major food source, phytoplankton are also important in the balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as opposed to
the carbon that is sequestered in the ocean sediment. Photosynthesizing organisms use carbon dioxide to create energy and so remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. Some of the carbon that phytoplankton take out of the air as carbon dioxide is used to make their calcium carbonate coatings. Because these
coatings eventually make it into the sediment, they do not immediately return to the atmosphere. It is not until chalk or limestone beds are exposed to the
"Today, we are sort of in the middle of a mass experiment," says
elements that weathering returns the carbon to the atmosphere.
Bralower. "With the oceans warming, we do not really know what the end result will be, but we can look to
the fossil record to see how they were affected in the past. It appears that abrupt climate change affects
plankton with selectivity and most of the organisms bounce right back after the change."

60
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 61

************************Answers to Global
Warming Science*********************

61
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 62

AT: Scientific Consensus (1/3)


Consensus is a poor warrant – fringe opinions should not be deemed secondary just because they’re
unpopular—otherwise we should deem the Earth flat because that was the consensus at some point.

Corcoran 06 [Terence Corcoran, business editor for the Toronto National Post and one of Canada’s foremost
business writers, June 16 2006, “Climate Consensus and the End of Science, Lexis]

Back when modern science was born, the battle between consensus and new science worked the other way
around. More often than not, the consensus of the time -- dictated by religion, prejudice, mysticism and wild
speculation, false premises -- was wrong. The role of science, from Galileo to Newton and through the
centuries, has been to debunk the consensus and move us forward. But now science has been stripped of its
basis in experiment, knowledge, reason and the scientific method and made subject to the consensus created
by politics and bureaucrats. As a mass phenomenon, repeated appeals to consensus to support a scientific claim are relatively new. But it is not new to
science. For more than a century, various philosophical troublemakers have been trying to undermine science and the scientific method. These range from Marxists
who saw science as a product of class warfare and historical materialism -- Newton was a lackey of the ruling classes and pawn of history -- to scores of sociological
theorists and philosophers who spent much of the 20th century attempting to subvert the first principles of modern, Enlightenment science. If science were
to become a belief system, then the belief with the greatest number of followers would become established
fact and received knowledge. Knowledge based on observation and rational inference would play second
fiddle to what Barnes calls "customarily accepted belief." This belief is "sustained by consensus and authority." This is not just one science writer proposing a
theory. Barnes is reporting on the mainstream elements of new-science thought over more than a century. Ideas come from such well-known brand names such as
Marx and Kant, but mostly from a procession of philosophers even most scientists have never heard of. It's a jungle, to be sure, filled with impenetrable language and
Global warming science by consensus, with appeals to United Nations panels
philosophical jargon. But the trend is clear.
and other agencies as authorities, is the apotheosis of the century-long crusade to overthrow the foundations
of modern science and replace them with collectivist social theories of science. "Where a specific body of
knowledge is recognized and accepted by a body of scientists, there would seem to be a need to regard that
acceptance as a matter of contingent fact," writes Barnes. This means that knowledge is "undetermined by
experience." It takes us "away from an individualistic rationalist account of evaluation towards a collectivist
conventionalist account." In short, under the new authoritarian science based on consensus, science doesn't matter
much any more. If one scientist's 1,000-year chart showing rising global temperatures is based on bad data, it doesn't matter because we still otherwise have a
consensus. If a polar-bear expert says polar bears appear to be thriving, thus disproving a popular climate theory, the expert and his numbers are dismissed as being
outside the consensus. If studies show solar fluctuations rather than carbon emissions may be causing climate change, these are damned as relics of the old scientific
method. If ice caps are not all melting, with some even getting larger, the evidence is ridiculed and condemned. We have a consensus, and this contradictory science
is just noise from the skeptical fringe.

62
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 63

AT: Scientific Consensus (2/3)


Their ev refers to the consensus of CO2 output increasing, not warming- there is no scientific consensus
on global warming

Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister)
“Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

There is indeed a consensus that humankind is putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere; that some warming has resulted; and that some further warming can be expected. However, there is less of a consensus
about whether most of the past half-century’s warming is anthropogenic, which is why, rightly, Oreskes is
cautious enough to circumscribe her definition of the “consensus” about the anthropogenic contribution to
warming over the past half-century with the qualifying adjective “likely”. There is no scientific consensus
on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact
greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to
warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even
whether we should take any steps at all.
Campaigners for climate alarm state or imply that there is a scientific consensus
on all of these things, when in fact there is none. They imply that Oreskes’ essay proves the consensus on
all of these things. Al Gore, for instance, devoted a long segment of his film An Inconvenient Truth to predicting the imminent meltdown of the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets, with a consequent global increase of 20 feet (6 m) in sea level that would flood Manhattan, Shanghai, Bangladesh, and
other coastal settlements. He quoted Oreskes’ essay as proving that all credible climate scientists were agreed on the supposed threat from climate change. He
Oreskes’ definition of the “consensus” on climate change did not encompass, still less
did not point out, however, that
justify, his alarmist notions. Let us take just one example. The UN’s latest report on climate change, which is claimed as representing and
summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus” insofar as there is one, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in
sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet luridly illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches. Gore’s film does not represent
the “consensus” at all. Indeed, he exaggerates the supposed effects of ice-melt by some 12,000 per cent. The UN, on the other hand, estimates the probability
that humankind has had any influence on sea level at little better than 50:50. The BBC, of course, has not headlined, or even reported, the UN’s
“counterconsensual” findings. Every time the BBC mentions “climate change”, it shows the same tired footage of a glacier calving into the sea – which is what
glaciers do every summer.

False numbers support the “consensus”- More reject it than support it

Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister)
“Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

Dr. Peiser used “global climate change” as a search term and found 1,117 documents using this term, of
which 929 were articles and only 905 also had abstracts. Therefore it is not clear which were the 928
“abstracts” mentioned by Oreskes, and Science did not, as it would have done with a peer-reviewed
scientific paper, list the references to each of the “abstracts”. Significantly, Oreskes’ essay does not state
how many of the 928 papers explicitly endorsed her very limited definition of “consensus”. Dr. Peiser
found that only 13 of the 1,117 documents – a mere 1% – explicitly endorse the consensus, even in her
limited definition. Dr. Peiser’s research demonstrated that several of the abstracts confounded Oreskes’
assertion of unanimity by explicitly rejecting or casting doubt upon the notion that human activities are the
main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years. Thus, in Oreskes’ sample, more than twice as
many appeared to have explicitly rejected or doubted the “consensus” as had explicitly endorsed it.

63
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 64

AT: Scientific Consensus (3/3)


The numbers in the IPCC report were exaggerated- many of the scientists don’t believe warming is
anthropogenic

Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister)
“Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

First among these is that the UN’s latest report on climate change (IPCC, 2007) was written by 2,500
scientists – and “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”. In fact, however, the scientific chapters were contributed
by a far smaller number than this. Furthermore, we are now able to offer proof that the UN cannot have
obtained the approval of as many as 2,500 scientists to the text before it was published. A growing number
of scientists who had previously subscribed to the alarmist presentation of the “consensus” are no longer
sure. They are joining the numerous climatologists – many of them with outstanding credentials – who
have never believed in the more extreme versions of the alarmist case. Indeed, many scientists now say that
there has been no discernible human effect on temperature at all. For instance, Buentgen et al. (2006) say:
“The 20th-century contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosol remains insecure.”

64
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 65

AT: “Scientific Consensus- Oreskes”


Oreskes is outdated- many scientists now reject the idea of warming

Christopher Walter 7/7 (Former policy advisor of Margaret Thatcher while she was Prime Minister)
“Consensus? What Consensus?” Science and Public Policy Institute
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change
have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend
away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”. Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought
Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate
change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’
commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity
she says she found. Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly
endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of
the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of
subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”

65
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 66

AT: IPCC (1/4)


The IPCC is controlled by political hacks who reshape science to fit their political agenda. It’s not
credible science.

Novak 0 [Gary Novak, independent scientist who has published papers in the Canadian Journal of
Microbiology and other scientific journals, http://nov55.com/ipcc.html]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is supposedly the last word on global warming. Those who promote global
warming hype declare IPCC reports to be peer reviewed science, and peer reviewed science to be infallible. On that basis, critics are attacked for
putting themselves above the unquestionable word of science. But the IPCC is controlled by political hacks
who reshape the science for their agenda. There is no place in science for arbitrary authority—least of all a subject as
complex as climate change. I'm an independent scientists, not a journalist. Alexander Cockburn is a journalist who describes the position of the critics fairly well. So
"To identify either the government-funded climate modelers or their political shock troops, the
I'll let him do the journalism, while I do the science. He says,
IPCC's panelists, with scientific rigor and objectivity is as unrealistic as detecting the same attributes in a
craniologist financed by Lombroso studying a murderer's head in a nineteenth-century prison for the criminally
insane."

