You are on page 1of 81

CNDI 08 EF/ML

WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD
_____________................................................................................................................................3
****WARMING NOW****...........................................................................................................3
WARMING REAL - GENERIC......................................................................................................4
WARMING REAL – GENERIC ....................................................................................................5
WARMING REAL – BRINK..........................................................................................................6
WARMING REAL – BRINK..........................................................................................................7
WARMING REAL – FAST...........................................................................................................10
WARMING REAL – FAST...........................................................................................................11
WARMING REAL – FAST...........................................................................................................12
WARMING REAL – AT: SLOW ..................................................................................................13
WARMING REAL – AT: SLOW...................................................................................................14
WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC ..................................................................................15
WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC...................................................................................16
WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC...................................................................................17
WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC...................................................................................18
WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC...................................................................................19
WARMING REAL – AT: SOLAR VARIABILITY.......................................................................20
WARMING REAL – AT: SOLAR VARIABILITY.......................................................................21
WARMING REAL – AT: COSMIC RAYS...................................................................................22
WARMING REAL – AT: URBAN HEATING..............................................................................23
WARMING REAL – DATA PROVES..........................................................................................24
WARMING REAL – DATA PROVES..........................................................................................25
WARMING REAL – DATA PROVES..........................................................................................26
WARMING REAL – TREE RINGS..............................................................................................27
WARMING REAL – LEAF SHAPES...........................................................................................28
WARMING REAL – POLLEN.....................................................................................................29
WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS .............................................................................................30
WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS .............................................................................................31
WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS..............................................................................................32
WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS..............................................................................................33
WARMING REAL – AT: BIAS.....................................................................................................34
WARMING REAL – AT: NEG SCIENTISTS...............................................................................35
WARMING REAL – AT: DENIERS ............................................................................................36
_____________..............................................................................................................................37
****WARMING BAD****...........................................................................................................37
WARMING BAD – LAUNDRY LIST..........................................................................................38
WARMING BAD – LAUNDRY LIST..........................................................................................39
WARMING BAD – OUTWEIGHS NUKE WAR.........................................................................40
WARMING BAD – FAMINE.......................................................................................................41
WARMING BAD – FAMINE.......................................................................................................42
WARMING BAD – FAILED STATES..........................................................................................43
WARMING BAD – FAILED STATES..........................................................................................44
WARMING BAD – TERRORISM................................................................................................45
WARMING BAD – (GLOBAL) ECONOMY..............................................................................46

1
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD
WARMING BAD – ECONOMY .................................................................................................47
WARMING BAD – ECONOMY .................................................................................................48
WARMING BAD – ECONOMY..................................................................................................49
WARMING BAD – DIARRHEA..................................................................................................50
WARMING BAD – DISEASE......................................................................................................51
WARMING BAD – DISEASE – MOSQUITO ............................................................................52
WARMING BAD – DISEASE – MALARIA...............................................................................53
WARMING BAD – ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................54
WARMING BAD – ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................55
WARMING BAD – SPECIES LOSS............................................................................................56
WARMING BAD – ICE AGE.......................................................................................................57
WARMING BAD – ICE AGE.......................................................................................................58
WARMING BAD – ICE AGE.......................................................................................................59
WARMING BAD – ICE AGE.......................................................................................................60
WARMING BAD – ICE AGE – GLACIERS................................................................................61
WARMING BAD – ICE AGE – OCEAN CONVEYER...............................................................62
WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE...........................................................................................63
WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE...........................................................................................64
WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE...........................................................................................65
WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE...........................................................................................66
WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE...........................................................................................67
WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE – U.S. ...............................................................................68
WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS......................................................................................69
WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS......................................................................................70
WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS......................................................................................71
WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS......................................................................................72
WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS......................................................................................73
WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS......................................................................................74
WARMING BAD – GLOBAL SECURITY..................................................................................75
WARMING BAD – GLOBAL SECURITY..................................................................................76
WARMING BAD – GLOBAL SECURITY – TIMEFRAME ......................................................77
WARMING BAD – RISING SEA LEVELS.................................................................................78
WARMING BAD – WATER WARS.............................................................................................79
WARMING BAD – EXTINCTION - CHALKO..........................................................................80
WARMING BAD – EARTHQUAKES – CHALKO.....................................................................81

2
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

_____________

****WARMING NOW****

3
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL - GENERIC

GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING NOW, WHICH COULD LEAD TO ABRUPT CHANGES.


Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”
There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur
during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected
to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential
to be manageable for most nations. Recent research, however, suggests that there is a
possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing
of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather
conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions
that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production. With
inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying
capacity of the Earth’s environment.
The research suggests that once temperature rises above some threshold, adverse
weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the
atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit in
a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could
last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200
years ago, or, at the extreme, could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the
Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago.

4
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – GENERIC

GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPEN NOW.


Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”
Following the most rapid century of warming experienced by modern civilization,
the first ten years of the 21st century see an acceleration of atmospheric warming, as
average temperatures worldwide rise by .5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and by as
much as 2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade in the harder hit regions. Such temperature
changes would vary both by region and by season over the globe, with these finer
scale variations being larger or smaller than the average change. What would be very
clear is that the planet is continuing the warming trend of the late 20th century.
Most of North America, Europe, and parts of South America experience 30% more
days with peak temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit than they did a century ago,
with far fewer days below freezing. In addition to the warming, there are erratic
weather patterns: more floods, particularly in mountainous regions, and prolonged
droughts in grain-producing and coastal-agricultural areas. In general, the climate
shift is an economic nuisance, generally affecting local areas as storms, droughts, and
hot spells impact agriculture and other climate-dependent activities. (More French
doctors remain on duty in August, for example.) The weather pattern, though, is not
yet severe enough or widespread enough to threaten the interconnected global
society or United States national security.

5
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – BRINK

GLOBAL WARMING HAS REACHED THE THRESHOLD, STOPPING IT HAS TO TAKE HAPPEN
NOW.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, and Doug Randall, co-head of the Global Business
Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security”

There are some indications today that global warming has reached the threshold where the thermohaline circulation
could start to be significantly impacted. These indications include observations documenting that the North Atlantic
is increasingly being freshened by melting glaciers, increased precipitation, and fresh water runoff making it
substantially less salty over the past 40 years.
This report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of
abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be
elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.

6
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – BRINK


THE THRESHOLD IS SMALL ---- EVEN A 2 DEGREE SPIKE COULD TRIGGER RUNAWAY
WARMING THROUGH POSITIVE FEEDBACKS
MCCARTHY IN 2005 (Michael, Environment Editor, The Independent, “Countdown to Global Catastrophe”, 1-24,
CNDI-TP)
The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down.
It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as
chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union. And it breaks new ground by putting a
figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the
temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could
include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the
death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream. The report says this point will be two
degrees centigrade above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when human
activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started to
affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the
pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached. More ominously still, it
assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says it will be 400
parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2. The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it is likely that the vital
400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years' time, or even less (although the two-degree temperature rise
might take longer to come into effect). "There is an ecological timebomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, the
former transport secretary, who co-chaired the task force that produced the report with the US Republican senator Olympia Snowe. It was
assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Centre for American Progress in the US, and The Australia Institute. The
group's chief scientific adviser is Dr Rakendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report urges all
the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-
carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as India and China,
which have big and growing CO2 emissions. "What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver
a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who now
advises business. The report starkly spells out the likely consequences of exceeding the threshold. "Beyond the 2 degrees C level, the risks to
human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," it says. "It is likely, for example, that average-temperature increases larger than this will
entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. They
could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including
the Amazon rainforest." It goes on: "Above the 2 degrees level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate
change also increase. The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of
the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea level more than 10 metres over
the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and
the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon."

7
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

8
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD
WARMING REAL – FAST

GLOBAL WARMING’S CHANGES TO THE CLIMATE HAVE CLAIMED THOUSANDS OF LIVES AND
ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Volume 115, Number 4, April 07, “Driven to Extremes:
Health Effects of Climate Change”, From Jstor.com

Last year was one for the record books. In 2006, the United States experienced the warmest surface tempera- ture
since 1895. It was also the eleventh year since 1995 to rank among the warmest worldwide ever recorded. The
decade prior saw many other extreme weather events. In 2003, a brutal summer heat wave in Europe killed at
least 22,000 people. In 1998, Hurricane Mitch stalled over Central America and released six feet of rain, causing
mas- sive mudslides and claiming 11,000 lives. After that storm, Honduras reported thousands of cases of cholera,
malaria, and dengue fever. Although climate change can't be blamed for any one particular weather disaster, it is
responsible for longer-term trends that intensify weather around the world, spawning more heat waves,
droughts, intense downpours, and floods. There are also fewer extreme cold events-bitterly cold days and nights--
over most land areas. Even frost has become less frequent. Yet there is more intense precipita- tion, both rain and
snow. So there is a greater likelihood of winter snowstorms but not more cold snaps. There is a greater than 90%
likelihood that such weath- er events will continue to become more 'frequent, and it is equally likely that global
sea level rise will accelerate and that snow cover will recede during this century. Moreover, there is a 66-90%
likelihood that future tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) will become more intense, with greater peak wind
speeds and heavier rains, and that the land area affected by drought will increase. Many semi- arid subtropical
regions, already plagued by drought, could have as much as a 20% drop in rainfall by 2100. In other regions, it is
already raining less often but harder, causing more extensive floods

9
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – FAST

COUNTRIES ARE NOT CURRENTLY PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THE EFFECTS OF


GLOBAL WARMING IF THEY OCCUR, MEANING THAT STOPPING THEM BEFORE THEY
OCCUR IS ESSENTIAL.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

As the outline on state fragility and governance and the expected changes in the
international system shows, national and international institutions and actors are poorly
prepared to address the challenges described. In relation to fragile states, there is currently
no evidence that environmental degradation substantially increases conflict relevance.
However, it can be assumed that as the pressure of the problems increases, such states –
which even under current conditions barely have the capacity to maintain a functioning
polity – will be overwhelmed by the growing environmental stress. So it is likely that climate
change will lead to further destabilization in weak and fragile states, potentially leading to
distortions in international politics as well.

Furthermore, looking at the current situation of global governance architecture, it is


apparent that for the foreseeable future, the international community will lack the requisite
capacities to respond effectively to the problems described. As the section on unstable
multipolarity shows, the political world order is at the start of a radical and probably
turbulent transformation. It is becoming apparent that new global actors, especially China
and India, could change the rules of international politics on a lasting basis. This new
competition for power and influence does not necessarily have to be conflictive. However, it
will absorb valuable time and resources which will then no longer be available for other
purposes. The question of the development and establishment of a functioning multilateral
system which effectively counters the impending risks of climate change will arise in any
event. Whether and how rising and declining world powers cooperate in future will, not least,
be a key factor determining the success of international climate policy (Section 8.2 and 8.3).

10
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – FAST

GLOBAL WARMING WILL ACCELERATE AT A RAPID PACE AND CAUSE EFFECTS SOON.
Richard A. KERR, writer for Science magazine, Volume 318, Number 5854, November 23, 2007, “Global
Warming: How Urgent is Climate Change?”, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5854/1230?etoc

The disturbing message on the timing of global warming's effects comes in the IPCC chapters and technical
summaries quietly posted online months after each of three working groups released a much-publicized Summary
for Policymakers (SPM). An overall synthesis of the working group reports was released Saturday at the 27th
session of IPCC. Earlier this year, only the SPMs went through the wringer of word-by-word negotiations with
governments, which squeezed out a crucial table and part of another (Science, 13 April, p. 188). That information--
which was always in the full reports--along with other report material, makes it clear that substantial impacts are
likely to arrive sooner rather than later.

Table TS.3 of Working Group II's technical summary, for example, lays out projected warmings. The uncertainties
are obvious. Decades ahead, models don't agree on the amount of warming from a given amount of greenhouse gas,
and no one can tell which of a half-dozen emission scenarios--from unbridled greenhouse-gas production to severe
restraint--will be closest to reality. But this table strongly suggests that a middle-of-the-road, business-as-usual
scenario would likely lead to a 2°C warming by about the middle of this century. Lined up beneath the
projected warmings in the table are the anticipated effects of each warming. Beneath a mid-century, 2°C warming is
a litany of daunting ill effects that had previously had no clear timing attached to them: increasing drought in mid-
latitudes and semiarid low latitudes, placing 1 billion to 2 billion additional people under increased water stress;
most corals bleached, with widespread coral mortality following within a few decades; and decreases in low-latitude
crop productivity, as in wheat and maize in India and rice in China, among other pervasive impacts.

11
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – FAST

THE RAPIDITY OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT ALLOW COUNTRIES TO ADAPT.
HOMER-DIXON (Peace & Conflict Studies Prog., Toronto) ‘93
[Thomas, Environmental Scarcity and Global Security, p. 35-36]

In general, the magnitude of climate change is less of a problem for poor countries than its rate. Around the world,
human beings and their agricultural systems have adapted to differences in temperature far greater than the
maximum warming predicted for the next 100 years. But the rapid rate expected for this change will produce new
pressures on society at a time when it is already stressed by other population and resource problems. This change
may be too fast and complex for societies that have limited buffering capacities. Mexico, for example, is extremely
vulnerable to climate change. Historically, environmental degradation—especially declining soil fertility—appears
to have played a key role in the collapse of Mesoamerican civilizations, such as the Mayans. Today, large numbers
of people are leaving the state of Oaxaca because of drought and soil erosion. In the future, global warming could
produce a decrease of 40 percent in Mexican rain-fed agriculture, which, in combination with free trade (Mexico’s
trade advantage is in water-intensive fruits and vegetables) and the privatization of communal peasant lands, could
bring great suffering and national conflict.

12
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: SLOW

ACTION NOW IS KEY ---- FAILURE TO REVERSE WARMING CAUSES POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND
RUNAWAY CLIMATE SHIFTS
VANITY FAIR IN 2006 (Mark Hertsgaard, “While Washington Slept”, May, CNDI-TP)

Beyond this crucial first step-which most governments worldwide have yet to consider-humanity can cushion the
severity of future global warming by limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. Hansen says we must stabilize emissions-
which currently are rising 2 percent a year-by 2015, and then reduce them. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, a
book based on a scientific conference convened by Tony Blair before the G-8 summit, estimates that we may have
until 2025 to peak and reduce. The goal is to stop global warming before it crosses tipping points and attains
unstoppable momentum from "positive feedbacks." For example, should the Greenland ice sheet melt, white ice-
which reflects sunlight back into space-would be replaced by dark water, which absorbs sunlight and drives further
warming. Positive feedbacks can trigger the kind of abrupt, irreversible climate changes that scientists call
"nonlinear."

EVEN SMALL WARMING NOW COULD TRIGGER RUNAWAY MELTING WHICH ESCALATES TO
CATASTROPHE
FISHER IN 2007 (Peter, Teaches Environmental Management @ Central Queensland U., Canberra Times,
“Climate time is against us”, 1-8, CNDI-TP)

The course of past climate transitions from cooler periods suggest that they can be extremely rapid perhaps within a
matter of decades rather than a century or centuries. For instance, new research published in Nature has found that
the glacial climate in the Northern Atlantic can swing very quickly with temperatures rising by 8-16 degrees in just a
few decades at the end of each Ice Age. Such disturbances stem from the elliptical nature of the Earth's orbit and
variations in its tilt and spin. Life has long been at the mercy of these happenings, as demonstrated by a horrendous
10,000-year drought in Africa during the Pliocene 2.5million years ago which decimated the gorilla population in
southern Zaire (later providing a niche for a new breed of chimps), and no doubt brutally affected proto humans.
Add to these natural cataclysmic events the potential impacts of climate forcing from rising carbon dioxide levels,
and the outlook becomes much more unpredictable. James Lovelock, in his new book The Revenge of Gaia, posits
that the planet has already been pushed over the brink with rapid rises in temperature of as much as 8degrees now
likely. James Hansen, one of George W. Bush's most respected (if not loved) climatologists, doesn't go quite that far.
He concludes in an article in Climatic Change on the storing of heat in the oceans, that ''any increase in global
temperature beyond 1degree could trigger runaway melting of the world's ice sheets'' shrinking ice means less
sunlight gets reflected and more gets absorbed, exacerbating the problem of warming. Hansen says ''that even 1
degree additional warming may be highly undesirable; 2-3 degrees is clearly a different planet''. The first act looks to
have already played out in the Arctic Circle this northern summer when large freshwater lakes formed on the
Greenland ice sheet notably at Eqip Sernia, and then drained away to the depths. Fred Pearce, writing in The
Guardian, records how scientists observed, within hours of the lakes forming, that the vast ice sheets rose up, as if
floating on water, and slid towards the ocean. Penn State University glaciologist Richard Alley commented, ''We
used to think that it would take 10,000 years for melting at the surface of an ice sheet to penetrate down to the
bottom. Now we know it doesn't take 10,000 years, it takes 10 seconds.'' Pearce says that ''this highlights why
scientists are panicky about the sheer speed and violence with which climate change could take hold. They are
realising that their old ideas about gradual change the smooth lines on graphs showing warming and sea-level rise
and gradually shifting weather patterns are not how the world's climate system works.'' (New research on the Ross
Ice Shelf further reveals, for instance, that collapses over the past three million years have taken place very rapidly
with sea levels rising by 7-17m.) The quickening pace of that understanding is proving daunting to climate change
science watchers (but not it would seem the politicians). Hansen stresses the urgency of the policy response. ''I think
we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade at the most.''

