If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed.

Download the original attachment

Index 1 ***Science Debate*** 2 1NC - Science Debate 3 1NC - Science Debate 3 A2 - Gelbspan: Skeptics Paid Off 3 Warming Authors Biased 3 ***Impact Turns*** 3 1NC - Warming Impact Offense 3 SO2 Screw - Yes: SO2 Now 3 A2 - SO2 Doesn't Cool 3 ***A2 Scenarios*** 3 A2 - Runaway Warming 3 A2 - Sea Level Rise 3 A2 - Species 3 A2 - Ice Age 3 ***Solvency*** 3 A2 - Modeling 3 ***DA's Outweigh*** 3 DA Outweighs 3

***Science Debate***
1NC - Science Debate
Temperature trends natural, anthropogenic CO2 not to blame
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an 'adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added.

-- CO2 irrelevant - temperature records don't follow CO2 levels. Jaworoski, 01

(PhD & Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, http://fran.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/1856) The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric con-centration of CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming propagandists. For the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature of the Earth and the atmosphe-ric CO2 level have been decreasing systematically.37About 50 million years ago, the CO2 con-centration (2,000 ppmv) was almost six-fold higher than now, but air temperature was higher by only 1.5°C. In the Ordovician, when the CO2 content in air was 16 times higher than it is now, the air temperature in the tropics was not increased, and in the high latitudes, there was the glaciation of Gondwanaland.36 The reason for the lack of relationship between the temperature changes and CO2 concentra-tion in past epochs is that it is not CO2, but water, H2O, that is the main greenhouse gas. It is also the case that increasing CO2 concentration above a certain, rather low level cannot incre-ase the air temperature (see below). It was not CO2 that determined the permanent oscillations of Earth's climate in the past, but rather changes of the solar constant; these are in step with clirnatic oscillations with a periodicity of about 2,500 years. This is suggested inter alia by gla-cial deposits on the bottorn of the North Atlantic, salt deposits in the glaciers and in the ocea-nic sediments, and the carbon-13 content of tree rings.3

1NC - Science Debate
-- Cosmic ray patterns are the cause - not CO2. Balling, 03
(PhD Director of the Office of Climatology - ASU, The Increase in Global Temperature, Marshall Institute Policy Outlook, pg. 6) An increase in solar irradiance should translate into warmer Earth temperatures. From 1900 to 1969, solar irradiance appeared to explain more than 50 percent of the variance of global temperatures.

-- Climate has been changing for centuries - no magnitude for change. Glassman & Baliunas, 01
(AEI & Harvard Smithsonian, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.12922/pub_detail.asp) Climate, Richard Lindzen of MIT fondly reminds us, always changes. It must. Over centuries, responding to
stresses internal and external, the earth is either warming or coo ling, just as the temperature from day to day heats or chills. It could stay the same, but not for very long. "Climate change," then, is not a calamity but a truism.

Evidence from ice cores, glaciers, boreholes and tree rings, deposits of microscopic animals on the sea floor, pollen in lake beds, and mineral deposits in caves show clearly that surface temperatures in some centuries have been very different from temperatures in others. From roughly a.d. 800 until a.d.
1200, for example--during what's called the Medieval Warm Period--the Northern Hemisphere became so hot that the Vikings cultivated Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland. By the 1300s and 1400s, a widespread cooling had begun that devastated Europe with shortened crop-growing seasons, and human lifespans fell by ten years. That "Little Ice Age" persisted until the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Such major climate swings

occurred long before the industrial age. More important, the earth's cycles of warming and cooling predate human existence--not to mention sport-utility vehicles.

-- No consensus on warming. CSPP, 04
(Center for Science & Public Policy, http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/5-CSPP-gwconsensus.pdf) Claim: There is a scientific consensus about catastrophic man-made global warming. This has become a staple assertion without foundation, and is widely contradicted: 1. A petition compiled by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences has attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 American scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject). All agree the science of climate change, and man's role in it, is uncertain. The Petition reads in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." 2. Forty-six leading climate experts wrote an open letter to Canada's National Post June 4, 2003) claiming that the Kyoto Protocol "lacks credible science." In the letter, they wrote: "Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord (http://www.reveal.ca/friendsofscience/Martin_letter.pdf). 3. Fully 89 percent of respondents to a survey of state climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors." 4. An independent organization, The European Science and Environmental Forum, has published two monographs, in which a few dozens of scientists present studies contradicting the conclusions of the IPCC. 5. Nearly one hundred scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration, protesting the alleged IPCC consensus and the implementation of the Rio de Janeiro treaty. The Leipzig Declaration termed the provisions of this treaty "drastic policies lacking credible support from the underlying science...illadvised, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive." (http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html) 6. MIT professor Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., one of 11 scientists who prepared the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report on global warming has stated repeatedly that there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in that report, and that the full report made clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