The most recent IPCC report is full of uncertainty and scientific failings

D’Aleo 7/9 [Joseph D’Aleo, Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and
former professor of meteorology, July 9 2007, published in the Energy Tribune, “Global
Warming – Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rap?”, http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544#]

Despite the 90 percent certainty that man is behind recent global warming trends,
the word “uncertainty” appears 494 times in the recent
“Summary for Policymakers,” produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Though the actual
research scientists generally did a commendable job, the more alarmist interpretation was provided by a smaller cadre of
agenda-driven scientists and statesmen. Then the media took the most extreme of the messages to hype them further. So what is the real story?
The report’s final summaries had several failings. First, it blindly accepts a 20th-century carbon dioxide rise of 36 percent,
when direct measurements(1) suggest the change is closer to 15 percent. Their models assume an annual
increase of 1 percent, although over the last 50 years the long-term annual average consistently has been less
than half that, 0.43 percent. Their models treat the oceans as distilled water when in reality they are an infinite
buffer for atmospheric CO2. Burning all the earth’s fossil fuels would amount to no more than a 20 percent
increase. It could never double(2). In any event, ice cores tell us carbon dioxide lags, not leads, the
temperatures by as much as 800 years.

66
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 67

AT: IPCC (2/4)


The IPCC is a conspiracy to mislead policymakers. It sidesteps the peer review process and releases
data that it knows is false.

Fox 7/16 [Michael R. Fox, energy analyst with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and science and
energy reporter for the Hawaii Reporter, July 16 2007, published in the Hawaii Reporter,“Flaws in the Global
Warming Debate”,
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8050a1d8-4e1c-457e-85d1-e8b3db316777]

There are many scientific problems involved with global warming issues which are routinely downplayed.
Some are related to numerous uncertainties being airbrushed away and replaced by statements of
unsupportable certitude. These include errors in the early CO2 measurements, phenomenally poor and biased temperature readings, poor and non-uniform
data bases, poor temperature data quality, unvalidated temperature data and computer programs. Also many are ignoring the roles of aerosols, particulates, and the
Downplaying
physics of cloud formation, and place undue reliance upon Global Climate Models (GCMs), which don't even agree with each other, etc.
these uncertainties has been a major deception activity of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This seems to be an effort to deceive the policy makers. For example, the Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) issued by
the (IPCC) are flawed. Hundreds of comments from the authors themselves of the Scientific Assessment Report (SAR) have only recently surfaced
(http://tinyurl.com/2a27nu) .These authors have expressed serious concerns for the IPCC claimed certainties in the SPMs.
The legitimization of the "Hockeystick" by the IPCC now shown to be fraudulent is but another example of the scientific
corruption within the IPCC, its editors, its reviewers, and it supporters. For example, the computer algorithm used to reproduce
the Hockeystick chart, according to McIntyre and McKitrick (http://tinyurl.com/awwva), could produce such a chart from a table of random numbers. This is appalling,
and is deception, not science.
Nations of the world were expected to make energy policy using the IPCC chart. The
IPCC quietly dropped the chart from the 4th Assessment Report, without apology to the nations of the world.
The unscientific weaknesses at the IPCC have been known for years. In the June 12, 1996 Wall Street Journal, Dr. Fred Seitz stated, “In my more than 60 years as a
member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society,
I
have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this
IPCC report”. Yet in the eyes of the media, Hollywood, and the alarmists, the IPCC gets an unexamined free pass.

67
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 68

AT: IPCC (3/4)


IPCC studies are flawed- aren’t actually peer reviewed and are selective in the data they share

John McLean 9/7 “Fallacies About Global Warming” Science and Public Policy Institute
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed
scientific papers in reputable journals (see item 6). There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective
of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that
manmade emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming. The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful
influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences
the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the
IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis (see item 5). These fallacies alone are major defects
of the IPCC reports, but the problems do not end there. Other distortions and fallacies of the IPCC are of its own doing. Governments appoint experts to work
with the IPCC but once appointed those experts can directly invite other experts to join them. This practice obviously can, and does, lead to a situation where
the IPCC is heavily biased towards the philosophies and ideologies of certain governments or science
groups. The lead authors of the chapters of the IPCC reports can themselves be researchers whose work is
cited in those chapters. This was the case with the so-called "hockey stick" temperature graph in the Third
Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001. The paper in which the graph first appeared was not subject
to proper and independent peer review, despite which the graph was prominently featured in a chapter for
which the co-creator of the graph was a lead author. The graph was debunked in 20066 and has been omitted without6 "Ad Hoc
Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' The explanation from the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) of 2007. The IPCC has often said words to
the effect "We don't know what else can be causing warming so it must be humans" (or "the climate
models will only produce the correct result if we include manmade influences"), but at the same time the
IPCC says that scientists have a low level of understanding of many climate factors. It logically follows
that if any natural climate factors are poorly understood then they cannot be properly modelled, the output
of the models will probably be incorrect and that natural forces cannot easily be dismissed as possible
causes. In these circumstances it is simply dishonest to unequivocally blame late 20th century warming on
human activity.7 The IPCC implies that its reports are thoroughly reviewed by thousands of experts. Any impression that thousands of
scientists review every word of the reports can be shown to be untrue by an examination of the review comments for the report by IPCC Working Group I.
(This report is crucial, because it discusses historical observations, attributes a likely cause of change and attempts to predict global and regional changes. The reports by working groups 2 and 3 draw heavily on the findings of this WG I report.) The claim

In actuality, the report


that the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report carries the imprimatur of having been reviewed by thousands, or even hundreds, of expert and independent scientists is incorrect, and even risible.

represents the view of small and self-selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.

68
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 69

AT: IPCC (4/4)


IPCC puts pressure on participants to slant results in favor of warming

Richard S. Lindzen 92 Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Alleged


Scientific Consensus” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

The notion of "scientific unanimity'' is currently intimately tied to the Working Group I report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change issued in September 1990. That panel consists largely of scientists posted to it by government
agencies. The panel has three working groups. Working Group I nominally deals with climate science. Approximately 150 scientists
contributed to the report, but university representation from the United States was relatively small and is likely to remain so, since the funds and time needed for
participation are not available to most university scientists. Many governments have agreed to use that report as the authoritative basis for climate policy. The
report, as such, has both positive and negative features. Methodologically, the report is deeply committed to reliance on large models, and within the report
models are largely verified by comparison with other models. Given that models are known to agree more with each other than with nature (even after "tuning''),
that approach does not seem promising. In addition, anumber of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on
them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure
has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final
report. Nonetheless, the body of the report is extremely ambiguous, and the caveats are numerous. The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary
written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and
The summary was published as a separate
attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science.
document, and, it is safe to say that policymakers are unlikely to read anything further. On the basis of the
summary, one frequently hears that "hundreds of the world's greatest climate scientists from dozens of
countries all agreed that.|.|.|.'' It hardly matters what the agreement refers to, since whoever refers to the
summary insists that it agrees with the most extreme scenarios (which, in all fairness, it does not). I should add that the
climatology community, until the past few years, was quite small and heavily concentrated in the United States and Europe.

69
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 70

AT: Hockeystick Chart


Hockeystick Chart is a hoax—the algorithm used forced the Hockeystick shape regardless of the data
and even the IPCC dropped the argument.

Fox 7/16 [Michael R. Fox, energy analyst with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and science and
energy reporter for the Hawaii Reporter, July 16 2007, published in the Hawaii Reporter,“Flaws in the Global
Warming Debate”,
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?8050a1d8-4e1c-457e-85d1-e8b3db316777]

The legitimization of the "Hockeystick" by the IPCC now shown to be fraudulent is but another example of the scientific
corruption within the IPCC, its editors, its reviewers, and it supporters. For example, the computer algorithm used
to reproduce the Hockeystick chart, according to McIntyre and McKitrick (http://tinyurl.com/awwva), could produce such a chart
from a table of random numbers. This is appalling, and is deception, not science. Nations of the world were expected to make
energy policy using the IPCC chart. The IPCC quietly dropped the chart from the 4th Assessment Report,
without apology to the nations of the world. The unscientific weaknesses at the IPCC have been known for years. In the June 12, 1996 Wall
Street Journal, Dr. Fred Seitz stated, “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society,
I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-
review process than the events that led to this IPCC report”. Yet in the eyes of the media, Hollywood, and the alarmists, the
IPCC gets an unexamined free pass.

70
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 71

AT: Computer Models


Models are inaccurate and cannot account for water vapor

Singer 7 [March 19th, S. Fred Singer, “'The Great Global Warming Swindle”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm, S. Fred 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. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold
Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997]

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 vapour 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.

71
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 72

************************Global Warming
Good Scenarios*********************

72
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 73

Global Warming Good- S02


CO2 decreases warming by scattering sunshine—emission cuts decrease S02 in the atmosphere leads to
quick short term warming spikes—makes impacts inevitable.

73
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 74

Global Warming Good- Economy (1/2)


A. Global Warming causes Arctic Melting which allows for Northwest Passage—key to
international trade and the global economy.

Mayer 7 [Daily Reckoning Australia, October 10th, “Northwest Passage Reopens Shipping Routes With
Global Economic Impact”, Mayer is a veteran of the banking industry, specifically in the area of corporate
lending. A financial writer since 1998, Mr. Mayer's essays have appeared in a wide variety of publications,
from the Mises.org Daily Article series to here in The Daily Reckoning. He is the editor of Mayer's Special
Situations and Capital and Crisis - formerly the Fleet Street Letter,
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/northwest-passage/2007/10/10/]
It started with a Russian expedition planting the Russian flag in a polar seabed. Though largely symbolic, it touched off a scramble among a handful of nations, all
trying to lay claim to the Arctic. Among these claimants: the U.S., Canada, Russia and Denmark. Why the sudden interest in the Arctic? There are two big reasons.
thanks to global warming, deposits of natural resources once layered over in impenetrable ice are now
First,
easier to get at. Second, thanks to melting ice, some previously icebound shipping lanes like the Northwest
Passage are opening up. The available resources are still a long way from being developed. The climate is incredibly harsh, and easier-to-get-at
resources still exist on the fringes of the Arctic. As an oil and gas story, this one has a long fuse. The Arctic thaw’s more immediate and bigger impact will be as a
shipping lane. Since Aug. 21, the
Northwest Passage has been open to navigation and free of ice for the first time.
“Analysts… confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the
advent of routine monitoring in 1972,” reports the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. The fabled passage through the Arctic Ocean connects the Pacific and
Atlantic oceans along the northern coast of North America. To pass through here from China on your way to Europe is about 5,000 miles shorter than going through
the Panama or Suez canals. As the Financial Times observes, “A ship traveling at 21 knots between Rotterdam and Yokohama takes 29 days if it goes via the Cape of
Good Hope, 22 days via the Suez Canal and just 15 days if it goes across the Arctic Ocean.” An oil tanker could make the trip from the
Russian port city of Murmansk to the east coast of Canada in a week by crossing the Arctic Ocean. That is about half the time it takes to get an oil tanker
from Abu Dhabi to Galveston, Texas. In the early 1900s, it took the famed Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen and his team nearly two years to pick their way
More than 90% of all goods in the world,
through the ice and narrow waterways. Now the Northwest Passage could revolutionize shipping.
measured by tonnage, make their way by sea. And as I’ve noted in the past, the rapid surge in trade with China and India is putting a lot of
strain on ports around the world. In recent years, the volume of container shipments has grown 5-7% annually - basically, doubling every 10-15 years. The ships
carrying those containers are getting bigger, and the old canals can’t hold these new seafaring beasts of burden as they once did. The Suez Canal can still handle the
largest current container ships, but not the next generation. The Panama Canal is even smaller. It’s too small for ships that are now common on longer shipping
routes. Panama plans to deepen its channels and make them wider. But even so, the new Panama Canal won’t be able to service the next generation of ships. So it
looks like the world will have a new navigable ocean with the Northwest Passage.
The effects on trade could be immense. Much
shorter shipping distances and quicker shipping times will lower the cost of doing business. It could lead to
big increases in trade and, certainly, a major shift in sea lanes. A freer-flowing Arctic Ocean would also bring fish
stocks north - with fishing fleets not far behind. It could mean a new boom in fishing for salmon, cod, herring and smelt. It could
also mean that sleepy old ports could become important new hubs in international trade. As the Financial Times
recently wrote, “Leading world powers have an unprecedented chance to win navigation rights and ownership of resources in the Arctic seabed untouched since its
The U.S. alone could lay claim to more than 200,000 square miles of
emergence during the twilight of the dinosaurs.”
additional undersea territory. The specific investment implications of this are still too early to say. But the cracking open of new trade
routes or reopening of old ones - and their impact on global trade - always has ripple effects across financial
markets. As for the Arctic, the Northwest Passage has got to be one of the most important new developments
on that front in a long time.

74
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 75

Global Warming Good- Economy (2/2)


B. Impact’s extinction
Bearden 2K T.E., LTC U.S. Army (Retired), [“The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,”
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]

desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the
History bears out that

stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point
where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost
certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there,
suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles
in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or

(some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict,
escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress
conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then
compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD
the only chance a nation has to survive at
concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense,

all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes
as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full
WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are
already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy
civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades

75
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 76

Extns- Warming key to Economy


Global Warming key to the economy

Bernake 7 [Chairman of the Federal Reserve, http://www.newsgroper.com/ben-bernanke, “Global warming


good for economy; Al Gore bad”]

Global warming, like globalization, is good for the economy, and therefore humanity:
* Rising water levels will force people to move, build new houses and spend more.* The struggling airline
industry will be boosted by the increased amount of travel as people flee disaster zones.* Consumer spending
will rise as there’s less concern about long-term savings.* Inflation will be curbed as excess US dollars are
burned in wild fires. Al Gore has his hand in the monetary cookie jar, and he is essentially taking food out of the mouths of Americans.

Global Warming makes Arctic inhabitable—key to secure fuels and boosts global economy.

Technocrat 7 [March 29th, http://technocrat.net/d/2007/3/29/17033, “Global Climate Change Spurs Arctic


Economic Boom”]

“It's not all doom and gloom with the Arctic warming up, for a lot of people and companies it means an
economic boom. So much so, that there are now some long simmering territorial disputes back on the high
burner. ..."The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Arctic has as much as 25% of the world's undiscovered
oil and gas. Moscow reportedly sees the potential of minerals in its slice of the Arctic sector approaching
$2 trillion."....more bucks there, and all this new Arctic boom is going to require technicians, engineers,
scientists, and many workers of the sturdy yeoman sort....a new frontier.

76
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 77

Global Warming Good- Winter


Global Warming saves millions from winter-related deaths—and no offense—humans adapt to heat but
not to cold.

Lomborg 7 [8/31, “Global Warming, the Great Life Saver”, economist and writer,
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver/article_print]
Bjorn Lomborg says balmier weather could ward off millions of deaths. Yes, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist,
believes that “global warming is real and man-made.” But he is convinced that we are not thinking the problem through correctly and are, in fact, lost in a kind of
green fog about how best to deal with global warming and other major environmental threats. In this excerpt from his new book, Cool It, Lomborg illustrates how a
major climate-related killer goes underreported, while human deaths from heat waves make front-page news. The heat wave in Europe in early August 2003 was a
catastrophe of heartbreaking proportions. With more than 3,500 dead in Paris alone, France suffered nearly 15,000 fatalities from the heat wave. Another 7,000 died
in Germany, 8,000 in Spain and Italy, and 2,000 in the United Kingdom: The total death toll ran to more than 35,000. Understandably, this event has become a
psychologically powerful metaphor for the frightening vision of a warmer future and our immediate need to prevent it. The green group Earth Policy Institute, which
first totaled the deaths, tells us that as “awareness of the scale of this tragedy spreads, it is likely to generate pressure to reduce carbon emissions. For many of the
millions who suffered through these record heat waves and the relatives of the tens of thousands who died, cutting carbon emissions is becoming a pressing personal
2,000
issue.” While 35,000 dead is a terrifyingly large number, all deaths should in principle be treated with equal concern. Yet this is not happening. When
people died from heat in the United Kingdom, it produced a public outcry that is still heard. However, the BBC
recently ran a very quiet story telling us that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales for the past years have
hovered around 25,000 each winter, casually adding that the winters of 1998–2000 saw about 47,000 cold
deaths each year. The story then goes on to discuss how the government should make the cost of winter fuel economically bearable and how the majority of
deaths are caused by strokes and heart attacks. It is remarkable that a single heat-death episode of 35,000 from many countries can get everyone up in arms, whereas
cold deaths of 25,000 to 50,000 a year in just a single country pass almost unnoticed. Of course, we want to help avoid another 2,000 dying from heat in the United
Kingdom. But presumably we also want to avoid many more dying from cold. For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year.
However,
about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total
number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than
400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us
of a breakdown in our sense of proportion. How will heat and cold deaths change over the coming century with global warming? Let us for the moment assume—
very unrealistically—that we will not adapt at all to the future heat. Still, the biggest cross-European cold/heat study concludes that for an increase of 3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit in the average European temperatures, “our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much
larger short-term declines in cold-related mortalities.” For Britain,
it is estimated a 3.6°F increase will mean 2,000 more heat deaths
but 20,000 fewer cold deaths. Likewise, another paper incorporating all studies on this issue and applying them to a broad variety of settings in both
developed and developing countries found that “global warming may cause a decrease in mortality rates, especially of
cardiovascular diseases.” But of course, it seems very unrealistic and conservative to assume that we will not adapt to rising temperatures throughout
the 21st century. Several recent studies have looked at adaptation in up to 28 of the biggest cities in the United States. Take Philadelphia. The optimal temperature
seems to be about 80°F. In the 1960s, on days when it got significantly hotter than that (about 100°F), the death rate increased sharply. Likewise, when the
temperature dropped below freezing, deaths increased sharply. Yet something great happened in the decades following. Death rates in Philadelphia and around the
country dropped in general because of better health care. But crucially, temperatures of 100°F today cause almost no excess deaths.
However, people still die more because of cold weather. One of the main reasons for the lower heat susceptibility is most likely increased access to air-conditioning.
Studies seem to indicate that over time and with sufficient resources, we actually learn to adapt to higher
temperatures. Consequently we will experience fewer heat deaths even when temperatures rise.

77
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 78

Global Warming Good- Agriculture


A. Global Warming boosts agriculture globally— causes economic development.

Aronson 7 [12/14, “The Positive Effects of Global Warming”, google, article cites:
http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/Global_Warming_Benefits.htm]

more arable land will become available for both residential and agricultural purposes.
As the ice retreats to the poles,
Large land-masses in the northern hemisphere, just south of the Canadian/U.S. border, have some very extreme climates
that can be quite inhospitable for human habitation. Most Canadians live in a belt running along its southern border with the United States.
But once global warming is factored in, vast northern regions will become arable and comfortably habitable.
All of Canada will welcome an agricultural boon field with long growing seasons. Heretofore uninhabitable land will not
only become inhabitable, but even temperate. Satellite measurements now show that our planet has become greener than it was prior to the onset of global warming.
The rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere dramatically increases overall global food
production. The presence of carbon dioxide has a fertilizing effect on the growth of plant life. The
warmer weather means a longer growing season, and thus greater output. This, combined with fewer frosts
and more precipitation, among other factors, will greatly benefit all of the agricultural economic sectors,
plus the positive impacts on forestry and recreation. In addition to the dramatic increase of actual land
available for cultivation, natural resources would be much easier to extract. The overall economic impact
of global warming on the U.S. economy will actually be positive, creating a measurable increase in Gross
Domestic Product.The deserts of China received rains and were fertile 8,000 years ago, and this would be good news for China, since they need all the
fertile land they can get, with their huge population. The arable land was also hundreds of miles further north into China than it is now. As well, those areas of India
which are now deserts, were also rained on and fertile in those days, and that’s also good news, given how desperate hard up India is, being so poor and having such
a huge population. Winters in the northern hemisphere will be milder. So already we can see that Climate Change could very well prove to be good for Africa, China,
and India. The results are mixed for Europe, but then they can always migrate north if someone can find the money in Europe to migrate people north, and the
government can find the money to buy really poor people air conditioning so they won’t die by the tens or even hundreds of thousands every summer.

B. 3 billion people die globally of poverty—agricultural boosts solve.

Raisbeck 3 [David W. Vice Chairman, Cargill, Incorporated Address to the World Agricultural Forum, “The
Role of Agriculture in the Global Economy”, http://www.cargill.com/news/media/030518raisbeck.htm]

Today, about half the world’s population – 3 billion people – live in abject poverty. Roughly three-fourths of these poor
people live in rural areas dependent upon agriculture. No country that has raised the majority of its people out of poverty has done so
without attacking the causes of rural poverty In fact, agricultural development is a necessary trigger for broader, sustainable
economic development for most countries. Agricultural development stimulates self-sustaining growth in two
principal ways. First, through rising productivity it increases the incomes of farmers. Second, it releases labor
from subsistence farming that can be employed in manufacturing or service activities. Agribusiness
companies want to bring poverty-reducing tools to farmers in developing countries. We can offer more productive inputs;
we can provide practical finance; we can reach out to new market opportunities; we can show farmers ways to lower or manage risks. But we cannot do these things
alone. They require public investments in physical infrastructure and well-functioning marketing systems.
They also require an economic
climate that welcomes investment, as capital flows to where it’s needed and wanted. This does not mean “special incentives.” Rather, it means
creating a predictable, level playing field in which competition through price and service determines success.

78
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 79

Deforestation Impact Module


A. Improved agriculture key to prevent deforestation

Raisbeck 3 [David W. Vice Chairman, Cargill, Incorporated Address to the World Agricultural Forum, “The
Role of Agriculture in the Global Economy”, http://www.cargill.com/news/media/030518raisbeck.htm]

The third area in which agricultural liberalization can help is in protecting fragile environmental resources.
The pressures of hunger and poverty often result in agricultural practices in low-income countries that harm
the environment in two ways: by exhausting the soil’s productivity rather than replenishing it; and by forcing
agriculture to expand to new lands rather than to use the most highly productive lands better.

B. Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and the spread of tropical diseases, resulting in extinction

Rhett A. Butler, 1-9-06, Mongabay.com, Impact of Deforestation – Species Loss, Extinction, and Disease
LOSS OF SPECIES FOR FOREST REGENERATION A fully functioning forest has a great capacity to regenerate.
Exhaustive hunting of tropical rainforest species can reduce those species necessary to forest continuance
and regeneration. For example, in Central Africa, the loss of species like gorillas, chimps, and elephants reduces the
ability of seed dispersal and slows the recovery of damaged forest. Loss of habitat in the tropics also affects the regeneration
of temperate species. North American migratory birds, important seed dispersers of temperate species, declined 1-3 percent annually from1978-1988.
INCREASE OF TROPICAL DISEASES The emergence of tropical diseases and outbreaks of new diseases, including
nasty hemorrhagic fevers like ebola and lassa fever, are a subtle but serious impact of deforestation. With
increased human presence in the rainforest, and exploiters pushing into deeper areas, man [people are] is
encountering "new" microorganisms with behaviors unlike those previously known. As the primary hosts of these pathogens are
eliminated or reduced through forest disturbance and degradation, disease can break out among
humans. Although not unleashed yet, someday one of these microscopic killers could lead to a massive
human die-off as deadly for our species as we have been for the species of the rainforest. Until then, local populations
will continue to be menaced by mosquito-borne diseases like dengue fever, Rift Valley fever, and malaria, and water-borne diseases like cholera. Many
emergent and resurgent diseases are directly linked to land alterations which bring humans in closer contact
with such pathogens. For example, malaria and snailborne schistosomiasis have escalated because of the
creation of artificial pools of water like dams, rice paddies, drainage ditches, irrigation canals, and puddles created by tractor treads. Malaria is
a particular problem in deforested and degraded areas, though not in forested zones where there are few stagnant ground pools for mosquito breeding. These pools
are most abundant in cleared regions and areas where tractors tear gashes in the earth. Malaria is already a major threat to indigenous peoples who have developed no
Malaria alone is cited as being responsible for killing an estimated
resistance to the disease nor any access to antimalarial drugs.
20 percent of the Yanomani in Brazil and Venezuela. Malaria—caused by unicelluar parasites transferred in the saliva of mosquitoes
when they bite—is an especially frightening disease for its drug-resistant forms. Thanks to poor prescribing techniques on the part of doctors, there are now strains in
Southeast Asia reputed to be resistant to more than 20 anti-malarial drugs. There
is serious concern that global climate change will
affect the distribution of malaria, which currently infects roughly 270 million people worldwide and kills 1-2
million a year— 430,000-680,000 children in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The outbreak of disease in the tropics
does not affect only the people of those countries, since virtually any disease can be incubated for enough
time to allow penetration into the temperate developed countries. For example, any Central African doctor
infected with the ebola virus from a patient can board a plane and land in London within 10 hours. The virus
could quickly spread, especially if airborne, among the city's population of 8 million. Additionally, every
person at the airport who is exposed can unknowingly carry the pathogen home to their native countries
around the world.

79
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 80

Water Wars Impact Module


A. Improved agriculture key to solve water shortages

Raisbeck 3 [David W. Vice Chairman, Cargill, Incorporated Address to the World Agricultural Forum, “The
Role of Agriculture in the Global Economy”, http://www.cargill.com/news/media/030518raisbeck.htm]

These pressures will only intensify over time. Food demand will continue to rise as global population
increases. Most of that population growth will be concentrated in developing countries. Higher per capita
incomes and accelerating urbanization in the developing world will only further intensify agriculture’s use of
scarce land and water resources. Unless productivity per acre, per dollar of investment and per hour of work
rises, agriculture will continue to expand into more virgin areas, strain limited water resources and exhaust
overworked soils.

B. Absent this new biotechnology in Africa, African shortages spark nuclear war

NASCA 6 National Association for Scientific & Cultural Appreciation “Water Shortages –
Only A Matter Of Time.” http://www.nasca.org.uk/Strange_relics_/water/water.html)

Water is one of the prime essentials for life as we know it. The plain fact is - no water, no life! This becomes
all the more worrying when we realize that the world’s supply of drinkable water will soon diminish quite
rapidly. In fact a recent report commissioned by the United Nations has emphasized that by the year 2025 at
least 66% of the worlds population will be without an adequate water supply. As a disaster in the making
water shortage ranks in the top category. Without water we are finished, and it is thus imperative that we
protect the mechanism through which we derive our supply of this life giving fluid. Unfortunately the
exact opposite is the case. We are doing incalculable damage to the planets capacity to generate water and this
will have far ranging consequences for the not too distant future. The United Nations has warned that burning of fossil fuels is the
prime cause of water shortage. While there may be other reasons such as increased solar activity it is clear that this is a situation over which we can exert a great deal
of control. If not then the future will be very bleak indeed! Already the warning signs are there. The last year has seen devastating heatwaves in many parts of the
of control,
world including the USA where the state of Texas experienced its worst drought on record. Elsewhere in the United States forest fires raged out
while other regions of the globe experienced drought conditions that were even more severe. Parts of Iran,
Afgahnistan, China and other neighbouring countries experienced their worst droughts on record. These
conditions also extended throughout many parts of Africa and it is clear that if circumstances remain
unchanged we are facing a disaster of epic proportions. Moreover it will be one for which there is no easy
answer. The spectre of a world water shortage evokes a truly frightening scenario. In fact the United Nations
warns that disputes over water will become the prime source of conflict in the not too distant future. Where
these shortages become ever more acute it could forseeably lead to the brink of nuclear conflict. On a lesser
scale water, and the price of it, will acquire an importance somewhat like the current value placed on oil. The
difference of course is that while oil is not vital for life, water most certainly is! It seems clear then that in
future years countries rich in water will enjoy an importance that perhaps they do not have today. In these
circumstances power shifts are inevitable, and this will undoubtedly create its own strife and tension. In
the long term the implications do not look encouraging. It is a two edged sword. First the shortage of water,
and then the increased stresses this will impose upon an already stressed world of politics. It means that
answers need to be found immediately. Answers that will both ameliorate the damage to the environment, and
also find new sources of water for future consumption. If not, and the problem is left unresolved there will

80
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 81
eventually come the day when we shall find ourselves with a nightmare situation for which there will be no
obvious answer.

81
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 82

Global Warming Bad- Arctic Conflict (1/2)


A. Global Warming facilitates European conflict over Arctic resources—draws in United States and
outside actors.

Traynor 3/ 10 [2008, The Guardian, “Climate change may spark conflict with Russia, EU told”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/10/eu.climatechange, European Editor]

European governments have been told to plan for an era of conflict over energy resources, with global
warming likely to trigger a dangerous contest between Russia and the west for the vast mineral riches of the
Arctic. A report from the EU's top two foreign policy officials to the 27 heads of government gathering in Brussels for a summit this week warns that
"significant potential conflicts" are likely in the decades ahead as a result of "intensified competition over
access to, and control over, energy resources". The seven-page report, obtained by the Guardian, has been written by Javier Solana, the EU's
foreign policy supremo, and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the commissioner for external relations. It predicts that global warming will precipitate security
issues for Europe, ranging from energy wars to mass migration, failed states and political radicalisation. The
report warns of greater rich-poor and north-south tension because global warming is disproportionately caused by the wealthy north and west while its impact will be
most catastrophic in the poor south. The officials
single out the impact of the thawing Arctic and its emergence as a
potential flashpoint of rival claims, pointing to the Kremlin's grab for the Arctic last year when President Vladimir Putin hailed as heroes a team
of scientists who planted a Russian flag on the Arctic seabed. Developments in the Arctic had "potential consequences for international stability and European
security interests". "The rapid melting of the polar ice caps, in particular the Arctic, is opening up new waterways and international trade routes," the report notes.
"The increased accessibility of the enormous hydrocarbon resources in the Arctic region is changing the
geostrategic dynamics of the region." The report also stresses the volatility of the regions that hold large
mineral deposits and predicts greater destabilisation in central Asia and the Middle East as a result of global
warming. The report comes as the issue of energy security begins to loom large on the agenda of western policymakers. A summit of Nato leaders in Bucharest
next month will discuss the problem for the first time, while a new manifesto for a radical overhaul of the western alliance moots the possibility of Nato being used
"as an instrument of energy security". "There will be a discussion of these new security risks, including energy," said a senior Nato diplomat. "We will try to find
areas where Nato can add value." The 150-page manifesto for a new Nato, penned by five former chiefs of staff and senior Nato commanders from the US, UK,
Germany, France and the Netherlands, also points to the likely friction in the Arctic as a result of climate change. The Arctic thaw has already created "minor
tensions" between Russia and Nato member Norway over fishing rights around the Spitsbergen archipelago. "The islands of Spitsbergen ... have large deposits of gas
"If global warming were to allow this to become a
and oil that are currently locked under a frozen continental shelf," the document states.
viable source of energy, a serious conflict could emerge between Russia and Norway." This "potential crisis"
would draw in the US, Canada and Denmark "competing for large and viable energy resources and
precious raw materials". With specific reference to Arctic exploration, the EU's report says: "The scramble for resources will
intensify." But the retired generals complain that the EU is not tackling the issue of "protection of energy resources and their means of transportation. The EU
is using soft instruments and this is unlikely to protect energy security". The Solana report is the first high-level attempt to get the issue on the summit agenda.
According to a draft outcome for this week's EU summit, the 27 prime ministers and presidents will order "appropriate follow-up action" by the end of the year.
Solana and Ferrero-Waldner call on the EU to draw up an Arctic policy "based on the evolving geostrategy of the ... region, taking into account access to resources
and the opening of new trade routes". Next month's Nato summit discussion of the alliance's role in energy security is fuelling speculation that western troops could
by deployed as "pipeline police" in places such as the Caucasus. This was dismissed by the Nato diplomat. "Energy security and the security of installations and
transportation routes are a national responsibility, not an alliance responsibility," he said. "We should be looking to offer advice and help, rather than putting boots on
the ground."

82
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 83

Global Warming Bad- Arctic Conflict (2/2)


B. Extinction

Glaser 3 [Asst. Prof of Policy Studies at U of Chicago) 1993[ Charles, “Why NATO is Still the Best”,
International Security, Summer 93]
From an American perspective, a basic question is whether the United States still has security interests in Europe. The end of the Cold War is fueling calls for American
Isolationists believe, now more than ever,
withdrawal from Europe, adding arguments to the already extensive debate over American grand strategy.
that whatever dangers might threaten Europe will not threaten the United States. During the Cold War, the most serious challenge
to the traditional case for American involvement flowed from the nuclear revolution, which undermined geopolitical arguments for opposing a European hegemon.
Isolationists now add that we can be confident that Western Europe will be free from military conflict, because the passing of the Soviet Union has eliminated the only
serious external threat, and relations within the West are so good that military conflict is virtually unimaginable. However, although
the lack of an
imminent Soviet threat eliminates the most obvious danger, U.S. security has not been entirely separated from the
future of Western Europe. The ending of the Cold War has brought many benefits, but has not eliminated the
possibility of major power war, especially since such a war could grow out of a smaller conflict in the East. And,
although nuclear weapons have greatly reduced the threat that a European hegemon would pose to U.S. security, a sound case nevertheless remains that a major European
The United States could be drawn into such a war, even if strict security considerations sug-
war could threaten U.S. security.
gested it should stay out. A major power war could escalate to a nuclear war that, especially if the United States
joins, could include attacks against the American homeland. Thus, the United States should not be unconcerned
about Europe’s future.

83
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 84

AT: Russia won’t use Nukes


Russia would HAVE to use nuclear weapons in a conflict – its conventional forces are too weak, and it
relies too much on its ICBMs.

Zaborsky 5 [associate director of the DFI government Services, a national security consulting firm in
Washington, and writer for the Washington Quartlery, Summer 2005, lexis]

Given the acknowledged decrepit state of Russia's conventional forces, Moscow would likely rely on a variation
of its 2000 military doctrine, which assigns nuclear weapons the role of stopping aggression "if all other
methods of resolving the crisis situation are exhausted or have been ineffective."n4 As the Russian Ministry of Defense
emphasized in 2003, limited and regional wars are the most likely types of conflict Russia will face in the future, and
nuclear weapons must be prepared to "de-escalate" a conflict if deterrence fails.n5 In this scenario, given the
new threat to Russia's North Caucasus region and its economic interests more broadly, the incentives for Russia
to strike first would be high. As opposed to the geographically distant United States, an asymmetry of interests would exist in this scenario. Russia's
weakness in conventional arms and vital national interest in a secure Azerbaijan and Caspian Sea would
enhance its incentive for nuclear use. For the foreseeable future, Russia's key deterrent will clearly continue
to be its ICBM, submarine-launched ballistic missile, and bomber force, backed by modest theater missile
defense systems. Although missile defense cooperation with the United States is on the rise, this scenario assumes
that current cooperation would have failed to produce joint systems, let alone a collaborative strategy or plans
to act in coordination against ballistic missile threats arising from the south of Russia.

84
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 85

Global Warming Good- Famine


A. Global Warming facilitates plant life—solves famine

Aronson 7 [12/14, “The Positive Effects of Global Warming”, google, article cites:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13860]

According to climatologists, the villain causing a warmer world is the unprecedented amount of carbon
dioxide (CO2) we humans keep pumping into the atmosphere. But as high school biology students nationwide know, plants
absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Researchers have shown that virtually all plants will do better in a CO2-rich
environment than in the current atmosphere, which contains only trace amounts of their basic food. Plants also prefer warmer
winters and nights, and a warmer world would mean longer growing seasons. Combined with higher levels of
CO2, plant life would become more vigorous, thus providing more food for animals and humans. Given a
rising world population, longer growing seasons, greater rainfall, and an enriched atmosphere could be
just the ticket to stave off famine and want. Forests will expand northward into the current tundra regions. Although forest growth
increases carbon dioxide uptake, this beneficial effect will be overwhelmed by the release of large stores of
methane and carbon dioxide as tundra regions thaw.

B. The impact is staggering-- 30,000 people die a day because of famine that’s 1000 in this debate.

Trudell 5 [Robert H., JD Candidate @ Syracuse Law, Fall 2005, Syracuse Journal of
International Law and Commerce, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277]
the
By announcing a clear policy embodying the power of eminent domain to utilize patented biotechnological research tool technology in times of emergency,

United States could raise the awareness of the severity of the global problem of chronic hunger caused by severe food
insecurity. A problem where more than 800 million people are chronically hungry, 1.2
billion live on less than a dollar a day, and more than 30,000 children die every
single day. There is a potential for a global security catastrophe and treating food
insecurity through improvements in agricultural productivity is one sure way to keep
Malthusian prophecies at rest. Therefore, the power of eminent domain is an efficient way
to treat a food security emergency and ensure that "all people, at all times, have
physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food," for the continued security of us all.

85
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 86

Global Warming Good- Hurricanes


A. Global Warming prevents development of hurricanes.

Nature GeoScience 3/18 [Journal of Nature GeoScience, 2008, “Global Warming Found To Stop Hurricanes
From Developing”. http://www.dbtechno.com/science/2008/05/18/global-warming-found-to-stop-hurricanes-
from-developing/, DeFilippis]

Boston (dbTechno) - According to a new study, global warming may actually prevent the development of hurricanes, cutting
back on the number of hurricanes seen each year. The study was carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The study found that warmer temperatures associated with global warming reduce the number of hurricanes
which form in the Atlantic Ocean. The study was carried out through a simulation of warming temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean throughout the
21st century. They found that as the warming progressed, there were 27% fewer tropical storms, and 18% fewer
hurricanes. This goes against the belief of many experts in the past which stated that the increase in the number of hurricanes was due to global warming and
warmer waters. The study was published on Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

B.

86
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 87

Global Warming Good- Coral Reef (1/2)


A. Great Barrier Reef threatened now because of cold climate and low sea level—Global Warming
allows reefs to thrive via warm water.

Marohasy 7 [January 31st, “Reef may benefit from global warming”, Jennifer, senior fellow at the Institute of
Public Affairs. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-601,00.html

The idea that the Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed by global warming is not new, but it is a myth. The expected
rise in sea level associated with global warming may benefit coral reefs and the Great Barrier Reef is likely to
extend its range further south. Global threats to the coral reefs of the world include damaging fish practices and pollution, and the UN should work
harder to address these issues. Most of the world's great reefs are tropical because corals like warm water. Many of the
species found on the Great Barrier Reef can also be found in regions with much warmer water, for example around
Papua New Guinea. Corals predate dinosaurs and over the past couple of hundred million years have shown themselves to be remarkably resistant to climate change,
surviving both hotter and colder periods. Interestingly, scientific studies show that over the past 100 years, a period of modest global
warming, there has been a statistically significant increase in growth rates of coral species on the Great
Barrier Reef.[…] In other parts of the world many reefs are under increasing pressure from blast fishing, illegal capture of
live fish for the restaurant trade in places such as Hong Kong, coral mining, industrial pollution, mine waste and land reclamation. In PNG,
high sediment loads from uncontrolled forestry, with some of this wood probably ending up as furniture bought by Australians, has also affected coral reefs. There
global warming may bring
clearly are global threats to coral reefs, but reef ecosystems have historically been resilient to climate change, and
more opportunities than threats. Corals grow up. Interestingly, north of Cairns there are large areas of reef with dead coral
because of localised falls in sea level. A significant rise in sea level as a consequence of global warming
could make these reef flats come alive again. It will be the next ice age that will leave many of the world's
coral reefs high and dry. Global warming may be the big environmental issue of our times and the UN may feel compelled to include the world's
main environmental symbols in its climate models and assessments. But there are higher priorities for the world's coral reefs.

B. Great Barrier Reef key to biodiversity and species diversity.

UNAOS 7 [ July, “Biodiversity and Coral Reefs”, cites senior research fellows
http://www.oceansatlas.org/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0zMTc5NCY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a29z]

Coral reefs are among the most biologically rich ecosystems on earth. About 4,000 species of fish and 800
species of reef-building corals have been described to date. However, experts have barely begun to catalog the total number of species
found within these habitats.Coral reefs have often been described as the Rainforests of the Sea. Coral reefs resemble tropical rainforests in two ways: both thrive
under nutrient-poor conditions (where nutrients are largely tied up in living matter), yet support rich communities through incredibly efficient recycling processes.
Additionally, bothexhibit very high levels of species diversity. Coral reefs and other marine ecosystems, however, contain more
varied life forms than do land habitats. All but one of the world's 33 phyla (major kinds of organisms) are
found in marine environments-15 exclusively so.[…]* The Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest system of coral reefs, covers
349,000 square kilometers and occupying only one-tenth of one percent of the ocean surface, supports: o nearly 8 percent (1,500) of the world's fish
species, o more than 700 species of coral, over 4,000 species of mollusks. o 252 species of birds nest and breed on
the coral cays, five species of turtles live on the reef, and several species of whales and dolphins are
associated with it.

87
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 88

Global Warming Good- Coral Reef (2/2)


C. Species loss and ecosystem collapse leads to extinction

Diner 4 [Ohio State University J.D, Winter 1994, Military Law Review 161,“The Army and the Endangered
Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” Lexis]

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected
if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases
the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may be
edging closer to the abyss.

88
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 89

Global Warming Good- Ice Age


An Ice Age is coming now that will cause extinction—the only way to avert inevitable death is through
global warming which halts the freeze.

Kenny 2 [July 14th, Andrew, The Sunday Mail, “The Ice Age Cometh”,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm, FMF co-spokesperson on climate change]

A new ice age is due now, but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in
global warming.THE Earth's climate is changing in a dramatic way, with immense danger for mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This was the
frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in the recent past. Here are some of their prophecies.The facts have emerged, in recent years and months,
from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat
of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a
likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind [humynkind]. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in
International Wildlife, July 1975) The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong
measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this
could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976) As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote :The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can
change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one— for there will be a next on—could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started. The scare about global cooling was always the same:
unprecedented low temperatures; the coldest weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate towards an icy apocalypse. But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to the second, all you have to do is
substitute "the coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt Everest, and the shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now

The most reliable measurements show no


we are going to fry. Even the White House is making cautionary sounds about warming. What facts have emerged to make this dramatic reversal? Well, none really.

change whatsoever in global temperatures in the past 20 years. What has changed is the perception that
global warming makes a better scare than the coming ice age. A good environmental scare needs two ingredients. The first is impending catastrophe. The second is a
suitable culprit to blame. In the second case, the ice age fails and global warming is gloriously successful. It is not the destruction itself of Sodom and Gomorrah that makes the story so appealing but the fact that they were destroyed because they were so sinful.
One of the real threats to mankind is the danger of collision with a large asteroid. It has happened in the past with catastrophic effect, and it will probably happen again. But there are no conferences, resolutions, gatherings, protests and newspaper headlines about
asteroid impacts. The reason is that you cannot find anyone suitable to blame for them. If you could persuade people that President Bush or the oil companies were responsible for the asteroids, I guarantee there would be a billion-dollar campaign to "raise
awareness" about the asteroid danger, with sonorous editorials in all the papers. Global warming has the perfect culprit: naughty, industrialised, advanced, consuming, Western society, which has made itself very rich by burning a lot of fossil fuels (coal, oil and
gas). This, so the scare goes, is releasing a lot of carbon dioxide. which is dangerously heating up the world. THERE are two facts in the scare. First, it is true that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas one which traps heat on Earth. (Without it, the Earth would be too

For the past 20


cold for' life.) Second, it is true that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. The rest is guesswork. The global warmers said the most accurate measure of climate change would be air temperatures.

years or more, air temperatures have been measured with extreme accuracy. They show no warming
whatsoever. Surface temperatures are much less reliable since the recording stations are often encroached on
by expanding cities, which warm the local environment. The curve most often used by the global warmers is one showing surface
temperatures rising by about half a degree in the past 100 years. (The curve, incidentally, is a bad match against rising carbon dioxide but a good one against solar
activity, which suggests the sun might be the reason for the warming.) However, there are accurate methods of measuring sea
temperatures going back much further. Past temperatures for the Atlantic Ocean have been found by looking
at dead marine life. The isotope ratio of carbon-14 in their skeletons tells you when they lived. The ratio of other isotopes tells you the temperature then.
Thus we are able to know temperatures in the Atlantic and northern Europe going back thousands of years. They make nonsense of the global
warming scare. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Temperatures rose to the "Holocene
Maximum" of about 5000 years ago when it was about l.5°C higher than now, dropped in the time of Christ, and then rose to the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in the years 600 to 1100, when temperatures. were
about 1°C higher than now. This was a golden age for northern European. agriculture and led to the rise of Viking civilisation. Greenland, now a frozen wasteland, was then a habitable Viking colony. There were vineyards in the south of England. Then

temperatures dropped to "The Little Ice Age" in the 1600s, when the Thames froze over. And they have been rising slowly ever since, although they are still much lower than 1000 years ago. We are now in a rather cool
period. What caused these ups and downs of temperature? We do not know. Temperature changes are a fact of nature, and we have no idea if the claimed 0.3C
if Europe heats up by 1°C it
heating over the past 100 years is caused by man's activities or part of a natural cycle. What we can say, though, is that
would do it a power of good. We can see this from records of 1000 years ago. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide makes plants
grow more quickly, so improving crops and forests. The Earth's climate is immensely complicated, far beyond our present powers of understanding and the calculating powers of
modern computers. Changes in phase from ice to water to vapour; cloud formation; convection; ocean currents; winds; changes in the sun: the complicated shapes of the land masses; the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide — all of these and a thousand

other factors operating with small differences over vast masses and distances make it practically impossible for us to make predictions about long-term climate patterns, and perhaps make such predictions inherently impossible . The computer
models that the global warmers now use are ludicrously oversimplified, and it is no surprise they have made one wrong prediction
after another. If the global warming scare has little foundation in fact, the ice-age scare is only too solidly founded. For the past
two million years, but not before, the northern hemisphere has gone through a regular cycle of ice ages:
90,000 years with ice: 10,000 years without. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Our time is up. The next
ice age is due. We do not know what causes the ice ages. It is probably to do with the arrangement of northern land masses and the path of the Gulf Stream, but we
do not know. However,
a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain calamity. It may be that increased
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are actually warding off the ice age. In this case, we should give
tax relief to coal power stations and factories for every tonne of carbon dioxide they rele

89
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 90

Global Warming Good- Rice (1/2)


A. Even though prices are rising, global rice supplies just enough to avoid food shortages now

Western Farm Press 8 (June 25, http://westernfarmpress.com/rice/rice-supply-0625/)


Media attention was driven by news of increasingly tight supplies and rapidly escalating prices in many rice-
producing countries, particularly in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. The price increases began in the fall of
2007 following several years of strong global demand. Rising fuel and fertilizer costs and recent full or partial
export bans by major export markets prompted a one-two-punch of high costs and reduced supplies. Despite
the media coverage and high prices, global supplies are adequate.

B. High CO2 levels are key to high rice yields.

Curtis 2(Pete, Ohio State Research news, 10-2-02, http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm)


To understand the role that rising CO2 levels may play on plant growth, Curtis and his colleagues
conducted a meta-analysis – a technique in which researchers pull together data from a large number of similar studies (159, in this case) and
summarize the results. Curtis said that this is the first time that researchers have used the meta-analysis technique to determine the effects of climate change on
plant reproduction. The studies were published between 1983 and 2000. The results included data on crop and wild plant species’ reproductive responses to
estimated CO2 levels at the end of this century. Scientists expect CO2 levels to nearly double by 2100. The researchers analyzed eight different ways plants
respond to higher CO2 levels: number of flowers; number of fruits; fruit weight; number of seeds; total seed weight; individual seed weight; the amount of
nitrogen contained in seeds; and a plant’s reproductive allocation, a measurement of a plant’s capacity to reproduce. Plants
grown at higher CO2
levels had more flowers (an average of 19 percent more in the species studied); more seeds (16 percent more); greater individual seed
weight (four percent more); greater total seed weight (25 percent more) and lower concentration of nitrogen in the seeds
(a decrease of 14 percent) than those grown at current levels of atmospheric CO2. Under higher CO2 levels, crop plants showed a
notable increase in reproduction while wild plants did not. On average, crops produced more fruits than did wild species (28 percent higher in
crops vs. 4 percent higher in wild plants) as well as seeds (21 percent higher vs. 4 percent higher, respectively).Individual crops varied in their response to
increased CO2 levels. Rice seemed to be the most responsive, as its seed production increased an average of 42
percent. Soybean followed with a 20 percent increase in seed, then wheat (15 percent increase) and, finally, corn (5 percent increase).While crop plants and
wild plants had similar increases in total growth (a 31 percent increase), crops allocated the additional weight to reproduction, while wild plants seem to funnel
much of it to tasks other than reproduction, Curtis said.

90
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 91

Global Warming Good- Rice (1/2)


C. Enough rice stops 3 billion deaths.

ScienceDaily 7 (“Protecting Rice: The Planet’s Most Important Food Source”, ScienceDaily,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319175803.htm, March 21, 2007)
An unprecedented new agreement --part of an aggressive move to safeguard the world's food production - aims to protect thousands of the world's unique rice
varieties. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Rome-based Global Crop Diversity Trust announced the historic new agreement at a special
dedication ceremony at IRRI's Genetic Resources Center, which houses more than 100,000 samples of rice, the biggest and most important such collection in the
world. The funding agreement is expected to help conserve and manage forever the extraordinary diversity of arguably the world's most important crop.
Today, about three billion people depend on rice for their survival, with the thousands of varieties carefully stored at IRRI
providing the last line of defense between them and possible famine, especially in times of war, natural disasters, and attacks from pests and diseases. The
agreement offers for the first time in the history of modern agricultural research stable and long-term support to an unrivaled collection of genetic diversity that
is estimated to include at least 80,000 distinct rice varieties. The collection is considered the Institute's "crown jewels" and is kept in a special earthquake-proof
and fireproof facility that must be maintained at temperatures as low as --19 degrees Celsius. At a special ceremony on the same day, the Institute also dedicated
the Genetic Resources Center (GRC) to Dr. Te-Tzu Chang, the founder of the International Rice Germplasm Center -- one of the predecessors of the GRC. Dr.
Chang, who passed away last year in Taiwan, China, was a world authority on rice genetics and conservation and spent 30 years at IRRI collecting and storing
rice varieties from all over Asia and the world. From now on, the GRC will be known as the T.T. Chang Genetic Resources Center. "With almost
half the
world's population depending on rice, we wanted to make sure IRRI's genebank was insulated from the whims of fluctuating funding," said
Cary Fowler, the Trust's executive secretary. "The agreement goes to the core of the Trust's mission, which is to guarantee the conservation of the world's crop
diversity, and it's hard to imagine a more important crop for sustaining humanity than rice." This agreement, the first
major conservation grant made by the Trust, is structured to reflect the long-term vision of both organizations. "Short-term thinking about funding has wreaked
havoc with effective conservation," continued Dr. Fowler. "This agreement is probably unique among funding contracts in having no end date. I am pleased that
our first long-term grant protects the crop which feeds the most people, for the longest term imaginable -- forever." Under the agreement, IRRI has pledged to
designate a portion of its financial assets to generate $400,000 in annual income that will be invested in the genebank, which will unlock $200,000 from the
Trust each year. The agreement allows for inflationary increases and will remain in force "indefinitely." The money will go toward, among other things,
acquiring any rice varieties not currently in the repository and making sure the storage systems for long-term conservation are up to international standards. "The
rice genebank is not just a scientific exercise in seed genetics but a major hedge against disaster that ensures farmers throughout the world will always have the
rice varieties they need to maintain food security," said Dr. Robert S. Zeigler, IRRI's director general. For example, after the Asian tsunami (December 26, 2004),
IRRI was able to reach into its collection and provide farmers in areas that had been under seawater with varieties of rice capable of growing in salty soils. In
addition, several countries, including Cambodia, East Timor, India, Nepal, and the Philippines, have turned to the IRRI genebank to restore native varieties of
rice that, for a variety of reasons, had disappeared from domestic production. Last year, IRRI introduced a new variety of rice able to withstand being completely
submerged in a flood. And, this variety is playing a central role in an initiative of IRRI's umbrella organization, the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR), to develop crops that will allow farmers to deal with the potentially devastating effects of climate change. In each case, the
genebank played an essential role, helping to provide the genetic diversity needed to develop such varieties. According to Dr. Zeigler, the grant breaks new
"Rice diversity, like all crop diversity, is at risk for the
ground in the funding of arguably the most important resource in the world:
want of relatively small amounts of money. Given that we are talking about the biological base upon which
the global food supply is built, it is extraordinary that the current situation is so precarious. The economics speak
for themselves." According to Dr. Fowler, an independent study estimated that adding just an additional 1,000 rice samples to IRRI's genebank would generate
an annual stream of benefits to poor farmers of $325 million.

91
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 92

Random Economic Collapse Good Card


No offense—human extinction in inevitable in the world of economic growth—economic collapse now
allows biosphere to recover and harbor humanity.

Barry 1/12 [“Economic Collapse and Global Ecology” Political ecologist and conservation biologist, a writer
of essays and blogs, and a computer specialist and technology researcher. Recognized internationally by the
environmental movement as a leading public intellectual and global visionary committed to communicating
the severity of global ecological crises and actively organizing with others sufficient responses. Dr. Barry is
the President and Founder of Ecological Internet (EI). http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2008/01/economic-
collapse-and-global-ecology.html]

Given widespread failure to pursue policies sufficient to reverse deterioration of the biosphere and avoid ecological
collapse, the best we can hope for may be that the growth-based economic system crashes sooner rather
than later Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only
in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and
other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying
capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every
economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological
from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global
sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that
ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now
rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent
strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels
and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection.
Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and
unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil
fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability
depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and

This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not
environmental restoration.

happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as
economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even
more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and
personal consumption. We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over
coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars,
reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady
state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured. Bright greens take the continued
existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is
possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and
reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It
may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes
sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic
collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil.
Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is
some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally
learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic
collapse now means humanity and the Earth
ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable
given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as
the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.
A successful revolutionary response to imminent global ecosystem collapse would focus upon bringing down
the Earth's industrial economy now. As society continues to fail miserably to implement necessary changes to allow creation to continue, maybe
the best strategy to achieve global ecological sustainability is economic sabotage to hasten the day.

92
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 93

Aff- Global Warming Bad  Terrorism


A. Global Warming increases terrorism and decreases U.S. defenses

CNN 6/25 [2008, “Global Warming could increase terrorism”, CNN Politics
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html]

Global warming could destabilize "struggling and poor" countries around the world, prompting mass
migrations and creating breeding grounds for terrorists, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council told Congress on
Wednesday. Climate change "will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions,
environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions," Thomas Fingar said.
"All of this threatens the domestic stability of a number of African, Asian, Central American and Central
Asian countries." People are likely to flee destabilized countries, and some may turn to terrorism, he said. "The
conditions exacerbated by the effects of climate change could increase the pool of potential recruits into
terrorist activity," he said."Economic refugees will perceive additional reasons to flee their homes because of
harsher climates," Fingar predicted. That will put pressure on countries receiving refugees, many of which "will have neither the resources nor interest to
host these climate migrants," he said in testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Reactions to the report broke down
along partisan lines, with Democrats generally praising it and Republicans expressing doubts. Committee members had concerns about the report's secrecy, reliability
and use of intelligence resources. Global warming may have a slight positive effect on the United States, since it is likely to produce larger farming yields, Fingar
said But it is also likely to result in storm surges that could affect nuclear facilities and oil refineries near coasts, water shortages in the Southwest and longer
summers with more wildfires, the study found. International migration may also help spread disease, Fingar added, and climate change could put stress on
international trade in essential commodities. "The United States depends on a smooth-functioning international system ensuring the flow of trade and market access
to critical raw materials, such as oil and gas, and security for its allies and partners. Climate change and climate change policies could affect all of these," he warned,
"with significant geopolitical consequences." The report was the conclusion of the most comprehensive government analysis the U.S. intelligence community has
ever conducted on climate change. Fingar emphasized that it could make no hard and fast predictions, saying that the operative word in his assessment was "may."
Wealthy countries will be able to handle the situation better than poorer ones, he said. "We assess that no country will be immune to the effects of climate change, but
some will be able to cope more effectively than others," he said. "Most of the struggling and poor states that will suffer adverse impacts to their potential and
economic security are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southeast Asia. "However, the spillover -- from potentially increased migration and
water-related disputes -- could have a harmful global impact," he added. Fingar painted a mixed picture of the effects of climate change on the United States itself.
"Most studies suggest the United States as a whole will enjoy modest economic benefits over the next few decades, largely due to the increased crop yields," he said.
"Costs begin to mount thereafter, however, and some parts of the United States -- particularly built-up coastal areas -- will be at greater risk of extreme weather
events and potentially high costs related to losses in complex infrastructure." The impact of fighting and preparing for climate change may be greater than the effect
"Government, business and public efforts to develop mitigation and adaptation
of global warming itself, Fingar said.
strategies to deal with climate change -- from policies to reduce greenhouse gases to plans to reduce exposure to climate change or capitalize on
potential impacts -- may affect U.S. national security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate
change itself," he said. The report, the "National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030," relied
on U.S. government, military, academic and United Nations studies of climate change. The report itself is classified, which some members of the House committee
objected to. "I am disappointed it is classified," said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California. Secrecy "prevents this report from being released and discussed in public
domain." Committee Chairman Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would ask the administration to declassify it. Markey opened the hearing by saying
"human beings all over the planet face death or damage or injury if we do not act." He blasted the White House stance on
climate change, saying, "The Bush administration continues to limit what their experts know. The president doesn't want America to know the real risk of global
warming."Republicans on the committee criticized the report as wasteful, with Rep. Darrell Issa of California calling it a "dangerous diversion of intelligence
resources."Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, said that the report was unreliable and that its authors admitted as much. "We have a lot of information where we are
incapable of assessing it," Fingar conceded. Hoekstra also questioned the committee's priorities. "There are a lot more pressing issues out there for the intelligence
community to be focused on right now that would help keep America safe," he said. The assessment "was a waste of time, a waste of resources for the intelligence
community to be focused on this issue versus other folks in the government that could have done this job and have a responsibility for doing it." Fingar said the
intelligence community had relied on the science of others because it did not itself monitor climate change. He said the assessment was based on midrange
predictions of global warming.

93
Baylor Debate Workshops Evan DeFilippis
Global Warming Answers Page 94

Aff- Global Warming Bad  Terrorism


B. A terrorist attack would cause extinction.
Sid-Ahmed 4, Political Analyst, 2K4 (Mohamed, “Extinction!” Al-Ahram Weekly On-Line, August 26 –
September 1, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg /2004/705/op5.htm)

We have reached a point in human history where the phenomenon of terrorism has to
be completely uprooted, not through persecution and oppression, but by removing
the reasons that make particular sections of the world population resort to
terrorism. This means that fundamental changes must be brought to the world system
itself. The phenomenon of terrorism is even more dangerous than is generally believed.
We are in for surprises no less serious than 9/11 and with far more devastating
consequences. A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima
and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less
harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear
technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for
nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have
been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This
completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory
measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can
be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like
Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was
harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a
nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative
features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would
close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human
rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would
proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a
different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more
critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from
which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one
side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear
pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

94

You might also like