13
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: SLOW

THE RATE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS PROCEEDING EXPONENTIALLY, NOT LINEARLY AS SOME


SKEPTICS CLAIM.
Richard A. KERR, writer for Science magazine, Volume 315, Number 5813, February 9, 2007, “Climate Change:
Scientists Tell Policymakers We’re All Warming the World”,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5813/754

From studies of long-past climate, including the famous hockey-stick curve of the past millennium's
temperature (Science, 4 August 2006, p. 603), the IPCC concludes that the recent warming is quite out of the
ordinary. "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years," the report concludes, "and likely the highest in at least
the past 1300 years."

Contrarians have conceded that greenhouse gases may be warming the planet, but not by much, they say. The
climate system is not sensitive enough to greenhouse gases to overheat the globe, they say. For the first time, the
IPCC report directly counters that argument. Several different lines of evidence point to a moderately strong
climate sensitivity (Science, 21 April 2006, p. 351). The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 thickened the
stratospheric haze layer and cooled climate, providing a gauge of short-term climate sensitivity. Paleoclimatologists
have determined how hard the climate system was driven during long-past events such as the last ice age and how
much climate changed then. And models have converged on a narrower range of climate sensitivity.

The IPCC concludes that both models and past climate changes point to a fairly sensitive climate system. The
warming for a doubling of CO2 "is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C," says the report, not the less than 0.5°C
favored by some contrarians. A best estimate is about 3°C, with a likely range of 2°C to 4.5°C.

What next?
Looking ahead, the report projects a warming of about 0.4°C for the next 2 decades. That is about as rapid as
the warming of the past 15 years, but 50% faster than the warming of the past 50 years. By the end of this
century, global temperatures might rise anywhere between a substantial 1.7°C and a whopping 4.0°C, depending on
the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. In some model projections, late-summer Arctic sea ice all but disappears
late in this century. It is very likely that extremes of heat, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to
become more frequent. Rain in lower latitudes will decrease, leading to more drought

14
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC

**HUMANS ARE THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND ACCELERATED GLOBAL HEATING


Eban GOODSTEIN August 31, 2007
(Author and a Professor of Economics at Lewis and Clark College in Portland Oregon; “Fighting for Love In the
Century of Extinction” Pgs. 9-13 University Press of New England)
To help ensure the survival of much of the beauty and bounty of creation, the critical thing we must do is to
stabilize the climate and keep global heating as low as possible. There are two reasons for this. The first is that
habitat destruction from global heating will soon join land conversion as a primary driver of extinction.
Human-induced extinction has been with us for tens of thousands of years. Throughout prehistory, as human
colonizers opened up new frontiers; in Australia, the Polynesian islands, and North America; many game
species quickly disappeared. Over the past century, the human footprint has doubled, and redoubled, and re-
doubled again. The number of people has grown from 1 to 6.3 billion, and the average consumption level has
quadrupled. In the face of this exponential growth in human impact, the pace of extinction has
accelerated almost out of control, as virtually no place on the planet is now immune from the age-old
pressures of habitat conversion and hunting, or the newer force of invasive species. Today, however, the
overarching threat to species diversity is becoming global heating. Humans are now engaged in an
unprecedented natural experiment, in which we are altering the fundamental nature of Earth's climate
control system. What difference will several degrees of heating make? Consider how a human body responds
if it heats up one or two degrees: It sickens. Three or four degrees warming, sustained, and the human dies.
Ecosystems have evolved with a similar sensitivity to temperature. In- creased heat, altered rainfall patterns,
the spread of pests and diseases; all these factors threaten to vastly simplify natural ecosystems, eliminating
delicate creatures and plants that have taken advantage of relative climate stability, and leaving behind more
primitive and hardy colonizers. The official forecast for human- induced global heating within our
grandchildren's lifetime is up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

15
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC

MAN MADE GREEN HOUSE GASES—NOT SUNSPOT CYCLES OR ANY OTHER NATURAL
OCCURANCE—ARE INCREASING GLOBAL WARMING AND CAUSING EXTREME WEATHER.
Sharon BEGLEY, science editor at the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek. New York. July 14, 2008. Vol. 152, Iss. 2
“True or False: Global Warming Is A Cause Of This Year's Extreme Weather” Pro-Quest.

It's almost a point of pride with climatologists. Whenever someplace is hit with a heat wave, drought, killer storm or other extreme weather,
scientists trip over themselves to absolve global warming. No particular weather event, goes the mantra, can be blamed on something so general.
Extreme weather occurred before humans began loading up the atmosphere with heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. So this
storm or that heat wave could be the result of the same natural forces that prevailed 100 years ago random movements of air masses, unlucky
confluences of high- and low-pressure systems rather than global warming.This pretense has worn thin. The frequency of
downpours and heat waves, as well as the power of hurricanes, has increased so dramatically that 100-year storms
are striking some areas once every 15 years, and other once rare events keep returning like a bad penny. As a result,
some climatologists now say global warming is to blame. Rising temperatures boost the probability of extreme
weather, says Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center and lead author of a new report from the Bush
administration's Climate Change Science Program; that can lead to the type of events we are seeing in the Midwest.
There, three weeks of downpours have caused rivers to treat their banks as no more than mild suggestions. Think of
it this way: if once we experienced one Noachian downpour every 20 years, and now we suffer five, four are likely
man-made.It's been easier to connect global warming to rising temperatures than to extreme weather events and
even the former hasn't been easy. Only in this decade have attribution studies managed to finger greenhouse gases as
the chief cause of the rising mercury, rather than a hotter sun or cyclical changes. (The last two produce a different
pattern of climate change than man-made warming does.) Now the same whatdunit? techniques are being applied to
droughts, downpours, heat waves and powerful hurricanes. We can look at climate-model simulations and likely
attribute [specific extreme weather] to human activity, says Gerry Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research.The Midwest, for instance, suffered three weeks of intense rain in May and June, with more than five
inches falling on some days. That brought a reprise of the area's 1993 flooding, which was thought to be a once-in-
500-years event. The proximate cause was the western part of the jet stream dipping toward the Gulf of Mexico,
then rising toward Iowa funneling moisture from the gulf to the Midwest, says meteorologist Bill Gallus of (the very
soggy) Iowa State University. The puzzle, he says, is why the trough kept reforming in the west, creating a rain-
carrying conveyor belt that, like a nightmarish version of a Charlie Chaplin movie, wouldn't turn off. One clue is
that global warming has caused the jet stream to shift north. That has brought, and will continue to bring, more
tropical storms to the nation's north, and may push around the jet stream in other ways as well.Global warming has
left its clearest fingerprint on heat waves. Since the record scorcher of 1998, the average annual temperatures in the
United States in six of the past 10 years have been among the hottest 10 percent on record. Climatologists predict
that days so hot they now arrive only once every 20 years will, by midcentury, hit the continental United States once
every three years. Scientists also discern a greenhouse fingerprint in downpours, which in the continental United
States have increased 20 percent over the past century. In a warmer world, air holds more water vapor, so when
cloud conditions are right for that vapor to form droplets, more precipitation falls. Man-made climate change is also
causing more droughts on top of those that occur naturally: attribution studies trace droughts such as that gripping
the Southwest to higher sea-surface temperatures, especially in the Pacific. Those can fluctuate naturally, as they did
when they caused the severe droughts of the 1930s and 1950s. But they are also rising due to global warming,
causing a complicated cascade of changes in air circulation that shuts down rainfall.Hurricanes have become more
powerful due to global warming. For every rise of 1 degree Celsius (most of it man-made) in surface temperatures in
the tropical Atlantic, rainfall from a tropical storm increases 6 to 18 percent and wind speeds of the strongest
hurricanes increase by up to 8 percent. As the new report acknowledged, the strongest storms are becoming even
stronger. Atmospheric conditions that bring severe thunderstorms (with hail two inches across and wind gusts of at
least 70 miles an hour) and tornadoes with a force of F2 or greater have been on the rise since the 1970s, occurring
about 8 percent more often every decade. Get used to it, and don't blame Mother Nature.

16
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC

GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED AND IF NOT STOPPED WILL LEAD TO MULTIPLE
IMPACTS.
Som Nath TIWARI, Doctor, 2007, New Delhi, Global Warming and its Effects on Environment

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent 
 decades. The Earth's average near ­  surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ­ 0.2°Celsius  (1.1 ± 0.4 'Fahrenheit) in 
the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the 
last   50   years   is   attributable   to   human   activities".   The   increased   amounts   of   carbon   dioxide   (CO.,)   and   other 
 greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human ­  induced component of warming. They are released  
by the burning of fossil fuels. land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.

The first speculation that a greenhouse effect might occur was by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1897, 
although it did not become a topic of popular debate until some 90 years later. The measure of the response to 
increased   GHGs,   and   other   anthropogenic   and   natural   climate   forcings,   is   climate   sensitivity.   It   is   found   by 
observational and model studies. This sensitivity is usually expressed in terms of the temperature response expected 
from a doubling of CO, in the atmosphere.

An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes including a rising sea level and changes in the 
amount arid pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather 
events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados. Other consequences include higher or lower 
agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of 
disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to 
connect particular events to global warming.

Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100. warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is 
 expected to continue past then, since CO2     has an estimated 50 to 200 year long average atmospheric lifetime.  Only a 
small   minority   of   climate   scientists   discount   the   role   that   humanity's   actions   have   played   in   recent   warming. 
However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, 
and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse 
future warming, and how to deal with the predicted consequences.

GLOBALWARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMAN EMITTED GREENHOUSE GASES.


Som Nath TIWARI, Doctor, 2007, New Delhi, Global Warming and its Effects on Environment

The   detailed   causes   of   this   change   remain   an   active   field   of   research,   but   the   scientific   consensus   identifies 
greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming.  This conclusion can be controversial, especially 
outside the scientific community.  Adding carbon dioxide (C02) or methane (CH) to Earth's atmosphere, with no 
other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without 
which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore 
not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon 
dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface 
temperatures on Earth.

17
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC

MODELING PROVES HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE-RISING TEMPERATURES CAN'T BE EXPLAINED


BY NATURAL FACTORS ALONE
WANG AND OPPENHEIMER IN 2005 (James, Science Climate and Air Program @ Environmental Defense, and
Michael, Prof. Geosciences and International Affairs @ Princeton, “The Latest Myths and Fracts on Global
Warming”, http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf CNDI-TP)
MYTH #7: The warming of the past century has been caused by natural factors, such as solar variability, a recovery
from the Little Ice Age, cosmic rays, etc.; the warming was not caused by the increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs).
This is shown by the fact that the warming has not followed the trend of GHG concentrations. FACT: While natural
factors have been important causes of climatic changes in the past, human-produced GHGs have become
increasingly dominant over the last century. Scientists know with certainty that GHGs have an important effect on
climate. GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-emit it downward, acting as
a blanket that traps heat at the surface and warms the planet. Without the naturally occurring “greenhouse effect,”
the average temperature of the Earth would be about 35°C (63°F) colder than at present, or an inhospitable –20°C (–
4°F) (McElroy 2002). The problem is that humans are increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Scientists
have conducted studies to calculate how much of the warming over the past century was caused by GHGs as
opposed to natural factors. When human influences (including the effects of GHGs and cooling sulfate particles5)
and natural factors (including solar variations, volcanic eruptions and random variability) are both taken into
account in climate models, the simulated temperature changes over the past 140 years agree closely with observed
changes (see Figure 2). If, however, human influences are omitted from the models, the simulated temperature
changes do not match the observed changes. These results provide strong evidence that human influences have
contributed to the observed warming. In fact, it is likely that human produced GHGs have been the dominant cause
of the observed global warming over the past few decades, as can be seen in Figure 2. Natural factors are unlikely to
explain the increased rate of warming since the middle of the 20th century, as the overall trend in natural forcing
(warming effect) was likely small or even negative over the last two to four decades, according to measurements
(IPCC 2001).

THE IPCC SAID THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE MAIN CULPRIT FOR GLOBAL WARMING.
WORLD IN 2007 (Nuclear Engineering International, March 14, HUMAN ACTIVITY IS CLIMATE CULPRIT
SAYS IPCC.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4085436451&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4085436454&cisb=22_T4085436453&tr
eeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=168861&docNo=1 CNDI-TP)

Anthropogenic carbon emissions - chiefly coming from fossil fuels - are to blame for global warming, concludes the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).
The document states: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and
ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." The IPCC adds: "Most of the observed
increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
This is a significant advance since the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of2001. Improved observations and climate modeling since
the TAR make it extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without human
intervention, specifically the combined influences of greenhouse gas increases and stratospheric ozone depletion.
Carbon dioxide, the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, has seen global atmospheric concentration increase from a pre-industrial
value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 379ppm in 2005, far exceeding the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
In assessing the impact of anthropogenic carbon emissions, the IPCC says that global average surface warming
following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations

18
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – ANTHROPOGENIC

GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN-INDUCED; ALTERNATE CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING HAVE


NEGLIGIBLE EFFECTS ON ITS PACE.
Richard A. KERR, writer for Science magazine, Volume 315, Number 5813, February 9, 2007, “Climate Change:
Scientists Tell Policymakers We’re All Warming the World”,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5813/754

So the IPCC authors weren't impressed by the contrarian argument that the warming is just an "urban heat
island effect" driven by increasing amounts of heat-absorbing concrete and asphalt. That effect is real, the report
says, but it has "a negligible influence" on the global number. Likewise, new analyses have largely settled the
hullabaloo over why thermometers at Earth's surface measured more warming than remote-sensing satellites had
detected higher in the atmosphere (Science, 12 May 2006, p. 825). Studies by several groups have increased the
satellite-determined warming, largely reconciling the difference.

This confidently observed warming of the globe can't be anything but mostly human-induced, the IPCC finds.
True, modeling studies have shown that natural forces in the climate system--such as calmer volcanoes and the sun's
brightening--have in fact led to warming in the past, as skeptics point out. And the natural ups and downs of climate
have at times warmed the globe. But all of these natural variations in combination have not warmed the world
enough, fast enough, and for long enough in the right geographic patterns to produce the observed warming, the
report finds. In model studies, nothing warms the world as observed except the addition of greenhouse gases in
the actual amounts emitted.

19
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: SOLAR VARIABILITY

GLOBAL WARMING IS ANTHROPOGENIC. ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT IS CAUSED BY SOLAR


ACTIVITY IS FALSE, SCIENTISTS PROVE.
RANDERSON IN 2007 (James. Science correspondent. Guardian Home Pages. pg. 15. July 11. Science: New
analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming: Study undermines climate sceptics'
arguments: Correlations 'inconsistent' with temperature rise. CNDI-TP)
It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global
warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that
natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to
rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have
continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
The solar hypothesis was championed publicly in March by the controversial Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The programme has been heavily criticised for distorting scientific data to fit the sceptic argument and Carl Wunsch, a
professor of physical oceanography at MIT who featured in the programme, later said that he was "totally misled" by the film makers and that his
comments were "completely misrepresented".
The new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme -
that solar activity may be to blame for global warming.
"The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about," said lead
author Mike Lockwood at the Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory in Oxfordshire.
"They changed direction in 1985, the climate did not . . . (the temperature) increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up."
Global temperatures are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10 warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years.
One way that the sun affects the climate is through clouds. The sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles called cosmic
rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space and cool the planet.
So if the sun's magnetic field is high, there should be a fall-off in cosmic rays, fewer clouds and more warming. But Prof Lockwood's data,
published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun's magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.
James Hansen, a Nasa climate scientist who was once gagged by the Bush administration for speaking out on global warming, said the issue of
whether the sun's activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago. "The reason (this paper) has value is
that the proponents of the notion that the sun determines everything come up with various half-baked suggestions that the sun can somehow cause
an indirect forcing that is not included in the measurements of radiation coming from the sun," he said. "These half-baked notions are usually
supported by empirical correlations of climate with some solar index in the past. Thus, by showing that these correlations are not consistent with
recent climate change, the half-baked notions can be dispensed with."
Prof Lockwood said the study was "another nail" in the coffin of the notion that solar activity is responsible for global warming.
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a proponent of the solar hypothesis, has tried to rescue the idea by
invoking a time lag between changes in the sun and its effect on the Earth's climate. But Prof Lockwood dismissed this as "disingenuous".
"Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It's only been invoked now as a way out," he said. Even if the lag were 50 years then he believes we
would begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down.
Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main
driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty. Despite the efforts of
government and campaigns such as Live Earth to educate the public, the Ipsos Mori poll of over 2,031 people, released this month, found 56% of
people thought there was an active scientific debate into the causes of global warming.
A spokesman for the Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific academy, said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on
climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are
often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a
failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and
dangerous."

20
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: SOLAR VARIABILITY

HUMANS ARE THE KEY CAUSE OF WARMING-OUTWEIGHS NATURAL EFFECTS.


OPPENHEIMER IN 2007 (Michael, Prof. Geosciences and Int’l Affairs @ Princeton, CQ Congressional
Testimony, “Global Climate Change”, 3-7, CNDI-TP)
Question 2: If global temperatures are increasing, to what extent is the increase attributable to greenhouse gas
emissions from human activity, as opposed to natural variability or other causes? IPCC also reached a very strong
conclusion on this point: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". The IPCC
report emphasizes that the human influence now has been discerned in specific aspects of climate, including ocean
temperatures, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. A significant human
influence over temperatures has likely been discerned for all continents but Antarctica. "Temperatures of the most
extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days are likely to have increased due to anthropogenic forcing. It is more
likely than not that anthropogenic forcing has increased the risk of heat waves". These findings come from two
sources. Most important are statistical comparisons of the geographic pattern of temperature and other climate
changes, and their evolution over time, with patterns produced by computer models. Such models estimate changes
in the climate system that should have occurred as greenhouse gas levels increased over time. These are compared
with modeled estimates of the effect of natural climate variability, and the effects of changes in the sun and volcanic
emissions, that is, temperature changes that might have occurred absent the greenhouse-gas increase. Such
comparison allows the effect of natural variability, the sun, and volcanoes to be separated from the effect of the
greenhouse gases. Another source of information is analysis of so-called paleo- climate proxies, indirect indicators
of climate that are used to infer temperature changes for periods before a reliable thermometer record is available.
These include data retrieved from ice and sediment cores, tree rings, and pollen. Temperatures inferred using such
methods have greater uncertainty than direct measurements. Nevertheless, IPCC reached certain key conclusions
with increased confidence since its last assessment. Among these, I cite two verbatim: -- Average Northern
Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. -- The last time the polar
regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar
ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres (about 13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise. I shall return to discuss the broad
implications of the second point later in this testimony. IPCC's judgments on likelihood take into account
uncertainties inherent in both methods. For example, it is not possible at this time to ascribe small-scale climate
changes, i.e., those taking place over distances smaller than a continent, to the greenhouse gas buildup. Once
again, the IPCC sought to put to rest two issues that have clouded the public discussion of climate change. It has
often been asked why warming occurred in the early 20th century before the bulk of human emissions of the
greenhouse gases occurred. IPCC states that "it is likely that anthropogenic forcing (i.e., the human-made climate-
changing effect of greenhouse gases) contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records".
Changes in volcanic emissions and solar radiation also made significant contributions to the earlier warming.
Second, IPCC notes that between 1750 and today, changes in the sun contributed less than 10% of the climate
forcing due to human activities. To summarize in my own words: It is very likely that most of the recent climate
change is attributable to human activities, particularly emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosol particles. Natural
climate variability and changes in the sun and volcanic emissions have played a lesser role.

21
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: COSMIC RAYS

SOLAR RADIATION AND COSMIC RAYS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
John HOUGHTON, Institute of Physics Publishing, May 4, 2005, “Global Warming”,
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0034-4885/68/6/R02/rpp5_6_R02.pdf?request-id=3dac30fc-79eb-4472-8207-
8ca2548fb37b
In section 3.4, we described the influence on climate of past changes in the distribution of solar radiation over the
Earth due to variations in the geometry of the Earth’s orbit. The question is also often raised as to whether the sun’s
energy output could change with time introducing radiative forcing that could influence the climate. The only
accurate direct measurements of solar output that are available are those since 1978, from satellites outside the
disturbing effects of the Earth’s atmosphere. These measurements indicate a very constant solar output, changing
by about 0.1% between maximum and minimum in the cycle of solar activity indicated by the number of sunspots. It
is known from astronomical records and from measurements of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere that this solar sunspot activity has, from
time to time over the past few thousand years, shown large variations. Of particular interest is the period known as the Maunder Minimum in the
17th century when very few sunspots were recorded [39]. Studies of the recent measurements of solar output correlated with other indicators of
solar activity, when extrapolated to this earlier period, suggest that the sun was a little less bright in the 17th century, perhaps by about 0.4% or
about 1Wm−2 in terms of the average solar energy incident on the Earth’s surface. This reduction in solar energy may have been a cause of the
cooler period at that time known as the ‘Little Ice Age’. Careful studies have estimated that since 1850 the maximum variations in the solar
energy incident on the Earth’s surface are unlikely to be greater than about 0.5Wm−2 (figure 13). This is about the same as the change in the
1366 J Houghton energy regime at the Earth’s surface due to ten years’ increase in greenhouse gases at the current rate. In the above, the
effects of changes in the total solar energy have been considered. It is also possible that climate could be affected
through changes in the spectrum of solar radiation. For instance, changes in the ultraviolet can affect the
atmospheric ozone distribution that could in turn influence the climate. However, insufficient evidence exists that
this or other similar mechanisms that have been proposed (e.g. through changes in solar cosmic rays) are
leading to significant climate change [40].

22
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: URBAN HEATING

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT BECAUSE OF URBAN HEATING OR BECAUSE THE SUN IS GETTING
MORE INTENSE.
NICHOLLS IN 2007 (Dr. Nevill Nicholls - leads the Climate Group of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
in Melbourne, PhD in Meteorology from the University of Melbourne, and an MBA from the Royal Melbourne
Institute of Technology. Sunday telegraph, Australia. January 7th, 2007. LexisNexis. “We’re all to blame for the curse
of global warming – Environment”.//CNDI – RS)

* Isn't warming due to cities getting bigger and measurements being made in urban areas?
We also have temperature measurements from rural sites well away from cities, from small islands in the middle of
oceans, and sea-surface temperatures.
All of these show warming. As well, sea ice is retreating, glaciers are melting almost everywhere, and the amount of
snow is decreasing.
This indicates that the warming is widespread, pervasive, and not just restricted to the cities.
* Could the warming be happening because the sun is getting more intense?
We now have several decades of observations of the energy being received from the sun.
There is no evidence the radiation we receive from the sun has increased, but the world has warmed during this
period.
So the warming is not caused by the sun becoming more intense.

23
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – DATA PROVES

WARMING IS REAL-OVERWHELMING DATA SHOWS SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE INCREASES


-HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE
SCIENCE IN 2007 (Richard A. Kerr, “CLIMATE CHANGE: Scientists Tell Policymakers We’re All Warming the
World”, Vol. 315, No. 5813, February 9, p. 754-757)

They've said it before, but this time climate scientists are saying it with feeling: The world is warming; it's not all
natural, it's us; and if nothing is done, it will get a whole lot worse The last time the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) assessed the state of the climate, in early 2001, it got a polite enough hearing. The world was warming, it said, and human activity was
"likely" to be driving most of the warming. Back then, the committee specified a better-than-60% chance--not exactly a ringing endorsement. And
how bad might things get? That depended on a 20-year-old guess about how sensitive the climate system might be to rising greenhouse gases.
Given the uncertainties, the IPCC report's reception was on the tepid side. Six years of research later, the heightened confidence is obvious. The
warming is "unequivocal." Humans are "very likely" (higher than 90% likelihood) behind the warming. And the
climate system is "very unlikely" to be so insensitive as to render future warming inconsequential. This is the way
it was supposed to work, according to glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in State College,
a lead author on this IPCC report. "The governments of the world said to scientists, 'Here's a few billion dollars--get this right,' " Alley
says. "They took the money, and 17 years after the first IPCC report, they got it right. It's still science, not revealed truth, but the science has
gotten better and better and better. We're putting CO2 in the air, and that's changing the climate." With such self-assurance, this IPCC report
may really go somewhere, especially in the newly receptive United States (see sidebar, p. 756), where a small band of scientists has long
contested IPCC reports. Coordinating lead author Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, certainly hopes their report hits
home this time. "I want societies to understand that this is a real problem, and it affects the life of my kids." Down to work Created by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, the IPCC had the process down for its fourth assessment
report. Forty governments nominated the 150 lead authors and 450 contributing authors of Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. There was no clique of senior insiders: 75% of nominated lead authors were new to that
role, and one-third of authors got their final degree in the past 10 years. Authors had their draft chapters reviewed by
all comers. More than 600 volunteered, submitting 30,000 comments. Authors responded to every comment, and
reviewers certified each response. With their final draft of the science in hand, authors gathered in Paris, France,
with 300 representatives of 113 nations for 4 days to hash out the wording of a scientist-written Summary for
Policymakers. The fact of warming was perhaps the most straightforward item of business. For starters, the air is
0.74°C warmer than in 1906, up from a century's warming of 0.6°C in the last report. "Eleven of the last twelve
years rank among the 12 warmest years in the [150-year-long] instrumental record," notes the summary (ipcc-
wg1.ucar.edu). Warming ocean waters, shrinking mountain glaciers, and retreating snow cover strengthened the
evidence. So the IPCC authors weren't impressed by the contrarian argument that the warming is just an "urban
heat island effect" driven by increasing amounts of heat-absorbing concrete and asphalt. That effect is real, the report says, but it has "a
negligible influence" on the global number. Likewise, new analyses have largely settled the hullabaloo over why thermometers at Earth's surface
measured more warming than remote-sensing satellites had detected higher in the atmosphere (Science, 12 May 2006, p. 825). Studies by
several groups have increased the satellite-determined warming, largely reconciling the difference. This
confidently observed warming of the globe can't be anything but mostly human-induced, the IPCC finds. True,
modeling studies have shown that natural forces in the climate system--such as calmer volcanoes and the sun's
brightening--have in fact led to warming in the past, as skeptics point out. And the natural ups and downs of climate have at times
warmed the globe. But all of these natural variations in combination have not warmed the world enough, fast enough, and for long enough in the
right geographic patterns to produce the observed warming, the report finds. In model studies, nothing warms the world as observed except the
addition of greenhouse gases in the actual amounts emitted. From studies of long-past climate, including the famous hockey-stick curve of the
past millennium's temperature (Science, 4 August 2006, p. 603), the IPCC concludes that the recent warming is quite out of the ordinary.
"Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during
any other 50-year period in the last 500 years," the report concludes, "and likely the highest in at least the past 1300
years." Contrarians have conceded that greenhouse gases may be warming the planet, but not by much, they say.
The climate system is not sensitive enough to greenhouse gases to overheat the globe, they say. For the first time, the
IPCC report directly counters that argument. Several different lines of evidence point to a moderately strong climate
sensitivity (Science, 21 April 2006, p. 351). The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 thickened the stratospheric
haze layer and cooled climate, providing a gauge of short-term climate sensitivity. Paleoclimatologists have
determined how hard the climate system was driven during long-past events such as the last ice age and how much
climate changed then. And models have converged on a narrower range of climate sensitivity. The IPCC concludes
that both models and past climate changes point to a fairly sensitive climate system. The warming for a doubling of
CO2 "is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C," says the report, not the less than 0.5°C favored by some contrarians. A
best estimate is about 3°C

24
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – DATA PROVES

YES ITS REAL ---- NUMEROUS DATA SOURCES PROVE


PITTMAN IN 2007 (Craig, Environmental Writer, St. Petersburg Times, “The Temperature’s Rising”, 4-22, L/N
CNDI-TP)

Is global warming real? Yes. The National Academies of Science, an independent research panel created by
Congress, reported last year that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period
in the last 400 years. Evidence shows that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any
other 25-year period since 900. How do we know that? The evidence comes from tree rings, boreholes,
retreating glaciers, corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits and other "proxies" of past surface
temperatures. In central England, there are written temperature records going back to 1659, and they show 2006 as
the warmest year ever in that region. For heaven's sake, baseball games were snowed out this month. How can the
globe be getting warmer? Short spans of time say nothing about global warming. For example, winter
temperatures across the United States were average, but the average temperature across the globe was the highest on
record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Overall, the global mean temperature
has increased about 0.4 degrees F over the past 25 years, and it's projected to rise 3 to 7 degrees F over the next
century. Some areas are warming up faster than others. The arctic surface air temperatures are warming roughly
twice as fast as the global average, according to NOAA. Is this merely a natural cycle or are there human causes?
It's us. The National Academies reported in 2001 that this big warming trend is "a result of human activities." A
U.N. group, the International Panel on Climate Change, came to the same conclusion. Among the other groups that
agree: the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

25
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – DATA PROVES

GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING NOW; THE INDICATORS PROVE THIS.


William NORDHAUS, Sterling Professor of Economics, September 11, 2007, “The Challenge of Global Warming”
http://aida.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/dice_mss_091107_public.pdf

While the exact future pace and extent of warming is highly uncertain –
particularly beyond the next few decades – there can be little scientific doubt
that the world has embarked on a major series of geophysical changes that are
unprecedented for the last few thousand years. Scientists have detected the
early symptoms of this syndrome clearly in several areas: The emissions and
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising, there are signs of
rapidly increasing average surface temperatures, and scientists have detected
diagnostic signals – such as greater high-latitude warming – that are
distinguishing indicators of this particular type of warming. Recent evidence
and model predictions suggest that global mean surface temperature will rise
sharply in the next century and beyond. The Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued in 2007, gives a best
estimate of the global temperature change over the coming century at from 1.8
to 4.0 °C. While this seems like a small change, it is much more rapid than any
changes that have occurred in the past 10,000 years.
Global emissions of CO2 in 2006 are estimated to be around 7½ billion tons
of carbon. It will be helpful to bring this astronomical number down to the level
of the household. Suppose that you drive 10,000 miles a year in a car that gets
28 miles per gallon. Your car will emit about 1 ton of carbon per year. (While
the present study focuses on carbon weight, other studies sometimes discuss
emissions in terms of tons of CO2, which has a weight of 3.67 times the weight
of carbon. In this case, your automobile emissions are about 4 tons of CO2 per
year.)

26
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – TREE RINGS

TREE RINGS ARE AN INDICATOR FOR GLOBAL WARMING. 
COWIE IN 2007
(Jonathan Cowie ­ an environmental scientist by qualification and a science communicator. CLIMATE CHANGE -
Biological arnd Human Aspects. //CNDI – RS)

Dendrochronology was developed early in the twentieth century by, not a biologist but, an astronomer.  Andrew 
Douglass. When he was 27, and working at the Lowell Observatory at F1agstaft Arizona. Doug lass discovered a 
possible relationship between climate and plant growth. He recorded the annual rings of nearby pines and Douglas 
firs   (Pseiulotsiigu   spp.).   In   1911   he   made   corresponding   records   among   trees   felled   around   50   miles   to   the 
south­west of the observatory that prompted his study of sequoias. When  viewing a cross section
   of
    a tree, it
    
became clear in certain species that wide rings were produced during wet years. and narrow rings were produced 
during dry years (Webb. 1983).
Douglass  coined the term dendrochronology. meaning tree­time­study. and  worked on exploring the link between 
tree rings and climate. Between 1919 and 1936 he wrote a three­volumed work. Climate Cycles and Tree Growth. 
Collectively, the methods he pioneered are now invaluable for archaeologists to date prehistoric remains. It was first 
used this way in 1909 when Clark Wissler, of the American Museum of Natural History, put him in touch with the 
Archer M. Huntington Survey of the South­west. In 1918, Wissler (who recognized the value of tree rings for dating 
purposes) arranged for Douglass to receive nine beam sections from Aztec Ruin and Pueblo Bonito so he could 
begin crossdating these two ruins. The final missing link to his studies came from an unstable beam that was 
extracted  from the  Whipple Ruin in  Show Low, Arizona.  That beam bridged the gap between living  tree­ring 
chronology, and the archaeological tree­ring chronology that had been established. The Laboratory of Tree­Ring 
Research,   subsequently   initiated   by  Douglass,   has   the   largest   accumulation   in   any   research   centre   of   tree­ring 
specimens from both living trees and age­old timbers. Trees respond to seasonal and climatic fluctuations through 
their annual growth rings. The thickness of each ring reflects the climate of the principal growing season, primarily 
 the summer, in which it is formed.    The rings are made of xylem. Pith is found at the centre of the tree stem followed
by the xylem, which makes up the majority of the tree's circumference. The outer cambium layer of the tree trunk
keeps the xylem separated from the rough bark. Each spring or summer a new layer of xylem is formed, and so the
rings are produced that may he counted as an annual record. More specifically, a tree ring is a layer of wood cells
produced by a tree in 1 year, consisting of thin-walled cells formed in the early growing season (called earlywood),
and thicker-walled cells that are produced later in the growing season (called latewood). The beginning of early-
wood and the end of latewood forms one annual ring. In dendrochronology. these rings are then counted and their
thickness compared. However, because (as discussed in the previous section) other local factors come into play due
to the tree's site, which determines the nutrients, water and sunlight it receives statistical analysis of a number of
tree-ring samples from the local area is required to discern the local climatic factor. Even so, trees are particularly
useful climatic proxies when they are near their climatic limits of' either rainfall or . summer warmth as then it is
possible to attribute variability in ring thickness with one, or other, of these climatic parameters. Conversely, trees in
the tropics do not exhibit a pronounced annual cycle and so it is not possible to obtain climatic information from
their rings.