A2 - Gelbspan: Skeptics Paid Off
-- Our authors are not paid off - its science, dummy. World Climate Report, '96 4--15
Gelbspan's article insinuated that a small number of university scientists who have done research or consulted for energy interests have derailed any substantive policy to fight global warming. In fact, the vast percentage of research support for most of these scientists is from public, tax-supported institutions such as the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Warming Authors Biased
Climate reporting is bad
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Prof. Francis Massen of the Physics Laboratory in Luxemburg and the leader of a meteorological station examined the UN IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (SPM). "The SPM conceals that the methane concentration in the atmosphere has been stable for seven years (and nobody knows exactly why); not one climatic model foresaw this," Massen wrote in a February 2007 article entitled "IPCC 4AR SPM: Gloom and Doom." (translated) Massen noted there is an "unrestrained contest among media, environmental groups and politicians" to paint as dire a picture as possible of future climate conditions following the UN summary. Massen called some of the climate reporting "absolute rubbish." "It seems that in the climatic area a new faith fight has broken out, which has all characteristics of historical Religion," he added

Media promotes climate hype
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. "I believe we have the duty to inform people about the true facts of global warming. It is interesting that is this global warming era of hysteria we just lived a very cold week with snow in the higher elevation of Southern Brazil and that the next week could be even colder with low temperatures not seen in this part of the globe during the month of May in the last 20 to 30 years. It is not only South Africa that is freezing. South America is under a sequence of cold blasts not seen since the very cold climatic winter of 2000 (La Niña)," Hackbart concluded. In a June 5, 2007 article, Hackbart noted that the "historical cold events in Southern Brazil (in 1957, 1965, 1975, 1984, 1996 and 2006) have another aspect in common. They all took place around the 11-year sun cycle solar minimum.

***Impact Turns***
1NC - Warming Impact Offense
-- Turn -- Burning fossil fuels releases aerosols which cause cooling -- plan removes them causing rapid warming. Wiener, '95
(Princeton Research Fellow, Risk Versus Risk, John Graham & Jonathon Wiender, p. 212) Reducing CO2 by switching from coal to other fuels could also pose a second risk offset, not reflected in Figure 10.1, because sulfur particulates emitted in coal combustion exert a cooling influence on the earth by reflecting solar radiation. Burning natural gas emits a much smaller quantity of these particulates than burning coal, and of course nuclear power, hydropower, and solar/wind power emit no sulfur particulates. Thus, wholly apart from the tradeoff between reduced CO2 and increased CH4 from natural gas, switching from coal use to other fuels could yield a net increase in relative warming influence in the short term because of the declining emissions of reflective sulfur particulates. Indeed, recent analysis under the central emissions scenario used by the IPCC indicates that the sulfur effect alone is so important that replacing coal with no-sulfur energy technologies would actually cause a net increase in average global temperature through the year 2050 (though a net decrease after 2050, when long-lasting CO2 begins to outweigh the more transient effects of sulfur).

SO2 Screw - Yes: SO2 Now
Particulate emissions will increase. The states and industries will fight any new regulations with everything they've got Pyne writer in NYC 2k2
( Solana, Science Vol 295 Issue 5562 March 15)

In 1997, EPA established standards for fine particles under the Clean Air Act. It set the annual average at a maximum of 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, with a 24-hour maximum of 65 micrograms per cubic meter. Several industry groups and three states challenged the standards, which were upheld last year by the Supreme Court after a lengthy legal fight. Meanwhile, EPA has collected 3 years of data on fine particles and hopes by the end of the year to designate which cities are not meeting the standards. Even then, however, it could be a decade or more before states implement plans to clear the air.