27
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – LEAF SHAPES

THE CHANGING SHAPE OF LEAVES PROVE GLOBAL WARMING.


COWIE IN 2007.
(Jonathan Cowie ­ an environmental scientist by qualification and a science communicator. CLIMATE CHANGE -
Biological arnd Human Aspects. //CNDI – RS)

In 1910 two explorers (Irving Bailey and Edmund Sinnott) noticed that the shapes of leaves appeared to relate to the
climate of a given area. The most noticeable trait was that trees that grew in warm areas had large leaves with
smooth edges, while trees that grew in cold places tended to have smaller leaves with very serrated edges (Bailey
and Sinnott. 1916; Ravilious, 2000). This was largely forgotten until the 1970s, when a US researcher. Jack Wolfe,
wondered whether fossilised leaves could reveal something of the climate if they were compared with their modern
counterparts. He collected leaves from all over North America, recording aspects of their shape and relating these to
regional weather records for the previous 30 years. Then, using statistical analysis he was able to compare fossil leaf
assemblages with those of modern leaves and conic up with past average temperature and rainfall values for the
regions and times in which the fossil leaves once grew. For example. he predicted that the temperature in
north-eastern Russia some 90 million years ago was roughly 9 C warmer than it is today (Wolfe. 1995). Other early
work following Bailey and Sinnott. Such as by R. Chaney and E. Sanhorn in 1933. showed that leaf size and apex
shape were also related to climate. Apart from the Wolfe database standard for North America. other databases have
been developed. For instance, in the late 1990s Kate Ravilious worked on developing a similar database for the UK.
These databases can he used in techniques such as leaf margin analysis (LM A) to infer temperature and leaf area
analysis (LAA ) to infer precipitation. LMA relates to the aforementioned changes in leaf shape with temperature,
while LAA relates to changes in leaf area with precipitation level: for instance, plants with access to plenty of water
can afford to lose it through transpiration over a large surface area (which also benefits sunlight capture. but which
is not restricted by sunlight).
More recently still there has been a further twist in leaf morphology as an environmental indicator. At the turn of
the millennium the U K team of Berling. Osborne and Chaloner developed a biophysical model that seemed to
explain why leaves evolved in the first place. For the first 40 million years of their existence land plants were
leafless or had only small, spine-like appendages. It would appear that the advent of megaphylls - leaves with broad
lamina (leaf blades) - evolved from simple, leafless, photosynthetic branching systems in early land plants, to
dissected and eventually laminate leaves. This took some 40 million years. It seems that these transformations might
have been governed by falling concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (some 90%) during the Devonian
period 410-363 million years ago (see Figure 3.1). As noted earlier, atmospheric carbon dioxide has a hearing on
climate so that the Devonian did represent a period of global climate change. (Although if we are to draw, climatic
analogies with the more recent (Quaternary) glacial- interglacial climatic cycles of the past 2 million years, we need
to hear in mind that the Sun's energy output was slightly less at that time than it is today: see Chapter 3). This
episode again demonstrates that climate change can influence evolution.

28
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – POLLEN

POLLEN AND SPORE ACT AS INDICATORS OF GLOBAL WARMING.


COWIE IN 2007.
(Jonathan Cowie ­ an environmental scientist by qualification and a science communicator. CLIMATE CHANGE -
Biological arnd Human Aspects. //CNDI – RS)

Pollen and spores are critical parts of the life cycles of vascular plants. Because different species of plants thrive in
different climatic conditions, it is possible to deduce past climates if one has evidence as to which species grew in
those past times. Pollen and spore utility as palaeoclimatic indicators arises out of their resilience and durability with
time. This is because they have very resistant cell walls, which in turn is due to the outer portion of their cells (the
exine) that is composed of a waxy substance known as sporopollenin. Their cell -wall resistance and inert nature
allows the preservation of pollen and spores in sediments under a variety of conditions. Pollen and spores typically
are the most abundant. most easily identifiable and best preserved plant remains in sediments such as bogs and
clays, as well as in the form of fossils in sedimentary rocks. Together it means that they can be used as a climatic
indicator for both recent and geological timescales.
Spores. as referred to here, include the reproductive bodies of lower vascular plants such as club mosses,
horsetails and ferns. The earliest occurrences of spores produced by land plants in the fossil record are in Lower
Silurian rocks (around 430 million years ago: mya), slightly preceding the appearance of the first vascular plant
fossils. Conversely, pollen grains are the gamete-carrying reproductive bodies of seed plants, including
gymnosperms (such as conifers and cycads) and angiospernis (the flowering plants). Fossilised pollen first occurs in
the Upper Devonian rocks (about 370 mya). corresponding to the occurrence of the earliest fossil seeds
(Arc'lieosc'rnici). Pollen and spore walls of each plant species have a distinctive shape with characteristic apertures
and these can be used to identify the types of plants represented by pollen in a sample from a given site. A
microscope must be used For such identification because pollen and spores are small, typically between 10 and 200
full. First though. pollen and spores must be isolated from sediments and rocks using both chemical and physical
means, before they are mounted on microscope slides for examination and identification. For most geological and
environmental applications of pollen and spore analysis, scientists count and identify grains from each sample using
a microscope and generate pollen diagrams of the relative (per-cent) and absolute abundance of pollen in samples
from a site's stratigraphic sequence (the geological age column): it is not just the presence or absence of a species
used in this form of palaeoclirnatology that is important but their abundance. Typically, the results of spores and
pollen analysis from several species are pulled together to establish a picture of the changing plant ecology, and
hence palaeoclirnate, of a site.

29
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS

ALL TYPES OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THAT THE PROBABILITY OF SUPER CLIMATE
CHANGE IS VERY HIGH AND MORE THAN THE COMMUNITY IS PREPARED FOR.
SCHWARTZ AND RANDALL 03
Peter Schwartz, chair of the Global Business Network, and Doug Randall, co-head of the Global Business
Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security,”
Ocean, land, and atmosphere scientists at some of the world’s most prestigious
organizations have uncovered new evidence over the past decade suggesting that the
plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most of the scientific
community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for. If it occurs,
this phenomenon will disrupt current gradual global warming trends, adding to
climate complexity and lack of predictability. And paleoclimatic evidence suggests
that such an abrupt climate change could begin in the near future.

GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING—EVIDENCE FROM PREVIOUS YEARS AND A SCIENTIFIC


CONSENSUS SHOWS THE PLANET IS HEATING.
Mark A. SAUNDERS, Principal climate physicist at University College London, 1999,
“Earth’s Future Climate”, From Jstor.com

Reliable global temperature records extend back to 1860. These are obtained by combining land temperatures
recorded by weather stations chosen for their reliable observations, with sea surface temperatures estimated by
processing all the avail-able worldwide ship observations (about 60 million since 1860). The observations are then
located within grid squares, say 1? of latitude by 1? of longitude over the Earth's surface. Observations within each
square are averaged; the global average being obtained by averaging (after weighting by area) all the individual
square aver-ages. The uncertainty in global temperature change from 1860 to the present is less than 0.15 ?C (IPCC
1996). Figure 4 shows the change in global mean surface temper-ature from 1860 through to 1998. The temperature
has increased by 0.6-0.7 ?C since the late 19th century, and by 0.4 ?C over the past 25-30 years, the period with
most reliable data. The warming has occurred largely during two periods, between 1910 and 1940, and since the mid
1970s. 1998 was easily the warmest year ever (followed by 1997 and 1995), and 14 of the 15 warmest years on
record have now occurred since 1980. The warming trend has not been uniform; for example, the continents
between 40? N and 70? N in winter and spring have warmed most, and a few areas such as the North Atlantic Ocean
have even cooled. The scientific consensus (e.g. Tett et al. 1999) is that the global warming since 1970 is due
largely to anthropogenic causes.
Various indirect evidence supports the recent warming of global temperature. For example, Alpine glaciers have
lost over 1/3 of their surface area and well over 1/2 of Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A (1999) 3466
Earth 's future climate their volume this century. This retreat is consistent with a warming in Alpine regions of 0.6-
1.0 ?C (IPCC 1996). The observed 10% decrease in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover since 1975 is also
consistent with a warming Earth. Furthermore, the timing of the seasons is changing in a manner consistent with the
effects of global warming. Compared with 15 years ago, spring is arriving more than a week earlier at latitudes
above 45? N (Myeni et al. 1997).

30
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS

THE IPCC AND THE MOST QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS HAVE SHOWN THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS
ANTHROPOGENIC.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Volume 115, Number 4, April 07, “Driven to Extremes:
Health Effects of Climate Change”, From Jstor.com

The 2007 IPCC assessment makes a more emphatic case than its 2001 antecedent that human activities are
responsible for global warming. According to The Physical Science Basis, there is a greater than 90% probability
that emis- sions of human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are responsi- ble for
accelerating natural warming trends.
Today's atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of nearly 380 ppm has risen from about 280 ppm in 1750-
around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution- and 315 ppm just since 1958, according to the Mauna Loa
Carbon Dioxide lRecord at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. During the twentieth century, the Earth's average
surface temperature rose about 0.60C. The Physical Science Basis forecasts a much faster rise in global
temperature- a likely range of 1.7-4.4 C-by the end of the twenty-first century if carbon dioxide concentrations
reach twice the atmospher- ic levels of the present day. Many climatol- ogists believe this doubling of carbon diox-
ide could occur sometime after 2050 if burning of fossil fuels is not significantly reduced.
In compiling The Physical Science Basis, the members of Working Group I analyzed research from around the
world and used supercomputer simulations to test how the planet is responding and will continue to respond to
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. "We are committed to a certain amount of climate change
[because of past actions]," says Gerald A. Meehl, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Meehl assessed results produced by 16 computer- modeling teams using 23 different models in producing the
chapter of The Physical Science Basis on climate projections. Carbon dioxide from human activities- from coal-
fired power plants and vehicle tailpipes, for example-lingers in the atmosphere for decades after it's put there
before it eventually is absorbed by oceans and, to a lesser extent, plant life, particularly in forests.

31
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS

THE CONSENSUS IS DOMINANT --EVEN MAINSTREAM SKEPTICS ONLY QUESTION THE


MAGNITUDE OF THE IMPACTS.
LE PAGE IN 2007
(Michael, New Scientist, “Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change”, 5-16,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654)

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends
on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter
urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol. This appears to be
the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying
climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired. Compare that with the dozens of statements
on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of
scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition
condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science. The fact is that there is an overwhelming
consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the
number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing. Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic,
Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future
warming will not be nearly as great as most predict. Of course, just because most scientists think something is true
does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and
growing body of evidence.

32
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – SCIENTISTS

CONSENSUS IS UN-CHALLENGEABLE ---- OVER 900 STUDIES UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRM


WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED
ORESKES IN 2004 (Naomi, Prof. History and Science Studies @ UC San Diego, Science, “BEYOND THE
IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, Vol. 309, No. 5702, December
3,http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly
uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while
discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman
argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations
whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2).
Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality
of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed
policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states
unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are
modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last
50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In
recent years,
all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter
have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing
surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair
summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on
this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years
concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and
statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions
of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928
abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts,
mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current
anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional
societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate
scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

33
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: BIAS

THE PLANET IS GETTING WARMER-TONS OF EVIDENCE AND NO BIASES.


OPPENHEIMER IN 2007 (Michael, Prof. Geosciences and Int’l Affairs @ Princeton, CQ Congressional
Testimony, “Global Climate Change”, 3-7, CNDI-TP)
Question 1: Are global temperatures increasing? The Fourth Assessment uses unusually definitive language in
stating, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level". It is
noteworthy that evidence for a pervasive global warming since the mid-19th century comes not only from surface
temperature measurements but also from temperatures inferred from measurements aloft, temperatures at and
beneath the ocean surface, and temperature trends on six of the seven continents (excluding Antarctica).
Furthermore, IPCC points to the broad response of the Earth system as a whole as evidence of the warming, most
particularly the decline of snow and ice cover including the shrinkage of glaciers, and global sea level rise of 5 to 9
inches over the 20th century. (To put the rate of sea level rise in perspective, I would like to point to estimates that
along typical sandy stretches of the US east coast, a one-foot sea level rise leads to about 100 feet of land loss by
erosion and submergence [1]). Most striking is the finding that rates of warming and sea level rise have both
accelerated. The warming trend over the last 50 years, about a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit per decade, is nearly
twice that for the last 100 years. Furthermore, the report notes, "There is high confidence that the rate of observed
sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century". The rate of rise from 1993 to 2003 is about 70% greater
than that from 1961 to 2003, although there is uncertainty over whether the rapid rate of rise will persist, decrease,
or increase. Another striking finding is that, unexpectedly, the major ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica
(particularly the West Antarctic ice sheet) are both shrinking. The report notes that losses from the ice sheets of
Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (about 15% of the total sea
level rise observed over that period, but with a large uncertainty). More recent research than that included in the
IPCC report suggests the rate of ice sheet loss has continued to accelerate [2]. It is particularly noteworthy that the
report firmly dispensed with some earlier assertions which have sometimes been misused in the public debate on
global warming. Among these were the attribution of the global warming trend to the heat island effect; an apparent
discrepancy between temperatures inferred from balloon-borne and satellite measurements of the lower- and mid-
troposphere and the surface temperature record; doubts that water vapor, a key amplifier of warming, is indeed
building up in the atmosphere; and the notion that the rate of sea level rise has been constant for many centuries.
To summarize in my own words: Global temperatures are certainly increasing, the warming and associated sea level
rise have accelerated, and a pervasive global climate change is well underway.

34
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: NEG SCIENTISTS

NEG SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN PAID OFF IN ORDER TO LIE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING’S
SERIOUSNESS.
Susan WEBB, writer for People’s Weekly World, February 10-February 16 2007, “Exxon, Bush fiddle while planet
burns”, From Proquest.com

Meanwhile, on Feb. 1 the world's largest oil corporation, Exxon Mobil, announced the largest profits ever earned by
a U.S. company - $40 billion in 2006. A day later, the UK Guardian reported that the Exxon-funded Bush-
connected American Enterprise Institute sent letters to scientists and economists offering them $10,000 each
to write articles that undermine the UN-sponsored report.

These are "desperate and hopeless efforts to try to debunk the broad and overwhelming scientific consensus,"
said Glen Brand, director of the Sierra Club "Cool Cities" campaign. He noted that Exxon has a "long history of
funding junk science to confuse the public regarding the reality of global warming and its solutions."

35
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING REAL – AT: DENIERS

DENIERS OF GLOBAL WARMING NEED TO FACE THE FACTS. THE POINT OF NO RETURN IS
COMING FAST, PROJECTIONS ARE WITHIN THE NEXT-DECADE.
PEARCE IN 2008 (Fred, author of “The Last Generation” and writer for “The Guardian. The Guardian
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4076376226&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=51&resultsUrlKey=29_T4076376229&cisb=22_T4076376228&t
reeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138620&docNo=51 . “Saturday: Comment & Debate: Climate of suspicion:
Global warming is a fact whatever its deniers encouraged by a cool year have to say.” CNDI-TP)

The deniers of global warming are about to latch on to a new argument. The world is cooling. And they are right -
well, slightly.
Globally, this year is likely to be the coolest for some time - back to the average of the early 90s, according to some
unpublished forecasts. This is no refutation of man-made global warming. It is the inevitable consequence of one of
nature's climatic cycles. The La Nina, the cold phase of the El Nino cycle in the Pacific, has sent average global temperatures plunging this
year. And there is more. Longer term climate cycles that play out over a decade or so will also be working to cool us in
the coming decade. In particular, changes in the currents of the north Atlantic - which have caused Europe to warm
more than anywhere else in the past decade and helped melt all that Arctic ice - are about to go into reverse.
A Germany study published earlier this month predicts the world will cool over the coming decade. British climate modellers at the Met Office
don't go so far. They think nature's cooling will be more than counterbalanced by the warming effect of man-made carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
But nobody is sure. In any case, we can expect the deniers to make the most of this opportunity to pour cold water on the whole climate change
narrative. No year has yet been hotter than 1998, they will say. True: it was a huge El Nino year. Now we are on the way back down, they will
say. Nonsense. The underlying trend remains upwards; and as every decade passes, natural cycles can do less and less to counter the growing
human influence on temperature.
By late next decade, natural warming will once again combine with man-made warming to push temperature rise
into overdrive. The surge that we saw through the 1980s and 1990s will resume with a vengeance. That could be the
moment that climate change passes a point of no return, when ice sheets start to collapse and parched rainforests and
soils dump their carbon into the air, accelerating warming.
Now, a sceptic might say that if the modellers are only just learning about the importance of natural cycles to climate forecasts, why should we
believe their predictions at all? Fair point. In their desire to persuade us about the big picture of global warming, scientists have sometimes got
cocky about colouring in the detail.
Recently I attended a conference in Reading where some of the world's top experts discussed their failings. How their much-vaunted models of
the world's climate system can't reproduce El Ninos, or the "blocking highs" that bring heatwaves to Europe - or even the ice ages. How their
statistical mimics of tropical climate are "laughable", in the words of the official report.
This sudden humility was not unconnected with their end-of-conference call for the world to spend a billion dollars on a global centre for climate
modelling. A "Manhattan project for the 21st century", as someone put it.
Even so, scientists are concerned that many of their predictions about how climate change will play out in different
parts of the world are little better than guesses. But whatever the local wrinkles and whatever natural cycles may
intervene, man-made global warming is real, current and matters a great deal.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years
ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly
for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the
greenhouse gases, stupid.

36
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

_____________

****WARMING BAD****

37
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – LAUNDRY LIST

THE IMPACTS OF A DROP OF CARRYING CAPACITY ARE ALMOST ENDLESS AND ARE
DEVASTATING.
SCHWARTZ AND RANDALL 03
Peter Schwartz, chair of the Global Business Network, and Doug Randall, co-head of the Global Business
Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security,”

The two most likely reactions to a sudden drop in carrying capacity due to climate
change are defensive and offensive. The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around
their countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve self-sufficiency. With diverse growing
climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the United States could likely survive shortened growing
cycles and harsh weather conditions without catastrophic losses. Borders will be strengthened around the country to
hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and
South America. Energy supply will beshored up through expensive (economically, politically, and morally)
alternatives such as nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and Middle Eastern contracts. Pesky skirmishes over fishing
rights, agricultural support, and disaster relief will be commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as
the U.S. reneges on the 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will be
commissioned to respond to flooding along the southern part of the east coast and much drier conditions inland. Yet,
even in this continuous state of emergency the U.S. will be positioned well compared to others. The intractable
problem facing the nation will be calming the mounting military tension around the world. As famine, disease, and
weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate change, many countries’ needs will exceed their carrying
capacity. This will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim
balance. Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food,
water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and
energy supply. Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water
supply, eying Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants and
energy-intensive agricultural processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China – all armed with nuclear weapons –
skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and Portuguese
fishermen might fight over fishing rights – leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States
would be likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can expect
conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the
Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs through seven.In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience.
The United States and Canada may become one, simplifying border controls. Or, Canada might keep its hydropower
—causing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea may align to create one technically savvy and
nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a unified block – curbing immigration problems between European nations
– and allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its abundant minerals, oil, and natural gas may join
Europe. In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. As cooling drives up demand,
existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity of energy supply – and a growing need for access --
nuclear energy will become a critical source of power, and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries
develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security. China, India, Pakistan, Japan,
South Korea, Great Britain, France, and Germany will all have nuclear weapons capability, as will Israel, Iran,
Egypt, and North Korea. Managing the military and political tension, occasional skirmishes, and threat of war
will be a challenge. Countries such as Japan, that have a great deal of social cohesion (meaning the government is
able to effectively engage its population in changing behavior) are most likely to fair well. Countries whose
diversity already produces conflict, such as India, South Africa and Indonesia, will have trouble maintaining
order. Adaptability and access to resources will be key. Perhaps the most frustrating challenge abrupt climate change
will pose is that we’ll never know how far we are into the climate change scenario and how many more years – 10,
100, 1000 --- remain before some kind of return to warmer conditions as the thermohaline circulation starts up
again. When carrying capacity drops suddenly, civilization is faced with new challenges that today seem
unimaginable.

38
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – LAUNDRY LIST

GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO SEVERE IMPACTS, CAUSING EXTREME CLIMACTIC


CHANGES AND DRASTIC EFFECTS ON HUMAN CIVILIZATION.
George OCHENSKI, writer for the Missoula Independent, June 7-June 14 2007, “Confusing the issues” From
Proquest.com

The news, as is becoming more apparent every day, Ls not good. For one thing, entire sections of the polar regions
are warming at the unexpected rate of two to three times faster than the global average. The Greenland Ice
Sheet, which is the world's second largest ice mass, used to be nearly a mile thick over its 660,234square-mile area.
After setting new records for melting in 2002, ice is now melting faster than winter snows can replace it. Plus,
winter temperatures, as in Montana, have been considerably warmer than long-term averages, with
consequently reduced snowfall.

If the ice mass melts, which it is likely to do since the loss of shiny white ice and snow means less heat reflected
back into space, world ocean levels are projected to rise by 23 feet in this century. But even a much smaller rise
in ocean levels would submerge heavily populated coastlines, displacing hundreds of millions, if not billions,
of people. Plus, the influx of that much water will likely alter global ocean currents, significantly changing their
effect on nearby land masses, precipitation patterns, major rivers, commercial fishing operations and atmospheric
conditions, spawning more of the severe typhoons, tornadoes and hurricanes already wracking coastal regions of the
world.

39
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – OUTWEIGHS NUKE WAR

THE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE ON PAR WITH NUCLEAR WAR.
Jeremy LOVELL, writer for Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, Issue 924, September 13, 2007, “Global
Warming Impact like ‘Nuclear War’: Report”, From Proquest.com
Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is
taken, a report said on Wednesday. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) security think-tank said global warming would
hit crop yields and water availability everywhere, causing great human suffering and leading to regional
strife. While everyone had now started to recognize the threat posed by climate change, no one was taking effective leadership to tackle it and
no one could tell precisely when and where it would hit hardest, it added. "The most recent international moves towards combating global
warming represent a recognition... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -
on the level of nuclear war," the IISS report said. "Even if the international community succeeds in adopting comprehensive and effective
measures to mitigate climate change, there will still be unavoidable impacts from global warming on the environment, economies and human
security," it added. Scientists say global average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this
century due to burning fossil fuels for power and transport. The IISS report said the effects would cause a host of
problems including rising sea levels, forced migration, freak storms, droughts, floods, extinctions, wildfires, disease
epidemics, crop failures and famines. The impact was already being felt - particularly in conflicts in Kenya and Sudan - and more was
expected in places from Asia to Latin America as dwindling resources led to competition between haves and have nots. "We can all see that
climate change is a threat to global security, and you can judge some of the more obvious causes and areas," said IISS transnational
threat specialist Nigel Inkster. "What is much harder to do is see how to cope with them." The report, an annual survey of the impact of world
events on global security, said conflicts and state collapses due to climate change would reduce the world's ability to tackle the causes and to
reduce the effects of global warming. State failures would increase the gap between rich and poor and heighten racial
and ethnic tensions which in turn would produce fertile breeding grounds for more conflict.Urban areas would not
be exempt from the fallout as falling crop yields due to reduced water and rising temperatures would push food prices higher, IISS said. Overall,
it said 65 countries were likely to lose over 15 percent of their agricultural output by 2100 at a time when the world's
population was expected to head from six billion now to nine billion people. "Fundamental environmental issues of food,
water and energy security ultimately lie behind many present security concerns, and climate change will magnify all three," it added.

40
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – FAMINE

GLOBAL WARMING WILL SWITCH THE CLIMATES, CAUSING EXTREME WEATHER PATTERNS,
ALTERING FOOD PRODUCTION, AND INCREASING THE RISK OF FAMINE.
HOMER-DIXON (Peace & Conflict Studies Prog., Toronto) ‘93
[Thomas, Environmental Scarcity and Global Security, p. 35-36]

Greenhouse warming and climate change may also affect agricultural production, although this is a contentious
issue. Coastal cropland in countries such as Bangladesh, Egypt, and China is very vulnerable to ocean surges caused
by big storms. Such events could become more common and devastating because global warming will cause sea
levels to rise and could intensify hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons. The greenhouse effect will also change rainfall
patterns and soil moisture; while this may benefit some agricultural regions, others will suffer, especially in poor
countries. The World Resources Institute contends that “the impacts on agriculture could be double-edged; by
altering production in the main food-producing areas, climate change could weaken our ability to manage food
crises, and by making growing conditions worse in food-deficit nations, it could increase the risk of famine.”
Countries at special risk from climate change will be those—such as the nations of Sahel in Africa—with an
imbalance between population and food-growing ability and with little money to fund changes in their agricultural
systems. As some areas become too dry to grow food, others, formerly dry, will suddenly have enough water; poor
countries will not be able to afford the new dams, wells, irrigation systems, roads and storage silos that they need in
order to adjust.

WHILE PLANTS MAY GROW FASTER AND LARGER IN A RICH CARBON-DIOXIDE


ENVIRONMENT, THE PLANTS HAVE BEEN TESTED ONLY IN THE LABORATORY’S “PERFECT”
SCENARIO, NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNTS OF NUTRIENTS, WATER, AND OTHER
IMPORTANT FACTORS.
HOMER-DIXON (Peace & Conflict Studies Prog., Toronto) ‘93
[Thomas, Environmental Scarcity and Global Security, p. 35-36]

Many plants grow faster and larger in a warm environment rich in carbon dioxide, and they often use water
more efficiently. But optimistic estimates of increased crop yields have been based on laboratory experiments under
ideal growing conditions, including ideal amounts of soil nutrients and water. In addition, these estimates have
ignored the influence on yields of more-frequent extreme climate events (especially droughts and heat waves) ,
increased insect infestation and the decreased nutritional quality of crops grown in a carbon-dioxide-enriched
atmosphere.

41
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – FAMINE

THERE WILL BE FEWER RESOURCES, SUCH AS WATER AND FOOD SUPPLIES, MEANING
SOCIETY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ADAPT ONCE WARMING OCCURS.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”
Weather-related events have an enormous impact on society, as they influence food supply, conditions in cities and
communities, as well as access to clean water and energy. For example, a recent report by the Climate Action
Network of Australia projects that climate change is likely to reduce rainfall in the rangelands, which could lead to a
15 per cent drop in grass productivity. This, in turn, could lead to reductions in the average weight of cattle by 12 per
cent, significantly reducing beef supply. Under such conditions, dairy cows are projected to produce 30% less milk,
and new pests are likely to spread in fruit-growing areas. Additionally, such conditions are projected to lead to 10%
less water for drinking. Based on model projections of coming change conditions such as these could occur in
several food producing regions around the world at the same time within the next 15-30years, challenging the notion
that society’s ability to adapt will make climate change manageable.

42
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – FAILED STATES

GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE AREAS OF THE WORLD TO FALL INTO CHAOS WITHOUT LAW 
AND ORDER.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.
1. Possible increase in the number of weak and fragile states as a result of climate change:
Weak and fragile states have inadequate capacities to guarantee the core functions of the
state, notably the state’s monopoly on the use of force, and therefore already pose a major
challenge for the international community. So far, however, the international community has
failed to summon the political will or provide the necessary financial resources to support
the long-term stabilization of these countries. Moreover, the impacts of unabated climate
change would hit these countries especially hard, further limiting and eventually
overstretching their problem-solving capacities. Conflict constellations may also be mutually
reinforcing, e.g. if they extend beyond the directly affected region through environmental
migration and thus destabilize other neighbouring states. This could ultimately lead to the
emergence of “failing subregions” consisting of several simultaneously overstretched states,
creating “black holes” in world politics that are characterized by the collapse of law and
public order, i.e. the pillars of security and stability. It is uncertain at present whether,
against the backdrop of more intensive climate impacts, the international community would
be able to curb this erosion process effectively.

43
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – FAILED STATES

IF GLOBAL WARMING OCCURS THEN THERE WILL BE NO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM TO


MITIGATE THE MASS DESTABILIZATION OF COUNTRIES, MEANING ONLY MORE CHAOS WILL
OCCUR.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

The greater the scale of climate change, the greater the probability that in the coming
decades, climate induced conflict constellations will impact not only on individual countries
or subregions but also on the global governance system as a whole. These new global risk
potentials can only be countered by policies that aim to manage global change. Every one of
the six threats to international stability and security, outlined above, is itself hard to
manage. The inter action between these threats intensifies the challenges for international
politics. It is almost inconceivable that in the coming years, a global governance system
could emerge with the capacity to respond effectively to the conflict constellations identified
by WBGU. Against the backdrop of globalization, unabated climate change is likely to
overstretch the capacities of a still insufficient global governance system.

44
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – TERRORISM

GLOBAL WARMING LEADS TO TERRORISM. THE US IS AT RISK.


HESS IN 2008 (Pamela. Associated Press Writer for International News. June 25, 2008.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4075295712&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4075287509&cisb=22_T4075295716&tree
Max=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138211&docNo=11. “US report says global warming could have indirect but wide-
ranging national security impact” CNDI-TP)

The Center for Naval Analyses report, written by top retired military leaders, drew a direct correlation between
global warming and the conditions that lead to failed states becoming the breeding grounds for extremism and
terrorism.
"Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror," stated Adm. T. Joseph Lopez, who
commanded U.S. and allied peacekeeping forces in Bosnia in 1996.
"Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal
conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the previous report
said. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations,"

45
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – (GLOBAL) ECONOMY

GLOBAL WARMING WILL DEVASTATE THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.


GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

Climate change alters the conditions for regional production processes and supply
infrastructures, e.g. by causing regional water scarcity or variability in water availability
(Section 6.2), drought and declining soil productivity (Section 6.3), or storms and flooding of
coastal locations and infrastructures (Section 6.4). These climate impacts force companies to
relocate, either spontaneously or at best on a planned basis, and lead to the closure of
production sites. People abandon their home regions in coastal or arid regions because
under the changed climatic conditions, they no longer have adequate employment and
income generation opportunities, or perhaps even because their previous living and working
environment has become hostile to life (Section 6.5).

Climate change thus leads to the destruction and devaluation of economic capital as well as
the loss of skilled and productive workers through environmentally induced migration and an
increase in climate- induced diseases and malnutrition. Furthermore, economic resources
which would normally be channelled directly into the production process instead have to be
spent on adaptation measures, e.g. preparing for extreme events, or on reconstruction or
the delivery of additional health services. The impairment of international trade routes as a
result of changed climatic conditions may also mean that the benefits and growth stimuli
resulting from the ongoing international division of labour are capitalized on to a lesser
extent.

The impacts outlined above contribute – each according to their form and intensity – to a
slowing of economic growth processes and/or the stagnation of or even a drop in the
affected countries’ gross domestic product (GDP). These negative economic impacts may
initially be offset in some regions by the limited economic benefits of changed climatic
conditions, such as more moderate temperatures and increased precipitation, which could
prove advantageous for some sectors of agriculture, for example. Technological innovations
could also reduce the economic pressure of adaptation and stimulate growth. From a global
perspective, however, these regionally limited effects will not compensate for the overall
negative trend. Rather, the drops in growth and prosperity are likely to be very substantial if
climate change continues unabated and causes greatly intensified climate impacts.

46
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ECONOMY

GLOBAL WARMING’S IMPACTS WILL PREVENT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY FROM GROWING.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

2. Risks for global economic development: Climate change will alter the conditions for
regional production processes and supply infrastructures. Regional water scarcity will
impede the development of irrigated agriculture and other water intensive sectors. Drought
and soil degradation will result in a drop in agricultural yields. More frequent extreme events
such as storms and flooding put industrial sites and the transport, supply and production
infrastructures in coastal regions at risk, forcing companies to relocate or close production
sites. Depending on the type and intensity of the climate impacts, this could have a
significant and adverse effect on the global economy. Unabated climate change is likely to
result in substantially reduced rates of growth. This will increasingly limit the economic
scope, at national and international level, to address the urgent challenges associated with
the Millennium Development Goals.

47
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ECONOMY

GLOBAL   WARMING   WILL   COST   THE   US   HUGE   FINANCIAL   COSTS—SEVERELY   DAMAGING 


THE ECONOMY.
Som Nath TIWARI, Doctor, 2007, New Delhi, Global Warming and its Effects on Environment

Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re,  warned in a 2002 
study that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion 
each year in the next decade. These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden 
customers, tax payers, and industry alike. According to the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could 
avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. According to Choi and Fisher each 1% 
increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%.
The United Nations' Environmental Programme recently announced that severe weather around the world has made 
2005 the most costly year on record, although there is "no way to prove that either was, or was not, affected by global 
warming". Preliminary estimates presented by the German insurance foundation Munich Re put the economic losses 
at more than US$200 billion, with insured losses running at more than US$70 billion.

48
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ECONOMY

THE U.S. AGRICULTURE MARKET WILL EXPERIENCE A DOWNFALL IF GLOBAL WARMING


OCCURS.
Som Nath TIWARI, Doctor, 2007, New Delhi, Global Warming and its Effects on Environment

Many studies have examined the likely impacts of climate change on agriculture both in the United States and 
abroad over the last couple of decades. While we focus on the impacts on U.S. agriculture resources, it is important 
to   note   that   the   global   situation   appears   to   be   much   less   reassuring.   Developing   countries   are   likely   to   have 
considerably more difficulty adapting to climate change due to many factors, such as less developed technology and 
less available capital. In addition, global climate change will clearly impact U.S. agriculture exports, imports and 
market prices.

49
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – DIARRHEA

WARMING CAUSES DEATH BY DIARREAH


GLOBAL NEWS WIRE, Chinadaily.com.cn, April 7, 2007, “Cost of Climate Change”
A better picture of the impact of climate change is gradually appearing. Scientists warned that major climate
disruptions will happen in the coming decades, with glaciers melting, the Arctic ice cap shrinking, the oceans
heating up and sea levels rising.

There is wide agreement now that the impacts will be diverse, with winners and losers. Some effects may be
positive in some regions, such as in parts of North America and northern Europe as a result of longer growing
seasons and milder winters.
For the majority of people, however, the consequences of climate change will be negative. For some regions,
they could be disastrous.
Climate change poses risks to all of us, but by far the largest risks to poor countries. Within 25 years, hunger
and death from diarrhea will threaten poor countries where crops fail and water becomes increasingly
scarce.

The IPCC document is supposed to serve as a guideline for governments to shape policies.
Action is needed to mitigate the worst impacts of global warming, such as water shortages for billions of people
or the extinction of almost half of Amazonian tree species.
The details of the localized effects of global warming are not yet available. But scientists have predicted with
certainty that man-made global warming over the past three decades has had a discernible influence on many
physical and biological systems. The effects of this situation may be catastrophic and irreversible.

The impacts of global warming threaten nearly every aspect of society. Many physical effects, such as rising
sea levels, effects on agriculture and forests, and impacts on human health, will translate into huge economic
costs. The loss of life, the extinction of species, the destruction of ecosystems and numerous other effects will
place additional burdens on our and our children's quality of life.

We need a sense of urgency as well as recognition of the long-term nature of both the climate change and its
ultimate solutions.

50
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – DISEASE

GLOBAL WARMING’S EFFECTS INCLUDE THE SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES.


ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Volume 115, Number 4, April 07, “Driven to Extremes:
Health Effects of Climate Change”, From Jstor.com

In many regions, it is already raining less often but harder. According to The Physical Science Basis, trends
from 1900 to 2005 show significantly increased precipi- tation in many regions, including eastern parts of North and
South America. More intense and longer droughts have occurred over wider areas worldwide since the 1970s,
especially in the tropics and sub- tropics. Sea surfaces have become warmer, and wind patterns have changed. There
is also more evaporation from the ocean. These processes alter precipitation patterns on land, bringing more
moisture to some areas and diminishing it in others. A long drought followed by an intense downpour is a recipe
for multiple disease outbreaks, says Paul R. Epstein, a physi- cian and associate director of the Center for Health
and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Epstein is a reviewer for the forthcoming IPCC Working
Group II report.
During droughts, water availability is diminished, and water quality is often degraded, for example as people
share water with livestock. Then heavy down- pours can cause sewers to overflow, and rain runoff washes
microbes off farms, lawns, and streets into drinking water supplies. A number of studies have shown a
correlation between heavy downpours and outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as cryptosporidiosis,
giardiasis, and cyclo- sporidiosis, according to Climate Change Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic
Dimensions, a November 2005 report that Epstein co-edited. A drought followed by flooding also encourages
rodent and rodent-borne dis- ease outbreaks as rodent populations boom in the wake of replenished water
supplies. Rising temperatures and extreme weather could also affect the breeding and spread of ticks that carry
Lyme disease, according to Climate Change Futures. Perhaps most widely documented is the association
between intense flooding and explosion of mosquito populations, creating outbreaks of mosquito-borne
diseases in humans.

51
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – DISEASE – MOSQUITO

GLOBAL WARMING’S EFFECTS ARE CONDUCIVE TO MOSQUITO-BORNE DISEASES.


ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Volume 115, Number 4, April 07, “Driven to Extremes:
Health Effects of Climate Change”, From Jstor.com
Mosquitoes and the diseases they carry--including malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus, and West Nile virus-
are especially sensitive to temperature changes and land elevation. In highland regions in Africa, Central and
South America, and Asia, glaciers are retreating, plant communities are migrating upward, and mosquitoes and
mosquito- borne diseases are being found at higher elevations, says Epstein. "In the moun- tains," he says, "we
have a very clear picture: conditions conducive to the circulation of infectious diseases such as malaria in the
mountains are changing." Warmer winters and spring droughts appear to amplify the spread of West Nile
virus, which infects humans, horses, and birds. According to Climate Change Futures, warm temperatures
accompanying droughts accelerate the matu- ration of viruses, including West Nile virus, within the mosquito
Culex pipiens. When water sites shrink, mosquitoes and infected birds become con- centrated in the same places,
and this enhances the transmis- sion of the virus. In North America, there have been more than 17,000 human
cases and more than 650 deaths from West Nile virus, according to World Health Report 2002, issued by the
WHO. The disease was unknown in North America until the summer of 1999.

52
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – DISEASE – MALARIA

GLOBAL WARMING WILL INCREASE THE PREVALENCE OF DEADLY DISEASES SUCH AS


MALARIA.
Som Nath TIWARI, Doctor, 2007, New Delhi, Global Warming and its Effects on Environment

Global warming is unlikely to reduce either of these situations. Finally, deaths due to the heat are more sensitive to 
temperature changes than deaths due to the cold; the difference between ­20°F and ­15°F. for example, has a much 
smaller impact than an increase from 95°F to 100°F. Global warming may also increase the risk of some infectious 
diseases, particularly those diseases that only appear in warm areas.

Diseases that are spread by mosquitoes and other insects could become more prevalent if warmer temperatures 
 enabled those insects to become established farther north such "vector borne" diseases include malaria, dengue fever,
    
yellow   fever,   and   encephalitis.   Some   scientists   believe   that   algal   blooms   could   occur   more   frequently   as 
 temperatures warm ­  particularly in areas with polluted waters ­  in which case diseases such a cholera that tend to  
accompany algal blooms could become more frequent. In spite of these risks, increased mortality is not an inevitable 
consequence of global warming.

53
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ENVIRONMENT

GLOBAL WARMING WITH ONLY MINOR INCREASES WILL LEAD TO DEVASTATING IMPACTS
SUCH AS SEVERE WEATHER IMPACTS AND RUNAWAY WARMING.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”

As temperatures rise throughout the 20th century and into the early 2000s potent positive feedback loops kick-in,
accelerating the warming from .2 degrees Fahrenheit, to .4 and eventually .5 degrees Fahrenheit per year in some
locations. As the surface warms, the hydrologic cycle (evaporation, precipitation, and runoff) accelerates causing
temperatures to rise even higher. Water vapor, the most powerful natural greenhouse gas, traps additional heat and
brings average surface air temperatures up. As evaporation increases, higher surface air temperatures cause drying in
forests and grasslands, where animals graze and farmers grow grain. As trees die and burn, forests absorb less
carbon dioxide, again leading to higher surface air temperatures as well as fierce and uncontrollable forest fires
Further, warmer temperatures melt snow cover in mountains, open fields, high-latitude tundra areas, and permafrost
throughout forests in cold-weather areas. With the ground absorbing more and reflecting less of the sun’s rays,
temperatures increase even higher.
By 2005 the climatic impact of the shift is felt more intensely in certain regions around the world. More severe
storms and typhoons bring about higher storm surges and floods in low-lying islands such as Tarawa and Tuvalu
(near New Zealand). In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the
Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable. Failures of the delta island levees in the
Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system
transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area
during the dry season. Melting along the Himalayan glaciers accelerates, causing some Tibetan people to relocate.
Floating ice in the northern polar seas, which had already lost 40% of its mass from 1970 to 2003, is mostly gone
during summer by 2010. As glacial ice melts, sea levels rise and as wintertime sea extent decreases, ocean waves
increase in intensity, damaging coastal cities. Additionally millions of people are put at risk of flooding around the
globe (roughly 4 times 2003 levels), and fisheries are disrupted as water temperature changes cause fish to migrate
to new locations and habitats, increasing tensions over fishing rights.
Each of these local disasters caused by severe weather impacts surrounding areas whose natural, human, and
economic resources are tapped to aid in recovery. The positive feedback loops and acceleration of the warming
pattern begin to trigger responses that weren’t previously imagined, as natural disasters and stormy weather occur in
both developed and lesser-developed nations. Their impacts are greatest in less-resilient developing nations, which
do not have the capacity built into their social, economic, and agricultural systems to absorb change.
As melting of the Greenland ice sheet exceeds the annual snowfall, and there is increasing freshwater runoff from
high latitude precipitation, the freshening of waters in the North Atlantic Ocean and the seas between Greenland and
Europe increases. The lower densities of these freshened waters in turn pave the way for a sharp slowing of the
thermohaline circulation system.

54
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ENVIRONMENT

GLOBAL WARMING HAS THE POTENTIAL TO WREAK MASSIVE HAVOC ON EARTH IN


MULTIPLE DECIMATING WAYS.
Som Nath TIWARI, Doctor, 2007, New Delhi, Global Warming and its Effects on Environment

Of the innumerable challenges confronting humanity today, the most daunting yet may prove to be that of global
warming. The consequences of human activities have evolved in unprecedented ways; and global warming is the
deadliest manifestation of these activities till date.  

Global warming is the consequent increase in the global mean temperature, due to enhanced greenhouse effect. But
the definition of this term does not end here. It comes with a baggage of destructive potential, and the menace
threatens to unleash havoc on the environment on a magnanimous scale.

Unpredicted floods in Europe, and unheard of temperature fluctuations all over the world are just the tip of the 
iceberg of the problem. The frequency of extreme events like draughts is likely to increase substantially in the 
coming years and rising sea levels hover dangerously on the brink of swallowing up whole islands. Climate change 
would bring forth a whole new range of disease vectors, and pose further harm to mankind. Nor is the risk limited to 
humans alone. Wildlife species sensitive to temperature stress may soon be extinct and the world food supply may 
 decline alarmingly due to a whole host of increased agricultural problems.   

55
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – SPECIES LOSS

GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTS MIGRATION IN ANIMALS


Eban GOODSTEIN August 31, 2007
(Author and a Professor of Economics at Lewis and Clark College in Portland Oregon; “Fighting for Love In the
Century of Extinction” Pgs. 9-13 University Press of New England)
Over hundred-thousand-year ice-age cycles, in the past the planet has experienced swings in temperature
greater than 10 degrees. Most species accommodated these gradual changes, migrating in the face of slowly
advancing and retreating ice sheets. But today, the speed of global heating is dramatic. Even when north- ward
migration of the ecosystems in which species function is possible, many systems will not be able to move that
fast. And of course today, with many species only surviving in isolated pockets of habitat, fragmented by roads,
fences, and human development, migration routes often do not exist.

CUTTING DOWN TREES RELEASES CO2 SPURING MORE GLOBAL WARMING AND KILLS
SPECIES
Eban GOODSTEIN August 31, 2007
(Author and a Professor of Economics at Lewis and Clark College in Portland Oregon; “Fighting for Love In the
Century of Extinction” Pgs. 9-13 University Press of New England)
If the climate must be stabilized to halt the direct destruction of species and ecosystems, stopping global
heating is also our only real hope for a comprehensive solution to the other major global extinction driver:
habitat destruction by humans, especially of ancient forests. Forests are home to the vast majority of the
world's land-dwelling species; tropical forests alone account for more than half of these animals, plants, and
insects. Rainforests hold special value: Although they cover only 6 percent of the world's landmass, they host
more than half of the planet's known organisms. Forests also store massive amounts of carbon in their trees and
soils. Preserving those forests will be key to preventing a devastating pulse of global-heating pollution from
entering the atmosphere. Stopping global heating will thus require a global effort to prevent deforestation.

56
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ICE AGE

THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING COULD BE ABRUPT COOLING A.K.A AN ICE AGE.
CALVIN IN ‘98
(William Calvin, Theoretical Neuropsyiologist At The Univ Of Washington At Seattle, "The Great Climate Flip-
Flop,” The Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No1 //CNDI – RS)
For a quarter century global-warming theorists have predicted that climate creep is going to occur and that we need
to prevent greenhouse gases from warming things up, thereby raising the sea level, destroying habitats, intensifying
storms, and forcing agricultural rearrangements. Now we know -- and from an entirely different group of scientists
exploring separate lines of reasoning and data -- that the most catastrophic result of global warming could be an
abrupt cooling.

THE EVIDENCE IN ICE CORES OF A CLIMATE FLIP HAVE BEEN DETECTED WORLD-WIDE AND
COULD INTERRUPT THE CURRENT WARMING PERIOD WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW.
CALVIN IN ‘98
(William Calvin, Theoretical Neuropsyiologist At The Univ Of Washington At Seattle, "The Great Climate Flip-
Flop,” The Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No1 //CNDI – RS)

In 1984, when I first heard about the startling news from the ice cores, the implications were unclear -- there seemed
to be other ways of interpreting the data from Greenland. It was initially hoped that the abrupt warmings and
coolings were just an oddity of Greenland's weather -- but they have now been detected on a worldwide scale, and at
about the same time. Then it was hoped that the abrupt flips were somehow caused by continental ice sheets, and
thus would be unlikely to recur, because we now lack huge ice sheets over Canada and Northern Europe. Though
some abrupt coolings are likely to have been associated with events in the Canadian ice sheet, the abrupt cooling in
the previous warm period, 122,000 years ago, which has now been detected even in the tropics, shows that flips are
not restricted to icy periods; they can also interrupt warm periods like the present one.

There seems to be no way of escaping the conclusion that global climate flips occur frequently and abruptly. An
abrupt cooling could happen now, and the world might not warm up again for a long time: it looks as if the last
warm period, having lasted 13,000 years, came to an end with an abrupt, prolonged cooling. That's how our warm
period might end too.

57
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ICE AGE

A CHANGE OF CLIMATE TO AN ICE AGE COULD BE VERY ABRUPT – GREENLAND PROVES.


CALVIN IN ‘98
(William Calvin, Theoretical Neuropsyiologist At The Univ Of Washington At Seattle, "The Great Climate Flip-
Flop,” The Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No1 //CNDI – RS)
The discovery of abrupt climate changes has been spread out over the past fifteen years, and is well known to
readers of major scientific journals such as Science and Nature. The abruptness data are convincing. Within the ice
sheets of Greenland are annual layers that provide a record of the gases present in the atmosphere and indicate the
changes in air temperature over the past 250,000 years -- the period of the last two major ice ages. By 250,000 years
ago Homo erectus had died out, after a run of almost two million years. By 125,000 years ago Homo sapiens had
evolved from our ancestor species -- so the whiplash climate changes of the last ice age affected people much like
us.

In Greenland a given year's snowfall is compacted into ice during the ensuing years, trapping air bubbles, and so
paleoclimate researchers have been able to glimpse ancient climates in some detail. Water falling as snow on
Greenland carries an isotopic "fingerprint" of what the temperature was like en route. Counting those tree-ring-like
layers in the ice cores shows that cooling came on as quickly as droughts. Indeed, were another climate flip to begin
next year, we'd probably complain first about the drought, along with unusually cold winters in Europe. In the first
few years the climate could cool as much as it did during the misnamed Little Ice Age (a gradual cooling that lasted
from the early Renaissance until the end of the nineteenth century), with tenfold greater changes over the next
decade or two.

58
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ICE AGE

THE CHANGE TO AN ICE AGE USUALLY OCCURS AFTER WARMING AND CAN LAST FOR A
LONG TIME.
CALVIN IN ‘98
(William Calvin, Theoretical Neuropsyiologist At The Univ Of Washington At Seattle, "The Great Climate Flip-
Flop,” The Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No1 //CNDI – RS)
The most recent big cooling started about 12,700 years ago, right in the midst of our last global warming. This cold
period, known as the Younger Dryas, is named for the pollen of a tundra flower that turned up in a lake bed in
Denmark when it shouldn't have. Things had been warming up, and half the ice sheets covering Europe and Canada
had already melted. The return to ice-age temperatures lasted 1,300 years. Then, about 11,400 years ago, things
suddenly warmed up again, and the earliest agricultural villages were established in the Middle East. An abrupt
cooling got started 8,200 years ago, but it aborted within a century, and the temperature changes since then have
been gradual in comparison. Indeed, we've had an unprecedented period of climate stability.

59
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ICE AGE

GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE THE GULF STREAM TO SHUT DOWN, CAUSING
CATASTROPHIC COOLING.
Geoffrey LEAN, Environment editor for The Independent, 1-25-04,
http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/news_stories/gw_1-25-04_ukindependent.pdf, “Global warming will plunge
Britain into new ice age ‘within decades’”

Britain is likely to be plunged into an ice age within our lifetime by global warming, new research suggests. A study,
which is being taken seriously by top government scientists, has uncovered a change "of remarkable amplitude" in the circulation of the waters of
the North Atlantic. Similar events in pre-history are known to have caused sudden "flips" of the climate, bringing
ice ages to northern Europe within a few decades. The development - described as "the largest and most dramatic oceanic
change ever measured in the era of modern instruments", by the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which led the research - threatens
to turn off the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe's weather mild. If that happens, Britain and northern Europe are expected to
switch abruptly to the climate of Labrador - which is on the same latitude - bringing a nightmare scenario where farmland turns
to tundra and winter temperatures drop below -20C. The muchheralded cold snap predicted for the coming week would seem
balmy by comparison. A report by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme in Sweden - launched by Nobel
prize-winner Professor Paul Crutzen and other top scientists - warned last week that pollution threatened to "trigger
changes with catastrophic consequences" like these. Scientists have long expected that global warming could, paradoxically, cause
a devastating cooling in Europe by disrupting the Gulf Stream, which brings as much heat to Britain in winter as the sun does: the US
National Academy of Sciences has even described such abrupt, dramatic changes as "likely". But until now it has been
thought that this would be at least a century away. The new research, by scientists at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Acquaculture
Science at Lowestoft and Canada's Bedford Institute of Oceanography, as well as Woods Hole, indicates that this may already be beginning to
happen. Dr Ruth Curry, the study's lead scientist, says: "This has the potential to change the circulation of the ocean significantly in our lifetime.
Northern Europe will likely experience a significant cooling." Robert Gagosian, the director of Woods Hole, considered one of the world's
leading oceanographic institutes, said: "We may be approaching a threshold that would shut down [the Gulf Stream] and cause abrupt climate
changes. "Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder
climates." The scientists, who studied the composition of the waters of the Atlantic from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego, found that they have
become "very much" saltier in the tropics and subtropics and "very much" fresher towards the poles over the past 50 years. This is alarming
because the Gulf Stream is driven by cold, very salty water sinking in the North Atlantic. This pulls warm surface waters northwards, forming the
current. The change is described as the "fingerprint" of global warming. As the world heats up, more water evaporates from the tropics and falls
as rain in temperate and polar regions, making the warm waters saltier and the cold ones fresher. Melting polar ice adds more fresh water.
Ominously, the trend has accelerated since 1990, during which time the 10 hottest years on record have occurred. Many < The National Academy
of Sciences says that the jump occurs in the same way as "the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a
light". Once the switch has occurred the new, hostile climate, lasts for decades at least, and possibly centuries. When the Gulf Stream
abruptly turned off about 12,700 years ago, it brought about a 1,300-year cold period, known as the Younger Dryas.
This froze Britain in continuous permafrost, drove summer temperatures down to 10C and winter ones to - 20C, and
brought icebergs as far south as Portugal. Europe could not sustain anything like its present population. Droughts
struck across the globe, including in Asia, Africa and the American west, as the disruption of the Gulf Stream
affected currents worldwide. Some scientists say that this is the "worst-case scenario" and that the cooling may be less dramatic, with the
world's climate "flickering" between colder and warmer states for several decades. But they add that, in practice, this would be almost as
catastrophic for agriculture and civilisation.

60
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ICE AGE – GLACIERS

GLACIERS BREAKING OFF RELEASES A MASS AMOUNT OF FRESHWATER INTO THE OCEAN
LEADING TO AN ICE AGE.
CALVIN IN ‘98
(William Calvin, Theoretical Neuropsyiologist At The Univ Of Washington At Seattle, "The Great Climate Flip-
Flop,” The Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No1 //CNDI – RS)
There is also a great deal of unsalted water in Greenland's glaciers, just uphill from the major salt sinks. The last
time an abrupt cooling occurred was in the midst of global warming. Many ice sheets had already half melted,
dumping a lot of fresh water into the ocean.

A brief, large flood of fresh water might nudge us toward an abrupt cooling even if the dilution were insignificant
when averaged over time. The fjords of Greenland offer some dramatic examples of the possibilities for freshwater
floods. Fjords are long, narrow canyons, little arms of the sea reaching many miles inland; they were carved by great
glaciers when the sea level was lower. Greenland's east coast has a profusion of fjords between 70°N and 80°N,
including one that is the world's biggest. If blocked by ice dams, fjords make perfect reservoirs for meltwater.

Glaciers pushing out into the ocean usually break off in chunks. Whole sections of a glacier, lifted up by the tides,
may snap off at the "hinge" and become icebergs. But sometimes a glacial surge will act like an avalanche that
blocks a road, as happened when Alaska's Hubbard glacier surged into the Russell fjord in May of 1986. Its snout
ran into the opposite side, blocking the fjord with an ice dam. Any meltwater coming in behind the dam stayed there.
A lake formed, rising higher and higher -- up to the height of an eight-story building.

Eventually such ice dams break, with spectacular results. Once the dam is breached, the rushing waters erode an
ever wider and deeper path. Thus the entire lake can empty quickly. Five months after the ice dam at the Russell
fjord formed, it broke, dumping a cubic mile of fresh water in only twenty-four hours.

GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO INCREASED SEA LEVELS THROUGH THE MELTING OF
GLACIERS AND ICE CAPS.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Volume 115, Number 4, April 07, “Driven to Extremes:
Health Effects of Climate Change”, From Jstor.com

As the planet becomes warmer over the next century, global sea level will rise in response. A warmer global
climate will also heat the surface waters of the ocean. As warming occurs, the ocean surface waters will expand
(a phenomenon known as thermal expansion), con- tributing to a rise in global sea level. Meanwhile, as land-
based glaciers and ice sheets (giant glaciers of at least 50,000 square kilometers) continue melting, more fresh water
will be discharged into oceans. The IPCC predicts global sea level to rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100.

61
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – ICE AGE – OCEAN CONVEYER

WARMING WILL LEAD TO AN ICE AGE DUE TO A COLLAPSE OF THE OCEAN’S CONVEYOR.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”
The climate change scenario outlined in this report is modeled on a century-long
climate event that records from an ice core in Greenland indicate occurred 8,200
years ago. Immediately following an extended period of warming, much like the
phase we appear to be in today, there was a sudden cooling . Average annual
temperatures in Greenland dropped by roughly 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and
temperature decreases nearly this large are likely to have occurred throughout the
North Atlantic region. During the 8,200 event severe winters in Europe and some
other areas caused glaciers to advance, rivers to freeze, and agricultural lands to be
less productive. Scientific evidence suggests that this event was associated with, and
perhaps caused by, a collapse of the ocean’s conveyor following a period of gradual
warming.
Longer ice core and oceanic records suggest that there may have been as many as
eight rapid cooling episodes in the past 730,000 years, and sharp reductions in the
ocean conveyer--a phenomenon that may well be on the horizon – are a likely
suspect in causing such shifts in climate.

62
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE

DUE TO RESOURCE DEPLETION FROM WARMING THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY WILL
COLLAPSE, EXACERBATING THE PROBLEM AND FURTHER CAUSING MASS FAMINE.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”
The changing weather patterns and ocean temperatures affect agriculture, fish and wildlife, water and energy. Crop
yields, affected by temperature and water stress as well as length of growing season fall by 10-25% and are less
predictable as key regions shift from a warming to a cooling trend. As some agricultural pests die due to temperature
changes, other species spread more readily due to the dryness and windiness – requiring alternative pesticides or
treatment regiments. Commercial fishermen that typically have rights to fish in specific areas will be ill equipped for
the massive migration of their prey.
With only five or six key grain-growing regions in the world (US, Australia, Argentina, Russia, China, and India),
there is insufficient surplus in global food supplies to offset severe weather conditions in a few regions at the same
time – let alone four or five. The world’s economic interdependence make the United States increasingly vulnerable
to the economic disruption created by local weather shifts in key agricultural and high population areas around the
world. Catastrophic shortages of water and energy supply – both which are stressed around the globe today – cannot
be quickly overcome.

63
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE

WHEN GLOBAL WARMING HAPPENS WATER WILL BECOME A SCARCE AND VALUABLE
COMMODITY, RESULTING IN A LOSS OF AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN LIFE.
Michael E. SCHILESIGNER ET ALL, University of Illinois, Haroon S. Kheshgi, ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering, Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting Inc., Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, US Environmental Protection
Agency, John M. Reilly, Massachusetts Institue of Technology, Tom Wilson, Electric Power Research Institute,
Charles Kolstad, University of California, Ssanta Barbara. Human-Induced Climate Changes: An Interdisciplinary
Assessment, 2007

The impacts in water, Figure 9.5, follow the same general pattern seen in energy (Figure 9.3). As warming
proceeds, the damages are expected to increase over time. Water becomes very valuable with warming because
agricultural and urban demands for water increase while the supply of available water generally declines.
Precipitation varies greatly across regions and climate models. However, with greater evapotranspiration and more
rapid melting of winter snows, watershed systems are predicted to have less available water even with small
precipitation increases. Systems can adapt to these changes by storing more water and allocating the water
efficiently across users, but these public adaptations will require effective governmental coordination and funding
(Mendelsohn, 2000).

64
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE

WARMING CAUSES SERIOUS AGRICULTURAL DAMAGE


AFRICA NEWS, News Letter, September 13, 2007, “Africa;
Continent's Agriculture to Suffer Most from Global Warming, Study Says” Pro-quest

World agriculture faces a serious decline within this century due to global warming unless emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases are substantially reduced from their rising path, and developing countries will
suffer much steeper declines than high-income countries, according to a new study by a senior fellow at the Center
for Global Development and the Peterson Institute.

Developing countries, many of which have average temperatures that are already near or above crop tolerance
levels, are predicted to suffer an average 10 to 25 percent decline in agricultural productivity by the 2080s, assuming
a so-called "business as usual" scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, according to the
study. Rich countries, which typically have lower average temperatures, will experience a much milder or even
positive average effect, ranging from an 8 percent increase in productivity to a 6 percent decline.

Individual developing countries face even larger declines. India, for example, could see a drop of 30 to 40 percent.
Some smaller countries suffer what could only be described as an agricultural productivity collapse. Sudan, already
wracked by civil war fueled in part by failing rains, is projected to suffer as much as a 56 percent reduction in
agricultural production potential; Senegal, a 52 percent fall.

China, further from the equator than most developing countries, could escape major damage on average, although its
south central region would be in jeopardy. The picture is similar in the United States, with projected reductions of 25
to 35 percent in the southeast and the southwestern plains but significant increases in the northern states.

Overall, agricultural productivity for the entire world is projected to decline from levels otherwise reached by
between 3 and 16 percent by 2080s as a consequence of global warming. The damages would continue to deepen in
the following century in the face of still greater warming.

The projections are the work of William Cline, a joint senior fellow at CGD and the Peterson Institute for
International Economics. Cline is a pioneer in the study of the economic impact of global warming, having
published an early comprehensive study of the issue in 1992.

"Some analysts have suggested that a small amount of global warming could actually increase global agricultural
productivity. My work shows that while productivity may increase in a minority of mostly northern countries, the
global impact of climate change on agriculture will be negative by the second half of this century," Cline said.

"There might be some initial overall benefit to warming for a decade or two but because future warming depends on
greenhouse gas emissions today if we delay action it would put global agriculture on an inexorable trajectory to
serious damage," he added.

65
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE

Warming causes Mega-droughts


Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”

The effects of the drought are more devastating than the unpleasantness of
temperature decreases in the agricultural and populated areas. With the persistent
reduction of precipitation in these areas, lakes dry-up, river flow decreases, and fresh
water supply is squeezed, overwhelming available conservation options and
depleting fresh water reserves. The Mega-droughts begin in key regions in Southern
China and Northern Europe around 2010 and last throughout the full decade. At the
same time, areas that were relatively dry over the past few decades receive persistent
yea

66
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE

GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL AGRICULTURE, DESTROYING COUNTRIES’ ECONOMIES


AMONG STARVATION.
HESS IN 2008 (Pamela. Associated Press Writer for International News. June 25, 2008.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4075295712&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4075287509&cisb=22_T4075295716&tree
Max=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138211&docNo=11. “US report says global warming could have indirect but wide-
ranging national security impact” CNDI-TP)

It predicts that the United States and most of its allies will have the means to cope with climate change
economically. Unspecified "regional partners" could face severe problems.
Fingar said that the quality of the analysis is hampered by the fact that climate data tend not to focus on specific
countries but on broad global changes.
Africa is among the most vulnerable regions, the report states. An expected increase in droughts there could cut
agricultural yields of rain-dependent crops by up to half in the next 12 years.
Parts of southern and eastern Asia's food crops are vulnerable both to droughts and floods, with rice and grain crops
potentially facing up to a 10 percent decline by 2025.
As many as 50 million additional people could face hunger by 2020, and the water supply while larger because of
melting glaciers will be stressed by growing population and consumption. Between 120 million and 1.2 billion
people in Asia "will continue to experience some water stress."
Latin America may experience increased precipitation, possibly cutting tens of millions of people from the ranks of
those in want of water. But from 7 million to 77 million could still be short water resources because of population
growth.

67
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – AGRICULTURE – U.S.

GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE WINDIER AND DRIER WEATHER WHICH WILL LEAD TO LESS
FOOD AND WATER.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”

United States. Colder, windier, and drier weather makes growing seasons shorter and less productive throughout the
northeastern United States, and longer and drier in the southwest. Desert areas face increasing windstorms, while
agricultural areas suffer from soil loss due to higher wind speeds and reduced soil moisture. The change toward a
drier climate is especially pronounced in the southern states.

GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO DECREASED WATER SUPPLIES.


ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Volume 115, Number 4, April 07, “Driven to Extremes:
Health Effects of Climate Change”, From Jstor.com

Cindy Parker, a public health physician at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, is worried most
about the impact of climate change on water quality and water availability. "The risks to water supplies should be at
the top of our priority list," she says. "Most U.S. cities have very limited water supplies and experi- ence
drought periodically, and climate change is going to make droughts much more frequent. A lot of places that
we don't think about as water- stressed today would ... be affected in the future." The loss through melt- ing of
mountain snow packs-enormous reser- voirs of water that are stored over the winter- will affect water availabili-
ty in the western United States and many other regions, says Sandra Postel, director of the Global Water Policy
Project, a research program on sus- tainable water use. Climate change is already dimin- ishing glaciers and snow
cover in most parts of the world, according to The Physical Science Basis, and this trend is expected to continue.
"Dimin- ished snow pack will affect rivers coming out of the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, the Cascades, the
Sierra Nevada, and the Rockies,” says Postel.

68
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS

AS GLOBAL WARMING DESTROYS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY STARVING COUNTRIES 
WILL FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL, LEADING TO VIOLENT CONFLICTS.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

• Conflict constellation “Climate-induced decline in food production”: More than 850 million people worldwide are
currently undernourished. This situation is likely to worsen in future as a result of climate change, as food insecurity
in the lower latitudes, i.e. in many developing countries, will increase with a temperature rise of just 2 °C (relative to
the 1990 baseline). With global warming of 2–4 °C, a drop in agricultural productivity is anticipated worldwide.
This trend will be substantially reinforced by desertification, soil salinization or water scarcity. In South Asia and
North Africa, for example, the areas suitable for agriculture are already largely exploited. This may well trigger
regional food crises and further undermine the economic performance of weak and unstable states, thereby
encouraging or exacerbating destabilization, the collapse of social systems, and violent conflicts.

69
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS

RESOURCE SCARCITY FROM GLOBAL WARMING LEADS TO WAR.


GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

The Toronto Project on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict examined the
circumstances in which environmentally induced stress causes acute conflicts both within
and between states. In order to find out how conflicts induced by environmental problems
progress, the Toronto group carried out a number of qualitative case studies on conflicts in
developing countries where they assumed an especially close link between environmental
stress and acute conflict. Homer-Dixon and his colleagues concentrated on environmental
problems that can be put down to the scarcity of renewable resources and environmental
services. Six types of environmental change were looked at in the context of the project:
climate change, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, degradation of agricultural land,
deforestation, degradation of water resources and the depletion of fish stocks. The scarcity
of renewable resources occupies a central role in the research of the Toronto group.
Alongside environmental change, population growth and distributional pressures also
influence the availability of resources. Scarcity leads initially to social and economic
problems, and these may then cause existing conflicts to escalate.

The Toronto group identified two patterns of conflict that occur especially frequently, arising
from the interactions between the above-mentioned causes of resource scarcity. First,
resource capture occurs in cases when in a country with a growing population and dwindling
resources, powerful groups within society exert influence on the distribution of resources,
appropriating them for their own advantage. Second, a process of ecological marginalization
occurs in cases where population growth and unequal distribution trigger migration to
ecologically fragile regions; this often brings with it environmental degradation and
impoverishment. Both patterns pave the way for two types of intrastate conflict. If resource
scarcity – resulting, say, from the over-exploitation of utilizable agricultural land – triggers
large-scale migration, conflicts may arise when the different group identities of migrants and
local inhabitants become mobilized. Uprisings or even civil wars may also break out if
resource scarcity leads to economic decline and key social and state institutions are
weakened in the process.

70
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS

NATIONAL SECURITY WILL BE DECIMATED, AS GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE MASSIVE


GLOBAL CONFLICT DUE TO LACK OF RESOURCES.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”

Human civilization began with the stabilization and warming of the Earth’s climate. A colder unstable climate meant
that humans could neither develop agriculture or permanent settlements. With the end of the Younger Dryas and the
warming and stabilization that followed, humans could learn the rhythms of agriculture and settle in places whose
climate was reliably productive. Modern civilization has never experienced weather conditions as persistently
disruptive as the ones outlined in this scenario. As a result, the implications for national security outlined in this
report are only hypothetical. The actual impacts would vary greatly depending on the nuances of the weather
conditions, the adaptability of humanity, and decisions by policymakers.

Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of
threat to national security than we are accustomed to today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate
need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion, or national
honor. The shifting motivation for confrontation would alter which countries are most vulnerable and the existing
warning signs for security threats.

There is a long-standing academic debate over the extent to which resource constraints and environmental
challenges lead to inter-state conflict. While some believe they alone can lead nations to attack one another, others
argue that their primary effect is to act as a trigger of conflict among countries that face pre-existing social,
economic, and political tension. Regardless, it seems undeniable that severe environmental problems are likely to
escalate the degree of global conflict.

Co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Peter
Gleick outlines the three most fundamental challenges abrupt climate change poses for national security:

1. Food shortages due to decreases in agricultural production


2. Decreased availability and quality of fresh water due to flooding and droughts
3. Disrupted access to strategic minerals due to ice and storms

In the event of abrupt climate change, it’s likely that food, water, and energy resource
constraints will first be managed through economic, political, and diplomatic means
such as treaties and trade embargoes. Over time though, conflicts over land and
water use are likely to become more severe – and more violent. As states become
increasingly desperate, the pressure for action will grow.

71
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS

GLOBAL WARMING LEADS TO RESOURCE WARS.


CALVIN IN ‘98
(William Calvin, Theoretical Neuropsyiologist At The Univ Of Washington At Seattle, "The Great Climate Flip-
Flop,” The Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No1 //CNDI – RS)
Futurists have learned to bracket the future with alternative scenarios, each of which captures important features that
cluster together, each of which is compact enough to be seen as a narrative on a human scale. Three scenarios for the
next climatic phase might be called population crash, cheap fix, and muddling through.
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful
countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food,
would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their
armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or
starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the
remaining food.
This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is
particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far
east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its
own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
There is another part of the world with the same good soil, within the same latitudinal band, which we can use for a quick comparison. Canada
lacks Europe's winter warmth and rainfall, because it has no equivalent of the North Atlantic Current to preheat its eastbound weather systems.
Canada's agriculture supports about 28 million people. If Europe had weather like Canada's, it could feed only one out of twenty-three present-
day Europeans.
Any abrupt switch in climate would also disrupt food-supply routes. The only reason that two percent of our
population can feed the other 98 percent is that we have a well-developed system of transportation and middlemen --
but it is not very robust. The system allows for large urban populations in the best of times, but not in the case of
widespread disruptions.
Natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes are less troubling than abrupt coolings for two reasons: they're
short (the recovery period starts the next day) and they're local or regional (unaffected citizens can help the
overwhelmed). There is, increasingly, international cooperation in response to catastrophe -- but no country is going
to be able to rely on a stored agricultural surplus for even a year, and any country will be reluctant to give away part
of its surplus.
In an abrupt cooling the problem would get worse for decades, and much of the earth would be affected. A meteor
strike that killed most of the population in a month would not be as serious as an abrupt cooling that eventually
killed just as many. With the population crash spread out over a decade, there would be ample opportunity for
civilization's institutions to be torn apart and for hatreds to build, as armies tried to grab remaining resources simply
to feed the people in their own countries. The effects of an abrupt cold last for centuries. They might not be the end
of Homo sapiens -- written knowledge and elementary education might well endure -- but the world after such a
population crash would certainly be full of despotic governments that hated their neighbors because of recent
atrocities. Recovery would be very slow.

72
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS

DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO LESS


FRESH WATER AND FOOD AND CONSEQUENTLY RESOURCE WARS.
Peter SCHWARTZ, chair of the Global Business Network, AND Doug RANDALL, co-head of the Global
Business Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security”

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political
environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production


2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more
frequent floods and droughts
3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess

As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two
fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses
around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient
enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances
could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or
national honor.

73
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – RESOURCE WARS

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE LOWERS EARTH’S CARRYING CAPACITY – CAUSES RESOURCE


WARS
SCHWARTZ AND RANDALL 03
Peter Schwartz, chair of the Global Business Network, and Doug Randall, co-head of the Global Business
Network’s consulting practice, October 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security,”

Today, carrying capacity, which is the ability for the Earth and its natural ecosystems
including social, economic, and cultural systems to support the finite number of
people on the planet, is being challenged around the world. According to the
International Energy Agency, global demand for oil will grow by 66% in the next 30
years, but it’s unclear where the supply will come from. Clean water is similarly
constrained in many areas around the world. With 815 million people receiving
insufficient sustenance worldwide, some would say that as a globe, we’re living well
above our carrying capacity, meaning there are not sufficient natural resources to
sustain our behavior.
Many point to technological innovation and adaptive behavior as a means for
managing the global ecosystem. Indeed it has been technological progress that has
increased carrying capacity over time. Over centuries we have learned how to
produce more food, energy and access more water. But will the potential of new
technologies be sufficient when a crisis like the one outlined in this scenario hits?
Abrupt climate change is likely to stretch carrying capacity well beyond its already
precarious limits. And there’s a natural tendency or need for carrying capacity to
become realigned. As abrupt climate change lowers the world’s carrying capacity
aggressive wars are likely to be fought over food, water, and energy. Deaths from
war as well as starvation and disease will decrease population size, which overtime,
will re-balance with carrying capacity.

74
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – GLOBAL SECURITY

WHEN GLOBAL WARMING HAPPENS THE SECURITY POLICIES OF THE


INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES WON’T BE ABLE TO PREVENT CHAOS IN OTHER
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

6. Overstretching of classic security policy: The future social impacts of unabated climate
change are unlikely to trigger “classic” interstate wars; instead, they will probably lead to an
increase in destabilization processes and state failure with diffuse conflict structures and
security threats in politically and economically overstretched states and societies. The
specific conflict constellations, the failure of disaster management systems after extreme
weather events and increasing environmental migration will be almost impossible to manage
without support from police and military capacities, and therefore pose a challenge to classic
security policy. In this context, a well-functioning cooperation between development and
security policy will be crucial, as civilian conflict management and reconstruction assistance
are reliant on a minimum level of security. At the same time, the largely unsuccessful
operations by highly equipped military contingents which have aimed to stabilize and bring
peace to weak and fragile states since the 1990s show that “classic” security policy’s
capacities to act are limited. A climate induced increase in the number of weak and fragile
states or even the destabilization of entire subregions would therefore overstretch
conventional security policy.

75
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – GLOBAL SECURITY

GLOBAL WARMING LEAD TO MASSIVE DESTABILIZATION OF COUNTRIES, WHICH


WILL CAUSE GLOBAL CONFLICT.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

WBGU’s assessment of the future security impacts of climate change at local, national and
regional level shows that the rise in global temperatures is unlikely to lead to classic
interstate wars. A more probable scenario is the proliferation of processes of destabilization
and collapse in countries and regions which are especially hard hit by climate change, which
overstretches the political and economic capacities of states and societies. The breakdown
of law and order and the erosion of social systems in climate crisis areas could reinforce the
trend towards ‘ new wars and conflicts’ which has been observed since the 1990s, and
whose characteristics include violent intra-societal conflict, state collapse and lawlessness,
and cross-border conflicts over resources, accompanied by increasing migration. What starts
out as local and national crises will ultimately have an impact on the international system as
well. In light of current knowledge about the social impacts of climate change, WBGU
identifies six key threats to international security and stability which could be triggered by
global warming. Climate change will

– accelerate the proliferation of the ‘fragile state’ phenomenon,


– jeopardize global economic development,
– trigger international distributional conflicts between the main drivers of climate
change and those most affected,
– undermine fundamental human rights and lead to crises of legitimacy in the
countries which cause climate change,
– trigger migration flows and crises,
– overstretch classic security policy.

The interplay between the threats that unabated climate change poses to the international
system would overstretch the capacities of the existing global governance system.

76
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – GLOBAL SECURITY – TIMEFRAME

GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE EXTREME DESTABILIZATION AND VIOLENCE AMONG


COUNTRIES.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

The analysis in Chapters 5–7 does show, however, that climate-related regional risks of
destabilization and violence threaten to gain a new dimension previously
unknown to human civilization if climate change is not abated within the next 10–15
years through effective climate protection policy. Far-reaching impacts upon national
societies, entire continents and the international system are then to be expected. This
results from the new quality of climate change in terms of the globality of causation and
impacts, the speed and scale of climate-induced environmental effects, the large numbers of
people affected, and the reciprocal dynamic amplifications of conflict constellations.

77
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – RISING SEA LEVELS

THE SEA LEVEL WILL RISE FROM GLOBAL WARMING CAUSING FLOODING ON LAND, WHICH
WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO DEATHS OF MILLIONS.
Michael E. SCHILESIGNER ET ALL, University of Illinois, Haroon S. Kheshgi, ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering, Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting Inc., Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, US Environmental Protection
Agency, John M. Reilly, Massachusetts Institue of Technology, Tom Wilson, Electric Power Research Institute,
Charles Kolstad, University of California, Ssanta Barbara. Human-Induced Climate Changes: An Interdisciplinary
Assessment, 2007

Relative sea-level rise occurs when the sea rises relative to the land and can be produced by a rise in ocean level, a
fall in land elevation (subsidence), or a combination of the two effects. While the media focuses on projections of
global-mean sea-level rise, any impacts are manifest through changes in relative sea level and these changes will
vary from place-to-place. Through the twentieth century global-mean sea level is estimated to have risen 10 to 20cm
(Church and Gregory. 2001). In some limited locations, land uplift was sufficient to counteract this effect and
relative sea levels tell (e.g.northern Baltic. While subsidence added to the global rise in many other areas (e.g.
deltaic settings). Thus, relative sea levels have risen widely around the globe. From 1990 to 2100, global mean sea
level may rise 9 to 88 cm (Church and Gregory, 2001) with a greater rise being possible, especially if Antarctica
becomes a positive contribution. Any acceleration in global-mean sea-level rise will increase the rate of relative rise
and increase the potential for impacts.

Relative sea-level rise has a wide range of natural system effects (Table 10.1). In addition to raising mean sea level,
all the coastal processes that operate around sea level are raised. Therefore, the immediate effect is submergence and
increased flooding of coastal land, as well as saltwater intrusion of surface waters. Longer-term effects also occur as
the coast adjusts to the new environmental conditions, including increased erosion, wetland losses and change, and
saltwater intrusion into groundwater. These lagged changes interact with the immediate effects of sea -level rise and
often exacerbate them. While there are quantitative approaches for analysis of each impact, some of these effects
remain poorly understood, and further research is required on the long-term physical response to sea-level rise, such
as lagoon and estuary interaction with the open coast (Stive. 2004).

Table 10.2 links natural system effects to their most important direct socio-economic impacts by sector. Indirect
impacts of sea-level rise are not shown as they are more difficult to analyze but they have the potential to be
important in many sectors, such as human health. Examples of possible indirect triggers of health impacts include
the nutritional impacts of loss of agricultural production in coastal areas, the release of toxic materials from eroded
landfills, and chances to disease vectors caused by waterlogging and rising water tables. Other indirect effects
include changes in agricultural production (as land is lost or ground and surface waters become salinized) and the
capital market (as investment is diverted to coastal protection). Thus, sea-level rise can produce a cascade of
socio-economic impacts. Although their magnitude will depend on our ability to adapt.

78
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – WATER WARS

DEVASTATING WATER WARS AS COUNTRIES RUN OUT OF WATER DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING.
GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GLOBAL CHANGE (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION—CLIMATE
CHANGE AS A SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p. 69-70,
www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed 3-16-08.

• Conflict constellation “Climate-induced degradation of freshwater resources”: 1.1 thousand million people are
currently without access to safe drinking water. The situation could worsen for hundreds of millions of people as
climate change alters the variability of precipitation and the quantity of available water. At the same time, demand
for water is increasing due to the world’s growing population and its mounting aspirations. This dynamic triggers
distributional conflicts and poses major challenges to water management systems in the countries concerned. For
example, regions which depend on melt water from mountain glaciers – which are at risk from climate change – will
require new water management strategies and infrastructures, as well as political efforts to avert national or even
transboundary conflicts over the distribution of increasingly scarce water resources. However, the countries which
will suffer the greatest water stress are generally those which already lack the political and institutional framework
necessary for the adaptation of water and crisis management systems. This could overstretch existing conflict
resolution mechanisms, ultimately leading to destabilization and violence.

79
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – EXTINCTION - CHALKO

THE OVERHEATING OF OUR PLANET WILL CAUSE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS AND


ULTIMATELY LEAD TO EXTINCTION.
Dr. Tom J. CHALKO, MS, Engineering & PhD, Laser Holography, “Global
Warming: Can Earth Explode?” 2002, http://www.bioresonant.com/news.htm
It seems that if we do not do anything today about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap
more Solar Heat, we may not survive the next decade. In a systematically under-cooled spherical core reactor
the cumulative cause-effect relationship is hyperbolic and leads to explosion. It seems that there will be no second
chance...
If you doubt whether a planet can explode - you need to see a witness report of a planetary explosion in our Solar
system. Plato (428-348 BC) reported that the explosion of the planet Phaeton had been perceived by our ancestors
on Earth to be as bright as lightning...

the last few years were the WARMEST ever recorded on Earth. The trend continues.

Huge parts of Antarctic and Arctic ice have already melted. Key Antarctic glaciers (Hektoria, Green and Evans
for example) increased their melting rate 8 times in 3 years (between 2000 and 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31,
L18401). When glaciers begin to slide to the ocean, the sea level rise will cause not only tsunamis but a global
planetary flood.

Volcanoes become active under Arctic Ocean and in Antarctica

In the past, volcanic activity was followed by decades of dormancy. Today, when volcanoes erupt they remain active

The Largest Volcanoes on Earth have lost their snow-caps

Oceans are warmer than ever. Their increased evaporation produces large amount of clouds, rain and
widespread flooding

Oceans around Antarctica at depths of 5 km are less salty as if Antarctica is melting from underneath. The fresh
water is lighter than salt water, so it should be on top...

In heated oceans all currents are severely disrupted

Mountain glaciers melt around the globe

The weather around the globe becomes more violent every month

Trees begun to BLOOM in winter. Photos on the left show Australian blackwood trees blooming in August (Mt
Best, Victoria). This is equivalent to European and USA trees blooming in February. Plants detect "season" by
monitoring the soil temperature.

Energy of earthquakes systematically increases. The graph on the left depicts the annual quake energy since record
begun in 1973, computed on the basis of USGS scientific data from all quakes above 4.0 magnitude since 1973. The
data is compared (scaled) to 1973 quake energy.

80
CNDI 08 EF/ML
WARMING BAD

WARMING BAD – EARTHQUAKES – CHALKO

EARTHQUAKES BECAME FIVE TIMES MORE ENERGETIC, DISCOVERS AUSTRALIAN SCIENTIST


DR TOM CHALKO
MSNBC IN 2008 (Global News Network. June 17, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25222766/ “Earthquakes
Became Five Times More Energetic, Discovers Australian Scientist Dr Tom Chalko”- CNDI-TP)

New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now
five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.
The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is
set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed.
The analysis of more than 386,000 earthquakes between 1973 and 2007 recorded on the US Geological Survey
database proved that the global annual energy of earthquakes on Earth began increasing very fast since 1990.
Dr Chalko said that global seismic activity was increasing faster than any other global warming indicator on Earth
and that this increase is extremely alarming.
"The most serious environmental danger we face on Earth may not be climate change, but rapidly and systematically
increasing seismic, tectonic and volcanic activity," said Dr Chalko.
"Increase in the annual energy of earthquakes is the strongest symptom yet of planetary overheating.
"NASA measurements from space confirm that Earth as a whole absorbs at least 0.85 Megawatt per square
kilometer more energy from the Sun than it is able to radiate back to space. This 'thermal imbalance' means that heat
generated in the planetary interior cannot escape and that the planetary interior must overheat. Increase in seismic,
tectonic and volcanic activities is an unavoidable consequence of the observed thermal imbalance of the planet,"
said Dr Chalko.
Dr Chalko has urged other scientists to maximize international awareness of the rapid increase in seismic activity,
pointing out that this increase is not theoretical but that it is an Observable Fact.
"Unless the problem of global warming (the problem of persistent thermal imbalance of Earth) is addressed urgently
and comprehensively -- the rapid increase in global seismic, volcanic and tectonic activity is certain. Consequences
of inaction can only be catastrophic. There is no time for half-measures."

81

You might also like