A2 - SO2 Doesn't Cool
New satellite measuring information confirms SO2 cooling will occur and solve warming Breon, '2
(Francois-Marie Et. Al. Laboratory of Sciences and Environment at Commissariat Gif Sur Yvette France Science Vol 295 Issue 556 February 1) Aerosols may reduce the degree of Earth global warming resulting from the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (1, 2). They directly impact the radiative balance of Earth through a net increase of its albedo, particularly over the oceans (3, 4). Aerosols can also act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), increasing the number of droplets in clouds, which tends to decrease the mean droplet size and may increase the cloud albedo (5), depending on the aerosol absorption and cloud optical thickness (6). This process, referred to as the "Twomey effect" or the "first indirect" aerosol radiative forcing, has a net cooling effect on climate. A direct demonstration of the aerosol effect on cloud albedo was provided by the observation of lines of larger reflectance in cloud fields identified as tracks of ship exhaust (7). Indirect observations of this effect can also be made by comparing cloud droplet size and aerosol concentration. Cloud droplet effective radii were derived by using global scale AVHRR (advanced very high resolution radiometer) measurements (8). The results of a global application (9) indicate a contrast in cloud droplet size of about 2 µm over land and ocean surfaces, as well as a hemispheric contrast of 1 µm, both of which support the Twomey hypothesis. Similar patterns of the aerosol optical thickness and the cloud droplet effective radius, derived from AVHRR measurements, have been observed over the oceans (10). Cases of reduced droplet radii and suppression of rain--the second indirect aerosol effect--in areas of high aerosol load were identified on satellite imagery (11, 12). Furthermore, several in situ measurements have shown a relationship between the aerosol concentration and the cloud droplet size distribution (13-15). The polarization and directionality of the earth reflectances (POLDER) instrument (16) is well suited for assessing the Twomey hypothesis globally, because its measurements provide a unique opportunity to measure cloud droplet effective radius (hereafter referred to as CDR) (17), as well as aerosol loading (18), over both land and ocean surfaces. The POLDER radiometer was launched aboard the Advanced Earth-Observing Satellite (ADEOS) in August 1996. Continuous monitoring of the solar radiation reflected by the earth, including its polarization and directional signatures, started on 30 October 1996, and ended on 30 June 1997, with the unexpected failure of the satellite solar panel. Monthly maps were generated of an "aerosol index" that quantifies the atmospheric load by small particles (19). Under some assumptions, the aerosol index is expected to be proportional to the aerosol column number when the widely used optical thickness is proportionally more sensitive to the large particle fraction (20). Spatial and temporal distribution of the index indicate that it is mostly sensitive to aerosols generated by biomass burning and human-generated pollution (21). Similarly, the polarization signature of liquid water clouds was used to derive monthly mean estimates of CDR (22).

***A2 Scenarios***
A2 - Runaway Warming
Small, long-term risk of abrupt climate change Joshua Busby, University of Texas, May 2008
Global Climate Change National Security Implications http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf Abrupt climate change speaks to the threats of the slow-down in the Gulf Stream and other changes that might occur in a matter of a few decades, as we heard this morning from Dr. Corell. Scientists are worried about that possibility, but they don't really have a good handle on how likely these threats are. Their best guess is that they are of low probability or are, at the very least, not likely to happen during this century.5 So, based on this reading of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says about abrupt climate change, I conclude that it is not currently a national security risk for the United States around which policymakers would likely mobilize concern.

A2 - Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise impacts at least 1,000 years off
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Institute of Geography and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences dismissed alarmist climate fears of all of the world's ice melting in a March 27, 2007 article. "The planet may rest assured," Osokin wrote. "This hypothetical catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years," he explained. "Today, scientists say that the

melting of the permafrost has stalled, which has been proved by data obtained by meteorological stations along Russia's Arctic coast," Olokin added. "The (recent) period of warming was tangible, but now it may be drawing to a close. Most natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having a shorter or longer rhythm. Yet no matter how these sinusoids look, a temperature rise is inevitably followed by a decline, and vice versa."

Sea level rise projections have been revised downward Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Geologist Dr. David Kear, the former director of geological survey at the Department of Science and Industrial Research in New Zealand, called predictions of rising sea level as a result of manmade global warming "science fiction," and said the basic rules of science are being ignored. "When youngsters are encouraged to take part in a school science fair the first thing they are told to do is check the results, then re-check them, something NIWA [National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research] appear to have forgotten to do," Kear said in a April 13, 2007 article. "In looking at the next 50 years, why have they not studied the past 50 years and applied their findings to the predictions? One would think this was a must," Kear explained. The article continued, "First global warming predictions made in 1987 estimated an annual rise in sea levels of 35mm. That scared the world but since then, the figure has continued to be reduced by 'experts.'" Kear concluded, "Personal beliefs on climate change and rising sea levels should be delayed until just one of the many predictions made since 1985 on the basis of carbon additions to the atmosphere comes true.

A2 - Species
CO2 increases biodiversity Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, "Biodiversity and CO2," Volume 3, Number 8, April 15, 2000, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v3_edit/v3n8edit.htm, accessed
11/30/01 Viewed in this light, the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is seen to be a blessing in disguise. It's aerial fertilization effect provides a much-needed boost to the vitality of the vegetation that serves as the energetic basis of all ecosystems; and the elevated levels of primary production that elevated levels of CO2 induce in earth's plants - and especially in its trees (Idso, 1999) - provides the basis for greater populations of herbivores and carnivores at all higher levels of the planet's many food chains. And those greater numbers of individual plants and animals are what help to maintain the viability of their respective species.

Vorosmarty, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, 7/14/00 (Science, Pg. 284) The major increases in relative water demand documented here reveal that much of the world will face substantial challenges to water infrastructure and associated water services. Potentially large economic
costs are likely to be associated with the implementation of response strategies (e.g., expansion of facilities, new water-pricing policies, innovative technology, and mismanagement) or the consequences of inaction (e.g., deterioration of water quality and reduction in irrigated crop yields). Where sustainable water supplies are at a premium, the challenges also include curtailment of economic activities, abandonment of existing water

facilities, mass migration, and conflict in international river basins. Many parts of the developing world will experience large increases in relative water demand. In water-rich areas such as the wet tropics, the challenge will not be in providing adequate quantities of water, but in providing clean supplies that minimize public health problems. Arid and semiarid regions face the additional challenge of absolute

water scarcity. Projected increases in scarcity will be focused on rapidly expanding cities. Much of the world's population growth over the next few decades will occur in urban areas, which are projected to double in size to near 5 billion between 1995 and 2025 (29) and face major challenges in coping with increased water pollution and incidence of waterborne disease . We conclude that impending global-scale changes in population and economic development over the next 25 years will dictate the future relation between water supply and demand to a much greater degree than will changes in mean climate.

Warming doesn't hurt the environment. CO2 benefits biodiversity
Arthur Robinson, et al., Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," January 1998, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm, accessed 11/26/01 There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased. We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. ''Global warming,'' an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human
production of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29). Figure 22: Summary data from 279 published experiments in which plants of all types were grown under paired stressed (open circles) and unstressed (closed circles) conditions (66). There were 208, 50, and 21 sets at 300, 600, and an average of about 1350 ppm CO2, respectively. The plant mixture in the 279 studies was slightly biased toward plant types that respond less to CO2 fertilization than does the actual global mixture and therefore underestimates the expected global response. CO2

enrichment also allows plants to grow in drier regions, further increasing the expected global response. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

A2 - Ice Age
Weaver, Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at University of Victoria, 4/16/04 (Science, Pg. 400) The observed rate of global sea level rise during the 20th century is estimated to be in the range 1.0 to 2.2 mm/year (3). If one makes the clearly incorrect assumption that the entire maximum rate of observed sea level
rise is a consequence of fresh water being added to the North Atlantic between 50º and 70ºN, then this equates to a rate of freshwater forcing of 0.022 Sv (2.2 x 104 m3 s-1). This rate in itself is certainly too small to cause a major shutdown of the AMO, although it may be large enough to cause cessation of convection in the Labrador Sea [for example, (6)]. It is certainly true that if the AMO were to become inactive, substantial short-term cooling would result in western Europe, especially during the winter. However, it is important to emphasize that not a single coupled model assessed by the 2001 IPCC Working Group I on Climate Change Science (4) predicted a collapse in the

AMO during the 21st century. Even in those models where the AMO was found to weaken during the

21st century, there would still be warming over Europe due to the radiative forcing associated with increased levels of greenhouse gases.

Weaver, Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at University of Victoria, 4/16/04 (Science, Pg. 400) In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMO--despite the
appealing possibility raised in two recent studies (18, 19)--although it is possible that deep convection in the Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate downstream over Europe.

Weaver, Prof of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, 4/16/04 (Science, Pg. 400) It is certainly true that if the AMO were to become inactive, substantial short-term cooling would result in western Europe, especially during the winter. However, it is important to emphasize that not a single coupled model assessed by the 2001 IPCC Working Group I on Climate Change Science (4) predicted a collapse in the AMO during the 21st century. Even in those models where the AMO was found to weaken during the 21st century, there would still be warming over Europe due to the radiative forcing associated with increased levels of greenhouse gases.

Weaver, Prof of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, 4/16/04 (Science, Pg. 400) In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMO--despite the appealing possibility raised in two recent studies (18, 19)--although it is possible that deep convection in the Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate downstream over Europe.

A2 - Modeling
Unilateral regulations will have no effect on the rest of the world who will continue to consume fossil fuels
Guruswamy, Professor of Law at Colorado, Summer 2000 (Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law) Those advocating unilateral developed country emission reductions emphasize the symbolic value of cuts by developed countries which, according to them, will motivate and encourage developing countries to follow suit.This is an unfounded premise. Kyoto proponents mystifyingly claim that even though defiant developing nations have obdurately refused to undertake any reductions of carbon dioxide emissions, the United States nevertheless must set a moral example by accepting the costs of the Kyoto Protocol. By such selfless action the United States will shame other misguided nations into becoming responsible members of the community of nations by accepting carbon dioxide reductions. While this might be a good script for a morality play, the international community of nations functions within a hard world of Realpolitik. All nations are fully aware of their statuses as co-equal sovereign entities and behave as rational entities who pursue their own national interests, expecting others to do the same. And that, as we have seen, is precisely what nations have done. It makes no sense to require one segment of the community of nations to forebear or desist from conduct which other members are free to carry out. Even more poignantly, it is nonsense to allow one section of the community of nations to flood mine shafts that are simultaneously being drained by others.

***DA's Outweigh***
DA Outweighs
Nuc war outweighs -Turns the case -- Limited nuclear war would cause massive warming Mason, former foreign correspondent, SEATO adviser to Thai Government, and Deputy Senate Leader in Australian Federal Parliament 2k3 - Colin, The 2030 Spike p. 4
There is considerable evidence for the 2030 spike -- the combined effect of at least six adverse drivers. The most reliable estimates set readily available oil resources at a little under a trillion barrels, and world consumption at 28 billion barrels a year, indicating exhaustion in, at most, 34 years. Predicted increases in oil use would reduce this time substantially. This will have major and unexpected consequences, not least a significant cut in world food supplies for a population that will grow to 8 billion by that time. Continued nuclear proliferation, policy changes in the use of atomic weapons in the United States and Russia, confrontation in the Middle East and South Asia, and political pressures from the drivers, make a nuclear war of unpredictable intensity only too possible within 20 years. The consequences of this would seriously aggravate greenhouse effects, due to become significant by 2030. The 'war against terror', the growing tension between Islam and 'the West', the doctrine that nuclear weapons can safely be used in a 'limited' way -- all these will tend to aggravate the effect of the drivers.

The magnitude is greater. Bryner, 06
(LiveScience Staff Writer, Dec 11, http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/061211_nuclear_climate.html)

A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded. The scientists said about 40 countries possess enough plutonium or uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II. "Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large," said one of the researchers, Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles. "The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term." The lingering effects could re-shape the environment in ways never conceived. In terms of climate, a nuclear blast could plunge temperatures across large swaths of the globe. "It would be the largest climate change in recorded human history," Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College and another member of the research team. Continues Will the conclusions result in worldly changes? "We certainly hope there will be a political response because nuclear weapons are the most dangerous potential environmental danger to the planet. They're much more dangerous than global warming," Robock said.

DA's outweigh on probability - their impacts are pure hysteria and empirically denied. Economist, '97
(http://mscserver.cox.miami.edu/msc491/Readings/PlentyofGloom.htm, DECEMBER 18) This article argues that predictions of ecological doom, including recent ones, have such a terrible track record that people should take them with pinches of salt instead of lapping them up with relish. For reasons of their own, pressure groups, journalists and fame-seekers will no doubt continue to peddle ecological catastrophes at an undiminishing speed. These people, oddly, appear to think that having been invariably wrong in the past makes them more likely to be right in the future. The rest of us might do better to recall, when warned of the next doomsday, what ever became of the last one.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful