Minnesota Held The Line On Warming Good and Got To Semis

Minnesota held the line on
warming good and got to semis
Co2 good SHORT 1NC (:30

Co2 key to biodiversity and food
Ferrara 14 (Peter, **Graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, senior
fellow for entitlement and budget policy @ Heartland, senior fellow at the Social
Security Institute, White House Office of Policy Development under President
Reagan, Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first
President Bush**, The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the
Period of Actual Global Warming, 2/24,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-globalwarming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/, CMR)
In addition, CO2 is actually essential to all life on the planet. Plants need CO2
to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food
for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain. The increase of CO2 in the
atmosphere that has occurred due to human emissions has actually increased
agricultural growth and output as a result, causing actually an increased greening
of the planet. So has any warming caused by such human emissions, as minor
warming increases agricultural growth. The report states, CO2 is a vital nutrient
used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere greens the
planet and helps feed the growing human population.
Co2 solves ice age- extinction

Marsh 12 (Gerald E. Marsh, Retired Physicist from the Argonne National
Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic
nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration, The
Coming of a New Ice Age, http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm,
2012)
CHICAGO Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing
humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.
What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between
long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten
thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended. How
much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earths surface?
Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply dont know. Even if all the
temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the
rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit an
increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. While an
enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause
humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to
adapt. Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the
continuation of modern civilization. One has only to look at maps showing the
extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to
ice age conditions would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by
thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much
colder. The last little Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic
Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the
Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in
Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely
reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the miseries to come.
By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out farms and
entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780,
New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history would have been very different.
Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the
result was the continued flowering of modern civilization. There were very few Ice
Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earths climate entered an unusual
period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting
about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial periods, like the one
we are now living in became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most
of the Earths history, it was far warmer than it is today. Indeed, the Sun has been
getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have
flourished. Both of these had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in
the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earths long history. Five hundred million years
ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until
about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels dropped to a little less than
twice what they are today. It is possible that moderately increased carbon
dioxide concentrations could extend the current interglacial period. But we
have not reached the level required yet, nor do we know the optimum
level to reach. So, rather than call for arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions,
perhaps the best thing the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
the climatology community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining
the optimal range of carbon dioxide needed to extend the current interglacial period
indefinitely. NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one
of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earths
climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age? We ought to carefully
consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending
trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove
to be only a will-o-the-wisp.
**Adaptation solves but mitigation trades of

Ridley 14 (Matt, BA and DPhil degrees from Oxford University, he worked for the
Economist for nine years as science editor, Washington correspondent and American editor,
before becoming a self-employed writer and businessman, fellow of the Royal Society of
Literature and of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a foreign honorary member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, We have a new climate change consensus and
it's good news everyone, http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9176121/armageddonaverted/)
Nigel Lawson was right after all. Ever since the Centre for Policy Studies lecture in 2006 that launched the former chancellor on his late career as a critic of
global warming policy, Lord Lawson has been stressing the need to adapt to climate change, rather than throw public money at futile attempts to prevent
Until now, the official line has been largely to ignore adaptation and focus instead
on mitigation the misleading term for preventing carbon dioxide emissions. That has now changed. The received
wisdom on global warming, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was updated this week. The newspapers were, as always,
full of stories about scientists being even more certain of environmental Armageddon. But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it
emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate change . Even in the main
text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word adaptation occurred ten times,
the word mitigation not at all. The distinction is crucial. So far, the debate has followed a certain bovine logic: that global
it.
warming is happening, so we need to slow it down by hugely expensive decarbonisation strategies green taxes, wind farms. And what good will this do?
Is it possible to stop global warming in its tracks? Or would all these green policies be the equivalent of trying to blow away a hurricane? This question
just how much can be achieved by mitigation is one not often addressed. There is an
alternative: accepting that the planet is warming, and seeing if we can adjust
accordingly. Adaptation means investing in flood defences, so that airports such as Schiphol can continue to operate
below existing (and future) sea level, and air conditioning, so that cities such as Houston and Singapore can continue to grow despite existing
(and future) high temperatures. It means plant breeding, so that maize can be grown in a greater range of existing (and future) climates,
better infrastructure, so that Mexico or India can survive existing (and future) cyclones, more world trade, so that Ethiopia
can get grain from Australia during existing (and future) droughts. Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in repeatedly emphasising
the need to adapt to climate change in this way, has been something of a lone voice in the government. But he can now count on the support of the
mighty IPCC, a United Nations body that employs hundreds of scientists to put together the scientific equivalent of a bible on the topic every six years or
so. Whereas the last report had two pages on adaptation, this one has four chapters. Professor Chris Field is the chairman of Working Group 2 of the IPCC,
the part devoted to the effects of climate change rather than the cause. The really big breakthrough in this report, he says, is the new idea of thinking
about managing climate change. His co-chair Vicente Barros adds: Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the
future adaptation can play a key role in decreasing these risks. After so many years, the penny is beginning to drop. In his book An Appeal to Reason,
IPCC report in 2007 specifically

humans would not adapt. Possible impacts, the report said, do not take into
account any changes or developments in adaptive capacity. That is to say, if the world gets warmer, sea levels rise and rainfall patterns
change, farmers, developers and consumers will do absolutely nothing to change their habits over the course of an entire century. It is a
ludicrous assumption. But this assumption was central, Lawson pointed out, to the estimated future
cost of climate change the IPCC reported. A notorious example was the reports conclusion that, assuming no adaptation, crop yields might fall by 70
Lawson devoted a chapter to the importance of adaptation, in which he pointed out that the last
assumed
that
per cent by the end of the century a conclusion based, a footnote revealed, on a single study of peanut farming in one part of India. Lawson pointed out
adaptation had six obvious benefits as a strategy, which mitigation did not share. It
required no international treaty, but would work if adopted unilaterally; it could be applied locally; it
would produce results quickly; it could capture any benefits of warming while avoiding
risks; it addressed existing problems that were merely exacerbated by warming; and
it would bring benefits even if global warming proves to have been exaggerated. Ask yourself, if you
that
were a resident of the Somerset Levels, whether you would prefer a government policy of adapting to anything the weather might throw at you, whether it
was exacerbated by climate change or not, or spending nearly 50 billion (by 2020) on low-carbon technologies that might in a few decades time, if
adopted by the whole world, reduce the exacerbation of floods, but not the floods themselves. It is remarkable how far this latest report moves towards
Lawsons position. Professor Field, who seems to be an eminently sensible chap, clearly strove to emphasise adaptation, if only because the chance of an
international agreement on emissions looks ever less likely. If you go through the report chapter by chapter (not that many people seem to have
bothered), amid the usual warnings of potential danger, there are many sensible, if jargon-filled, discussions of exactly the points Lawson made. Chapter
17 concedes that adaptation strategies can yield welfare benefits even in the event of a constant climate, such as more efficient use of water and more
in some cases mitigation may impede adaptation

(e.g., reduced energy availability in countries with growing populations). A crucial point, this: that preventing the poor from getting access to
cheap electricity from coal might make them more vulnerable to climate change . So
green policies may compound the problem they seek to solve.
robust crop varieties. Chapter 20 even acknowledges that
Co2 Good 1NC (2:30

Co2 key to food, biodiversity, and halting land conversion
Carter et al 14 (Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Robert M. Carter, Emeritus Fellow, Institute
of Public Affairs and Dr. S. Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project,
CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED II: BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS, Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change, 2014, p. 473-475. Gender edited
The key findings of this chapter are listed below.

Rising atmospheric CO2 and warming temperatures, both of which IPCC claims
constitute a significant threat to the biosphere, benefited agriculture in the ancient
past and in the twentieth century.
Empirical studies suggest a future warming of the climate coupled with rising
atmospheric CO2 levels will boost global agricultural production and help meet the
food needs of the planets growing population.
When model-based studies fully account for the growth-enhancing and waterconserving benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, they project significant gains
for future agricultural production.
The vigor of the terrestrial biosphere has been increasing with time, revealing a
great greening of the planet that extends across the globe.
Satellite-based analyses of net terrestrial primary productivity (NPP) reveal an
increase of around 6 13% since the 1980s.
There is no empirical evidence to support the model-based claim that future
carbon uptake will diminish on a global scale due to rising temperatures.
Earths land surfaces were a net source of CO2- carbon to the atmosphere until
about 1940. From 1940 onward, the terrestrial biosphere has become, in the mean,
an increasingly greater sink for CO2- carbon.
Over the past 50 years, global carbon uptake has doubled from 2.4 0.8 billion
tons in 1960 to 5.0 0.9 billion tons in 2010.
The observed greening of the Earth has occurred in spite of the many real and
imagined assaults on the planets vegetation over this time period, including fires,
disease, outbreaks of pests, deforestation, and climatic changes (primarily in
temperature and precipitation).
The atmospheres rising CO2 contentwhich IPCC considers to be the chief culprit
behind its concerns about the future of the biosphereis most likely the primary
cause of the observed greening trends.
In the future, plants should be able to adjust their physiology to accommodate a

warming of the magnitude and rate of rise typically predicted by climate models
to accompany the projected future increase in atmospheric CO2 content.
The rise in the airs CO2 concentration and its antitranspiration effect, which
improves plant wateruse efficiency, are enhancing and will continue to enhance the
vegetative productivity of Africa.
The rise of the airs CO2 concentration and temperature to their highest values of
the past century enhanced the terrestrial vegetative productivity of all parts of Asia,
including deserts, forests, grasslands, and the Tibetan Plateau.
Evergreen vegetation, woody plants, and other plant life have increased across
Australia over the past 200 years as a result of CO2 enrichment.
Over the last two decades of the twentieth century, Europe as a whole became
greener and much of it is seeing an increase in woodlands due to the recent rise in
atmospheric CO2, which has tended to offset the detrimental effects of climate
change in the region.
Opposite the forecasts promulgated by the models used by IPCC, land-based
plants of the Arctic and near-Arctic regions of North America are thriving, thanks in
large part to the ongoing rise in the atmospheres CO2 concentration and global
warming.
Late twentieth-century increases in air temperature and atmospheric CO2
concentration did not negatively afect plant communities in the eastern
United States. Rather, the temperature and CO2 increases significantly enhanced
local and regional productivity, and there is little reason to think such
enhancements will not continue throughout the foreseeable future.
The late twentieth-century rise in temperature and atmospheric CO2
concentrations improved the productivity of plant communities in the central region
of the United States, notwithstanding model-based concerns to the contrary.
The late twentieth-century rise in temperature and atmospheric CO2 improved the
productivity of plant communities in the western region of the United States,
notwithstanding model-based projections of unprecedented ecological disaster due
to rising temperatures and drought.
Warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations are resulting in net primary
productivity increasing across tropical South America, overcoming the effects of
deforestation, forest fires, and incursions by human civilization into natural areas.
It is likely the greening of the planet will continue in the future, even if the largest
temperature increases predicted by the models occur, because the optimum
temperature for plant growth and development typically rises with increasing levels
of atmospheric CO2. This response, coupled with expected increases in plant
photosynthetic rates from the rise in the airs CO2 concentration, is more than
enough to compensate for any temperature-induced plant stress caused by global
warming.
Real-world observations reveal plants have many ways of adjusting to changes in

climate in addition to their ability to spread from places of rising warmth to cooler
habitats, and these observations suggest the planets current assemblage of plants
is likely to be around a good deal longer than many theoretical models have
predicted.
A major cause of biodiversity reductions is not rising atmospheric CO2
concentrations, but instead the direct encroachment of [hu]man[s] upon the
world of nature. Anthropogenic global warming, to whatever extent it exists, is
helping plants overcome these assaults and thrive despite the growing
human presence.
As good as things currently are for world agriculture, and as much better as they
are expected to become as the atmospheric CO2 content continues to rise, there
may be additional substantial room for both natural selection and bioengineering to
remove the constraints of low CO2 adaptation in several important agricultural
crops and thereby create novel genotypes able to exploit high CO2 conditions to
theirand our advantage.
The ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 content is likely exerting significant selection
pressure on Earths naturally occurring terrestrial plants, which should improve their
performance in the face of various environmental stressors via the process of
microevolution. Plants may be much better prepared than most scientists once
thought to meet whatever climatic challenges, including global warming, the future
may pose for them.
Evidence continues to accumulate for substantial heritable variation of
ecologically important plant traits, including root allocation, drought tolerance, and
nutrient plasticity, which suggests rapid evolution based on epigenetic variation
alone should be possible.
Food wars cause extinction outweighs warming

Cribb 10 (Julian Cribb, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of
Technological Sciences and Engineering, 2010, The Coming Famine: The Global Food
Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It, google books,)
The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more
wars have been triggered by disputes over food, land, and water than over mere
political or ethnic diferences. This should not surprise US: people have fought over
the means of survival for most of history. But in the abbreviated reports on the
nightly media, and even in the rarefied realms of government policy, the focus is
almost invariably on the playersthe warring national, ethnic, or religious factions
rather than on the play, the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite
conflict. Caught up in these are groups of ordinary, desperate people fearful that
there is no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their children and
believing that they must fight the others to secure them. At the same time, the
number of refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and
famines precipitated by food and resource shortages. Governments in troubled
regions tottered and fell. The coming famine is planetary because it involves both
the immediate efects of hunger on directly affected populations in heavily
populated regions of the world in the next forty yearsand also the impacts of
war, government failure, refugee crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will
afect all human beings , no matter who they are or where they live. It is an
emergency because unless it is solved, billions will experience great hardship ,
and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy, one of the worlds most
progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and
South America, succinctly summed it all up: Global warming gets all the publicity
but the real imminent threat to the human race is starvation on a massive
scale. Taking a 1030 year view, I believe that food shortages, famine and huge
social unrest are probably the greatest threat the human race has ever faced . I
believe future food shortages are a far bigger world threat than global
warming.2 The coming famine is also complex, because it is driven not by one or
two, or even a half dozen, factors but rather by the confluence of many large and
profoundly intractable causes that tend to amplify one another. This means that it
cannot easily be remedied by silver bullets in the form of technology, subsidies, or
single-country policy changes, because of the synergetic character of the things
that power it.
Co2 solves ice age- extinction

Marsh 12 (Gerald E. Marsh, Retired Physicist from the Argonne National
Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic
nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration, The
Coming of a New Ice Age, http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm,
2012)
CHICAGO Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing
humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.
What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between
long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten
thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended. How
much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earths surface?
Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply dont know. Even if all the
temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the
rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit an
increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. While an
enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause
humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to
adapt. Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the
continuation of modern civilization. One has only to look at maps showing the
extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to
ice age conditions would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by
thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much
colder. The last little Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic
Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the
Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in
Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely
reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the miseries to come.
By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out farms and
entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780,
New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history would have been very different.
Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the
result was the continued flowering of modern civilization. There were very few Ice
Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earths climate entered an unusual
period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting
about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial periods, like the one
we are now living in became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most
of the Earths history, it was far warmer than it is today. Indeed, the Sun has been
getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have
flourished. Both of these had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in
the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earths long history. Five hundred million years
ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until
about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels dropped to a little less than
twice what they are today. It is possible that moderately increased carbon
dioxide concentrations could extend the current interglacial period. But we
have not reached the level required yet, nor do we know the optimum
level to reach. So, rather than call for arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions,
perhaps the best thing the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
the climatology community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining
the optimal range of carbon dioxide needed to extend the current interglacial period
indefinitely. NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one
of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earths
climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age? We ought to carefully
consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending
trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove
to be only a will-o-the-wisp.
negative feedbacks check--Co2 key to forests, wetlands, and

topsoil
Summary for Policymakers, CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED II: BIOLOGICAL
IMPACTS, 2014 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change (NIPCC), 2014, p. 6.
Key Findings: CO2, Plants, and Soils
Results obtained under 3,586 separate sets of experimental conditions

conducted on 549 plant species reveal nearly all plants experience increases in dry
weight or biomass in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Additional results
obtained under 2,094 separate experimental conditions conducted on 472 plant
species reveal nearly all plants experience increases in their rates of photosynthesis
in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Long-term CO2 enrichment studies confirm the findings of shorter-term
experiments, demonstrating that the growth-enhancing, water-conserving, and
stress-alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 likely persist throughout
plant lifetimes.
Forest productivity and growth rates throughout the world have increased
gradually since the Industrial Revolution in concert with, and in response to, the
historical increase in the airs CO2 concentration. Therefore, as the atmospheres
CO2 concentration continues to rise, forests will likely respond by exhibiting
significant increases in biomass production and they likely will grow more
robustly and significantly expand their ranges.
Modest increases in air temperature tend to increase carbon storage in forests
and their soils. Thus, old-growth forests can be significant carbon sinks and their
capacity to sequester carbon in the future will be enhanced as the airs CO2
content continues to rise.
As the atmospheres CO2 concentration increases, the productivity of grassland
species will increase even under unfavorable growing conditions characterized by
less-than-adequate soil moisture, inadequate soil nutrition, elevated air
temperature, and physical stress imposed by herbivory.
The thawing of permafrost caused by increases in air temperature will likely not
transform peatlands from carbon sinks to carbon sources. Instead, rapid
terrestrialization likely will act to intensify carbon-sink conditions.
Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely will enhance the productivity and
carbon sequestering ability of Earths wetlands. In addition, elevated CO2 may help
some coastal wetlands counterbalance the negative impacts of rising seas.
Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely will allow greater numbers of
beneficial bacteria (that help sequester carbon and nitrogen) to exist within soils
and anaerobic water environments, thereby benefitting both terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems.
The aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment likely will result in
greater soil carbon stores due to increased carbon input to soils, even in nutrientpoor soils and in spite of predicted increases in temperature. The carbonsequestering capability of Earths vegetation likely will act as a significant brake on
the rate-of-rise of the airs CO2 content and thereby help to mute the magnitude of
any CO2-induced global warming.
The historical increase in the airs CO2 content has significantly reduced the
erosion of valuable topsoil over the past several decades; the continuing increase
in atmospheric CO2 can maintain this trend and perhaps even accelerate it for
the foreseeable future.
Humans adapttheir models are flawed

Indur Goklany, former IPCC review, Is Global Warming the Number One Threat to
Humanity? BRIEFING PAPER n. 7, Global Warming Policy Foundation, 1212, p. 5-6.
The paper notes that global warming impact studies systematically

overestimate negative impacts and simultaneously underestimate positive
consequences. The net negative impacts, therefore, are likely to be substantially
overestimated because these studies fail to consider adequately societys
capacity to adapt autonomously to either mitigate or take advantage of climate
change impacts. This violates the IPCCs methodological guidelines for impact
assessments, which require consideration of autonomous or automatic adaptations.
These adaptations depend on, among other things, adaptive capacity, which should
advance with time due to the assumption of economic growth embedded in each
IPCC emission scenario (see Figure 1). 16 However, these advances are rarely
accounted for fully in impacts assessments. For example, the FTAs water
resource study totally ignores adaptive capacity while its malaria study assumes no
change in adaptive capacity between the baseline year (1990) and projection year
(2085) (see here17). Consequently, the assessments are internally inconsistent
because future adaptive capacity does not reflect the future economic
development used to derive the emission scenarios that underpin global warming
estimates.
their authors are hacks

Dr. William Happer, The Truth About Greenhouse Gases, George C. Marshall
Institute, 52311, www.marshall.org/article.php?id=953, accesse 6-28-11.
The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the

global warming bandwagon. This is not surprising, since governments, as well as
many states and foundations, generously fund those who reinforce their desired
outcomes under the cover of saving the planet. Certain private industries are also
involved: those positioned to profit from enacted controls as well as financial
institutions heavily invested in green technologies whose rationale disappears
the moment global warming is widely understood to be a non-problem. There are
known connections and movements of people involved in government policy,
scientific societies, and private industry, all with the common thread of
influencing the outcome of a set of programs and investments underpinned by the
supposed threat of global warming.
CO2 2NC
--A2 Distribution Thumps

Distribution not a concernNGOs and empirics
David Leonhardt David Leonhardt is the managing editor of a new New York
Times website covering politics and policy (The Upshot), scheduled to begin in 2014.
He was previously the papers Washington bureau chief, as well as an economics
columnist. He is the author of the e-book, Heres the Deal: How Washington Can
Solve the Deficit and Spur Growth, published by The Times and Byliner. Africas
Economy Is Rising. Now What Happens to Its Food?, The Upshot (New York Times),
JAN. 22, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/upshot/africas-economy-isrising-now-what-happens-to-its-food.html?rref=upshot&abt=0002&abg=0
For decades, the economies of Africa were the worlds economic laggards. They
arent anymore. Over the last decade, Africas per capita income has grown at a
rate nearly identical to that of the rest of the world. Its reasonable to imagine that
the continent is in the early stages of a trajectory that could mimic that of Latin
America or, more ambitiously, parts of Asia. With the world experiencing one of the
greatest extended reductions in poverty on record, Africa has finally become part of
the story. A middle class is beginning to develop in West Africa, from Ghana and
Nigeria down to Angola. Some severely poor countries, like Ethiopia and Liberia, are
at least making rapid progress. Along with Africas economic stirrings come many of
the same questions that have confronted the rest of the developing world. And
some of the most important revolve around food. Will the economic growth prove
lasting and broad enough to end the continents tragic famines? Will those Africans
who today live almost entirely on starches like cassava be able to switch to a more
varied and nutritious diet? How will farmers on the continent likely to suffer some of
the worst consequences of climate change cope with it and how can Africas
rising food production avoid accelerating that climate change? Photo Rice farming
in eastern Rwanda last year. Africas farmers are vastly less productive than farmers
elsewhere, which needs to change in order for the continent to catch up
economically. Credit Ben Curtis/Associated Press One of the biggest players in this
area has become the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is better known for its
efforts to reduce disease in Africa, but it has also spent more than $3 billion in
grants on African agriculture. On Thursday, Mr. and Ms. Gates will be in Brussels to
mark the 15th anniversary of their foundation and to announce their goals for the
next 15 years. Among them: financing programs to help Africa feed itself. Africas
farmers today are vastly less productive than farmers elsewhere getting less than
one-fifth the yield on corn that American farmers do, for instance. The foundation
plans to finance more scientific research, new programs to disseminate that
research (especially to female farmers, who particularly struggle), better food
storage and more mobile phones, all with the goal of lifting African agriculture. A
more efficient agricultural sector, the Gateses write in their annual letter about their
work, can drive massive poverty reduction and improve life across the continent.
There is a fascinating tension in this focus on food. Worries about the availability of
food stretch back centuries, not just in Africa. The crux of the essay that made
Thomas Malthus famous, in 1798, argued that food production grew arithmetically
while the population grew geometrically, dooming the human species to a grim
future. The best-selling 1968 book, The Population Bomb, made a modern version
of the same case. The food pessimists, of course, could hardly have been more
wrong. It turns out that the fruits of human ingenuity grow geometrically, too
more than rapidly enough to keep pace with population growth. The share of income
that societies devote to food has fallen sharply even as the worlds population has
grown to 7.3 billion. As countries have become wealthier, they have rarely had
trouble feeding themselves. Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the
main storyContinue reading the main story And the Gateses are hardly pessimists.
The lives of people in poor countries will improve faster in the next 15
years than at any other time in history, they write. When I spoke with them
recently, I asked why food production needed to be among their big new goals. After
all, private market economies have generally managed to deliver enough food,
at least to countries on the rise. The same cant be said about medical care or
education, two of the foundations other main areas of emphasis. Specifically, I
mentioned Paul Ehrlich and his well-known $10,000 bet with the economist Julian
Simon in 1980, over the price of a basket of commodities. Mr. Ehrlich thought the
prices would rise by 1990, in a sign that the resources could not keep up with
population growth. Mr. Simon thought otherwise and won handily. Even Simons
view was that humans would have to change to innovate, Mr. Gates said.
Innovation, in other words, is not preordained. Indeed, its happened much more in
some societies than in others. And it has happened, Mr. Gates was arguing, because
people and institutions took steps to remove the barriers to progress. With African
agriculture, those barriers include roads that are too narrow to transport grain
quickly, lack of knowledge about how crops fare best in some places and a dearth of
basic information on market prices, for instance that hampers farmers. They
get taken by the middlemen, Ms. Gates said. If they have a cellphone, theyre
informed. All of those problems are at least partly market failures, and they wont
automatically fix themselves. They are the kind of failures that governments or
foundations can address. Its far too early to know whether the Gates Foundations
attempts to do so in Africa will work. Some other experts have criticized the
foundation, for example, for giving most of its money dedicated to African
agriculture to groups outside of Africa like European universities, which may not
know what the continent really needs. The foundation replies that the bulk of the
money is ultimately spent in Africa. Either way, Africa today offers an argument
against fatalism. Many parts of the affluent world from Japan to the United States
to Europe may be in a bit of a funk, struggling with slow-growing incomes. And
climate change, left unaddressed, presents grave dangers for everyone. At the
same time, much of the world is enjoying one of historys most rapid increases in
prosperity. Life expectancy has risen more than six years just since 1990. The world,
to quote the title of a book by the economist Charles Kenny, is Getting Better.
As Mr. Gates says: The world is actually improving a lot. Were trying to deliver
both the good news on the progress and the possibility to do more.
Both are important- resolving scarcity is a necessary condition

AWFW 11 (at least 2011card internally cites that date. A Well-Fed World
(AWFW) is a hunger relief & animal protection organization. Persons writing for it
include: Dawn Moncrief two masters degrees from The George Washington
University: one in International Relations, the other in Womens Studies, both
focusing on economic development. D. Maurice Herrings formal education on
health and wellness includes a B.S. in pre-med biology and chemistry from Seton
Hall University and an M.S. in community nutrition and food science from Cornell
University. Melanie Hiller holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Justice & Social
Inquiry from Arizona State University. In addition to compiling reports on topics
central to our organizational mission, she helps facilitate outreach to the general
public and collaborate with other organizations and advocates. Ashley Capps
received an M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Iowa Writers Workshop.
Her first book of poems is Mistaking the Sea for Green Fields Gary Loewenthal is the
co-founder of Compassion for Animals and founder of the Worldwide Vegan Bake
Sale (WVBS). In 2009, the WVBS was honored by VegNews Magazine as Veg Event
of the Year as well as featured on CNN in 2010. Scarcity vs. Distribution
http://awfw.org/scarcity-vs-distribution/
Its common to hear that theres plenty of food, the problem is distribution not
scarcity. But its not a simple either/or situation. Both scarcity and distribution
are complex and interconnected issues. Increasing population and dwindling
resources make food scarcity a current problem and a crisis in the making.
Distribution in terms of governments and other institutions not providing enough
food to those in need is a heart-breaking reality that is connected with issues of
scarcity. Isnt there more than enough to feed everyone? Theoretically we can feed
nine billion people, but not when vast amounts of food are fed to animals to produce
meat and other animal-based foods. Animals are extremely inefficient converters of
food that is, they eat much more food than they produce. Animal-based foods
(such as meat, dairy, and eggs) are highly resource-intensive and require much
more food, land, water and energy than eating plant-based foods directly. A
majority of the extra food is redistributed away from those who need it most and
used as animal feed to produce meat for those who can afford it most. As such,
animal-based foods are a form of overconsumption and redistribution that reduces
the amount of available food and increases the price of basic food staples. In short,
those with financial resources outbid the poor and increase hunger. Scarcity
Finally Accepted? Global hunger results from a web of immensely complex factors,
including BOTH food scarcity and distribution. Thinking that hunger is mostly a
problem of distribution is dangerous in that it leads people to dismiss the issue of
scarcity and results in practices that are inappropriate and harmful. Food scarcity
at the global level is an issue now with past surpluses being drawn down and it is
fast becoming a critical issue as our seven billion population expands towards nine
billion by 2050. As our population increases, available land, water, energy and other
finite resources decrease. So we have more people to feed and fewer resources to
feed them. Scarcity is further exacerbated by our appetite for resource-intensive

animal-based foods. Animals-based foods, include but are not limited to all types of
animal flesh (cows, pigs, goats, sheep, birds, and aquatic animals). Animal-based
foods also include products that are produced from animals, most notably their
reproductive products such as dairy and eggs. Meat as Overconsumption &
Redistribution Animals used for food (livestock) are highly inefficient converters of
food, energy, and natural resources. In short, livestock consume much more than
they produce. Eating 1,000 calories of meat can easily use more than 7,000 calories
in plant-based foods, plus the associated use of natural resources. By using more
than their fair share, animal-based foods are a form of redistribution that
exacerbate food scarcity, especially in low-income countries. (See supply-anddemand below) There are obvious differences in the amount of food consumed in
low-, middle- and high-income countries, but the quantity in terms of calories
consumed is less important than the type of food. When the true caloric values are
calculated that include the use of animal feed, the disparities are shockingly large.
Exporting Food as Redistribution During the mid-1980s famine, Ethiopia was a net
exporter of food. The government and businesses exported food to be used as feed
to produce meat and other animal-based foods for wealthier countries and
individuals. Those with greater financial resources bid food away from those who
have less because theyre able to pay higher prices. Its hard to believe but
exporting large quantities of food is a common practice that continues today in
Ethiopia, Kenya and other countries with large populations of hungry, malnourished,
and food-insecure people. Basic Supply-and-Demand Agricultural supply-anddemand is a complicated process with many political and other variables, but this is
the basic concept which holds true under many scenarios: As the supply of food
tightens, decreasing supply relative to demand prices increase and fewer people
can afford the basic food staples needed for survival. When food is exported from a
poor region their local supply of food decreases, which can lead to higher food
prices and more deaths from hunger and hunger-related causes. On a global
scale, when staple foods (grains, soy, corn, etc) are used as animal feed to produce
resource-intensive animal-based foods, the global food supply is lower relative to
demand and food prices are higher than many can afford. There are many other
factors involved, but that is the basic concept. The biofuels example illustrates it
best. Biofuels, Meat and the Food Crisis The most prominent example of food
supply-and-demand is the way in which biofuels increased demand for food staples,
thus increasing the price of food and contributing to a global food crisis. Foodintensive biofuels were demonized as a top contributor to the mid-2000s food
crisis, but there was no mention of the impact of food-intensive meat, dairy and egg
consumption. Reducing the global consumption of animal products would have an
immensely greater impact on the supply and availability of food relative to
reducing, even eliminating, biofuels. While food supplies can be tightened and
relaxed by agribusiness and policymakers, in the long run food is a limited resource.
Reducing consumption of animal-based foods would take pressure off our limited
food and environmental resources. It would decrease demand relative to supply,
allowing for a downward pressure on food prices to fall.
Food Wars M 2NC
Its a conflict multiplier most probable scenario for nuclear

war
Future Directions International 12 (International Conflict Triggers and Potential
Conflict Points Resulting from Food and Water Insecurity Global Food and Water
Crises Research Programme, May 25,
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/Workshop_Report_-_Intl_Conflict_Triggers__May_25.pdf,)
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most
likely be fought over a lack of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new.
Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a
lack of food. More recently, Germanys World War Two efforts are said to have been
inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the
general sense among those that attended FDIs recent workshops, was that the
scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of
population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land
and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book,
Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDIs March 2012
workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why
countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), if people
are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable riots, violence, breakdown of
law and order and migration result. Hunger feeds anarchy. This view is also
shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if large
regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead,
then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow. He continues: An
increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of
super powers and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource
conflicts. He also says: The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global
conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed
states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by
bloody competition over dwindling resources. As another workshop participant put
it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to
protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger
results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are
going hungry. A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that
where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict.
Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments,
especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The
UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential
trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.
Food crisis destabilizes Russia, China, and India

Global Torchlight, (Global Torchlight, specialised consultancy advising on a full
spectrum of international political and security issues, founding members include
John C. Amble, former intelligence officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and
David J. Chmiel, MA from the War Studies Department at Kings College London,
"Drought, Rising Food Prices, and Political Instability," 8--20--12,
http://globaltorchlight.com/?p=2289, accessed 11-6-12.
Adverse climatic conditions this year in regions such as the United States, the Black
Sea, and India are combining to generate lower than average crop yields and put
upward pressure on food prices that will last well into 2013. While those with
international business interests will be attuned to the economic and financial
consequences of such price increases, equal attention should be paid to their
potential impact on the political and security risk environment in emerging and
developing markets over the coming months. Such risks could take many forms,
but three warrant particular mention. First, substantial and sustained rises in food
prices are likely to place pressure on governments in many emerging markets to
subsidise the prices of staple foods. As has been noted in previous analysis on
globaltorchlight.com, such subsidies often do more harm than good to an economy
in the long run. They distort market mechanisms and give rise to increased potential
for fraud and corruption in how the program is administered. Nevertheless, when
confronted with prospects of civil unrest relating to rising food prices, political
leaders may judge subsidies the easiest means of placating a restive population.
Second, this will also mean that existing subsidy programs will likely remain in place
while food prices continue to rise. In the past couple of years, countries as
disparate as Bolivia, Nigeria, and Tunisia have experienced civil unrest following
decisions to reduce or eliminate subsidies on food, fuel, and other staples. The
prospects of similar disruption to internal security will be fresh in the minds of many
governments. Countries that do choose to abolish subsidies are likely to confront
considerable resistance when doing so. Finally, the effects of this issue are not
limited to smaller developing economies but could generate political upheaval in
some of the worlds most important economies, including China, Russia, and
India. It is widely acknowledged that food price inflation is an issue of significant
political sensitivity in China and any sustained increase in food prices could cause
grave concern in Chinas Communist government. In Russia, similar inflationary
trends could impact hardest upon the rural and poorer parts of the country on which
President Vladimir Putin traditionally relies for support. Protest movements against
Putin have previously lacked momentum due to his ongoing support in Russias
hinterland; however, an erosion in support for his government in those parts of the
country could alter that dynamic. However, the potential consequences of food
price insecurity would perhaps be most deeply problematic for India, whose
government is already struggling with the challenge of restoring order following the
eruption of sectarian violence in the north-eastern Assam state. Any civil unrest
related to rising food prices would present the government with a further
substantial challenge to its attempts to sustain the countrys economic growth and
attract further foreign investment capital.
Russian instability causes global nuclear war

DimitriSimes, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The
Return of Russian History, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, January/February 1994, p. 67+, LN.
For the United States, neither Yeltsin's political future nor even the future of Russian
democracy should be ends in themselves. What the United States needs most in its
greatly weakened but still potentially formidable superpower rival is a combination
of domestic stability and a system of checks and balances.Stability is important for
a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and continuing territorial tensions with
its newly independent neighbors. Too much disunity in Russia (as appealing as it is
to those who "love" that country so much that they would prefer to see several
Russias) increases the likelihood of a civil war that could easily engulf most, if not
all, of the post-Soviet states, creating not only nuclear and environmenta ldisasters
but a grave threat to world peace as well. Thus, it is in the U.S. interest to have a
government in Moscow that is strong and determined enough to draw the line and
to prevent centrifugal, separatist trends from going out of control.Conversely, the
more stable the Russian government, the more the United States should be
interested in seeing that there are meaningful checks and balances to prevent the
reemergence of a unitary authoritarian state. Without such checks and balances,
there would be no assurance that Russia would not again become a threat to its
neighbors and a destabilizing factor in world politics. The United States has a vested
interest in seeing Russian governments rely more on democratic legitimacy than on
the support of the military and security services.
china instability causes nuke war

Herbert Yee 2, Assc. Prof. Government @ Hong Kong Baptist University and Ian Storey, Asst. Prof. @ the Asian-Pacific Center
for Security Studies, 2 (China Threat: Perception, Myths and Reality, p. 5)
The fourth factor contributing to the perception of a China threat is the fear of
political and economic collapse in the PRC, resulting in territorial fragmentation, civil
war and waves of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries. Naturally, any or all
of these scenarios would have a profoundly negative impact on regional stability.
Today the Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal problems, including the
increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a shortage of
natural resources and a deterioration in the natural environment caused by rapid
industrialisation and pollution. These problems are putting a strain on the central
governments ability to govern effectively. Political disintegration or a Chinese civil
war might result in millions of Chinese refugees seeking asylum in neighbounng
countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees from a collapsed PRC would
no doubt put a severe strain on the limited resources of Chinas neighbours. A
fragmented China could also result in another nightmare scenario nuclear
weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible local provincial leaders or
warlords.12 From this perspective, a disintegrating China would also pose a threat
to its neighbours and the world.
**Food shortages cause global instability

*biggest internal link turns aff war mpx
Keating 14 (Joshua, staff writer at Slate focusing on international affairs and

writes the World blog, Which governments are most likely to be toppled when
hungry people riot?,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/feed_the_world/2014/04/food_riots
_and_revolution_grain_prices_predict_political_instability.single.html,)
People may vote with their pocketbooks, but more often than not, they revolt with their bellies. If
you want to predict where political instability, revolution, coups detat, or interstate
warfare will occur, the best factor to keep an eye on is not GDP, the human development index, or energy prices. If I were to pick a
single indicatoreconomic, political, socialthat I think will tell us more than any other, it would be the price of
grain, says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, who has been writing about the politics and
economics of food since the 1950s. Food, of course, is never the sole driver of instability or uprising. Corruption, a lack of democracy, ethnic tension
food is often the difference between a n unhappy but quiescent

population and one in revolt. Take Venezuela, where a toxic combination of gas subsidies, currency controls, and hoarding
have led to chronic food shortagesa major factor motivating the anti-government protests that
have wracked the country since the beginning of this year. Its not always high prices that are to blame. Behind the ongoing protests
these better known factors may be criticalbut
against Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in Thailand, in addition to concerns over corruption and a debate on the future of the countrys democracy, is a
since the times of

the Roman poet Juvenalhe of bread and circuses famethat food is an inherently political
commodity, says Cullen Hendrix, a political scientist at the University of Denvers Korbel School of
International Relations and a leading authority on the relationship between food and conflict . If
probe over a controversial rice-hoarding scheme that has led to a global glut. This idea isnt exactly new. Weve known
youre the dictator of a small, rich country, you can theoretically feed your population indefinitely. Two events have renewed interest among scholars in the
the 200708 food crisis, which triggered food riots in

from Haiti to Bangladesh to Mozambique
relationship between food prices and political instability. The first was
countries
. The second was the Arab Spring, the first signs of which were riots in
response to high food prices in Algeria and Tunisia. The revolutions that swept the Middle East that year were, of course, primarily the result of a
Egypts revolution, in particular, is

impossible to fully understand without taking into account the role of food. Autocratic
population frustrated by decades of dictatorship and corruption, but according to Hendrix,
governments have a habit of keeping food and fuel prices artificially low through subsidies and price controls. As Hendrix puts it, Rational leaders have an
incentive to cater to the preferences of urbanites. They are closer to the center of power, they face lower costs for collective action, they live in dense
environments in which protests are particularly threatening to a leader. So what do these urbanites want? They want cheap food. If youre the dictator of
a small, rich country, you can theoretically feed your population indefinitely. In 2011, for instance, while revolutions were sweeping the region, oil-rich
Kuwait announced that it would commemorate the anniversary of the countrys liberation from Iraq by giving every citizen a grant of 1,000 dinars ($3,545)
and free food for 13 months. The message to citizens was pretty clear. Egypt is the most populous country in the Arab world and is not blessed with a
significant amount of arable land or oil reserves; its rulers dont have options like Kuwaits. Egypt has a history of food-based instability. In 1977, under
pressure from the World Bank, Anwar Sadat severely curtailed food subsidies. In the resulting bread intifada, strikes and rioting lasted for two days and
around 800 people were killed. By 2011, food and fuel subsidies accounted for a staggering 8 percent of Egypts GDP. Hosni Mubaraks government could
no longer afford to feed his population into submission. Even with subsidies, grain prices jumped 30 percent in Egypt between 2010 and 2011, and the
Arab Spring may become the textbook example of the

geopolitics of food pricesthe food riots and subsequent revolutions transfixed the
world. But shifts in food price may be responsible for an even more profound
reordering of global power. Food may explain why everything changed during the 1980s. After a price shock
in the late 1970s, food prices underwent a slump during the early and mid-1980s. A confluence of factors included
uprising began in January 2011. The
the green revolution, which improved the efficiency of agriculture in
slowing economic growth; the spread of

developing countries; and the falling price of oil.
Co2 Ag: L 2NC

Massive food crisis coming absent co2also solves carbon
cycle
International Panel on Climate Change, 2014, p. 481.
Several researchers have expressed concerns about a looming food production

crisis on the horizon, suggesting just a few decades from now the evergrowing
human population of the planet will need a near-doubling of present-day
agricultural production. One example is the brief Perspective article published in
Science, where Running (2012) resurrected shades of Meadows et al.s 1972 treatise
on The Limits to Growth.
Noting terrestrial plant production is the foundation of the biospheric carbon
cycle and that water and atmospheric CO2 are transformed into plant
carbohydrate matter with the help of solar energy, Running states this plant matter
sustains the global food web and becomes the source of food, fiber and fuel for
humanity. A problem Running sees, however, is that for more than 30 years, global
net primary production (NPP) has stayed near 53.6 Pg per year, with only ~1 Pg of
inter-annual variability, citing two studies of which he was a coauthor (Nemani et
al., 2003; Zhao and Running, 2010). He thus speculates, if global NPP is fixed by
planetary constraints, then no substantial increase in plant growth may be
possible.
If true, this would indeed have catastrophic consequences, for it is almost
universally agreed, as Running writes, the projected 40% increase in human
population by 2050 CE, combined with goals to substantially improve standards of
living for the poorest 5 billion people on Earth, implies at least a doubling of
future resource demand by 2050. The most important of these resources is
food.
But is a doubling of food production by midcentury realistic? Agriculture already
consumes 38% of the worlds land surface, and Running notes many analyses now
conclude that freshwater use for irrigation has already reached a planetary
boundary. Furthermore, with massive river pollution and ocean anaerobic dead
zones, he states, if anything, future increases in NPP must be achieved with less,
not more, irrigation and fertilizer use. Others have noted additional challenges,
such as Tilman et al. (2009) noting land previously allocated to food production is
transformed to bioenergy production, raising food prices for the people who can
least afford it. Has the planet reached a limit to its growth? In a 2012 paper
published in Nature, titled Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land
and oceans during the past 50 years, Ballantyne et al. (2012) suggest it has not.
The five U.S. scientists state their mass balance analysis shows net global carbon
uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year
and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4 0.8 to 5.0 0.9 billion tonnes
per year, between 1960 and 2010. They conclude, there is no empirical evidence
that carbon uptake has started to diminish on the global scale. In fact, as their
results indicate, just the opposite appears to be the case, with global carbon uptake
actually doubling over the past half-century. There are many reasons why this
doubling has occurred: breeding of better crop varieties that are higher-yielding,
more competitive with weeds, less tasty to insect pests, more nutritious, and more
drought-resistant, as well as smarter ways of farming, improved technologies, and
the worldwide aerial fertilization and transpiration-reducing effects of the historical
and still-ongoing rise in the atmospheres CO2 content. The latter two phenomena
benefit agriculture and nature simultaneously.
Also concerned about adequately meeting the food needs of a growing world
population, Parry and Hawkesford (2010) note food production needs to increase
50% by 2030 and double by 2050 to meet projected demands. They say while the
demand for food is increasing, production is progressively being limited by nonfood uses of crops and cropland, such as the production of biofuels. In their UK
homeland, for example, they note, by 2015 more than a quarter of wheat grain
may be destined for bioenergy production, which is both sad and puzzling, as they
also point out currently, at least one billion people are chronically malnourished
and the situation is deteriorating, with more people hungrier now than at the
start of the millennium.
The two researchers turn their discussion to photosynthesis, the all-important
process by which plants convert light energy into chemical energy, which is used in
the assimilation of atmospheric CO2 and the formation of sugars that fuel growth
and yield. These phenomena make this natural and lifesustaining process a major
target for improving crop productivity both via conventional breeding and
biotechnology, they write.
Next to a plants need for carbon dioxide is its need for water, the availability of
which, in the words of Parry and Hawkesford, is the major constraint on world crop
productivity. They state, since more than 80% of the [worlds] available water is
used for agricultural production, there is little opportunity to use additional water for
crop production, because as populations increase, the demand to use water for
other activities also increases. Hence they conclude, a real and immediate
challenge for agriculture is to increase crop production with less available water.
They provide an example of a success story: the Australian wheat variety Drysdale,
which gained fame because it uses water more efficiently. This valued
characteristic was achieved by slightly restricting stomatal aperture and thereby
the loss of water from the leaves. They note this ability reduces photosynthetic
performance slightly under ideal conditions, but it enables plants to have access
to water later in the growing season thereby increasing total photosynthesis over
the life of the crop.
Of course, Drysdale is but one variety of one crop, and the ideal goal would be to
get nearly all varieties of all crops to use water more efficiently. That goal in fact
can be reached without doing anything new, because allowing atmospheric CO2
concentrations to rise will cause the vast majority of plants to reduce the apertures
of their stomata and thereby lower the rate at which water vapor escapes from
them into the air. The result is even better than that produced by the breeding of
Drysdale, because the extra CO2 in the air more than overcomes the photosynthetic
reduction that results from the partial closure of plant stomatal apertures, allowing
even more yield to be produced per unit of water transpired in the process.
Human ingenuity can make the situation better still, by breeding and selecting crop
varieties that perform better under higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than the
varieties people currently rely upon, and by employing various technological means
of altering them. Humanity can succeed even though the United Nations
Millennium Development Goal of substantially reducing the worlds hungry by 2015
will not be met, as Parry and Hawkesford conclude. This truly seems to be the path
to take, as they write at least one billion people are chronically malnourished and
the situation is deteriorating, with more people hungrier now than at the start of
the millennium.
590 studies prove co2 ag

Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, Science and
Environmental Policy Project, Summary for Policymakers, CLIMATE CHANGE
RECONSIDERED II: BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS, 2014 Report of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014, p. 4-5.
Carbon dioxide is the basis of nearly all life on Earth. It is the primary raw material
utilized by most plants to produce the organic matter from which they construct
their tissues. Not surprisingly, thousands of laboratory and field experiments
conducted over the past 200 years demonstrate that plant productivity and growth
both rise as the CO2 concentration of the air increases.
As early as 1804, de Saussure showed that peas exposed to high CO2
concentrations grew better than control plants in ambient air; and work conducted
in the early 1900s significantly increased the number of species in which a growthenhancing effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment was observed to occur
(Demoussy, 1902-1904; Cummings and Jones, 1918).
By the time a group of scientists convened at Duke University in 1977 for a
workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment, an
annotated bibliography of 590 scientific studies dealing with CO2 effects on
vegetation had been prepared (Strain, 1978). This body of research demonstrated
increased levels of atmospheric CO2 generally produce increases in plant
photosynthesis, decreases in plant water loss by transpiration, increases in leaf
area, and increases in plant branch and fruit numbers , to name but a few of the
most commonly reported benefits.
Five years later, at the International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon

Dioxide and Plant Productivity, it was concluded a doubling of the airs CO2
concentration likely would lead to a 50% increase in photosynthesis in C3 plants, a
doubling of water use efficiency in both C3 and C4 plants, significant increases in
biological nitrogen fixation in almost all biological systems, and an increase in the
ability of plants to adapt to a variety of environmental stresses (Lemon, 1983). In
the years since, many other studies have been conducted on hundreds of different
plant species, repeatedly confirming the growth-enhancing, water-saving, and
stress-alleviating advantages that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations bestow
upon Earths plants and soils (Idso and Singer, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2011).
Chapter 1 focuses on basic plant productivity
responses to elevated CO2 and includes in two appendices tabular presentations of
more than 5,500 individual plant photosynthetic and biomass responses to CO2enriched air, finding nearly all plants experience increases in these two parameters
at higher levels of CO2. Chapter 1 also examines the effect of elevated CO2 on
ecosystems including forests, grasslands, peatlands, wetlands, and soils. This
review of the literature reveals elevated CO2 improves the productivity of
ecosystems both in plant tissues aboveground and in the soils beneath them. The
key findings of Chapter 1 are presented in Figure 4.
Higher CO2 levels help plantsten reasons

Cell division
Protein synthesis
Glomalin production
Disease resistance
Herbivory resistance
Pollination and nectar production
Root systems
tannin
Key Findings: Plant Characteristics
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment (henceforth referred to as rising CO2) enhances

plant growth, development, and ultimate yield (in the case of agricultural crops) by
increasing the concentrations of plant hormones that stimulate cell division, cell
elongation, and protein synthesis.
Rising CO2 enables plants to produce more and larger flowers, as well as other
flower-related changes having significant implications for plant productivity and
survival, almost all of which are positive.
Rising CO2 increases the production of glomalin, a protein created by fungi living
in symbiotic association with the roots of 80 percent of the planets vascular
plants, where it is having a huge positive impact on the biosphere.
Rising CO2 likely will affect many leaf characteristics of agricultural plants, with
the majority of the changes leading to higher rates and efficiencies of
photosynthesis and growth as well as increased resistance to herbivory and
pathogen attack.
Rising CO2 stimulates photosynthesis in nearly all plants, enabling them to
produce more nonstructural carbohydrates that can be used to create important
carbon-based secondary compounds, one of which is lignin.
Rising CO2 leads to enhanced plant fitness, flower pollination, and nectar
production, leading to increases in fruit, grain, and vegetable yields of agricultural
crops as well as productivity increases in natural vegetation.
As rising CO2 causes many plants to increase biomass, the larger plants likely will
develop more extensive root systems enabling them to extract greater amounts of
mineral nutrients from the soil.
Rising CO2 causes plants to sequentially reduce the openness of their stomata,
thus restricting unnecessary water loss via excessive transpiration, while some
plants also reduce the density (number per area) of stomates on their leaves.
Rising CO2 significantly enhances the condensed tannin concentrations of most
trees and grasses, providing them with stronger defenses against various
herbivores both above and below ground. This in turn reduces the amount of
methane, a potent greenhouse gas, released to the atmosphere by ruminants
browsing on tree leaves and grass.
As the airs CO2 content rises, many plant species may not experience
photosynthetic acclimation even under conditions of low soil nitrogen. In the event
that a plant cannot balance its carbohydrate sources and sinks, CO2-induced
acclimation provides a way of achieving that balance by shifting resources away
from the site of photosynthesis to enhance sink development or other important
plant processes.
The net efects on plant productivity are positive


Chapter 2 examines these and other effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on

plant characteristics. Extensive research finds those effects are overwhelmingly
positive. For example, rising CO2 levels promote plant growth by increasing the
concentrations of plant hormones that stimulate cell division, cell elongation, and
protein synthesis; by enabling plants to produce more and larger flowers ; by
increasing the production of glomalin, an important protein created by fungi living in
symbiotic association with the roots of most vascular plants; and by affecting leaf
characteristics of agricultural plants that lead to higher rates and efficiencies of
photosynthesis and growth as well as increased resistance to herbivory and
pathogen attack. The key findings of Chapter 2 are presented in Figure 5.
A2 Short-Term
CO2 benefits for plants remain consistent in the long-term
studies prove
1.1.3.1 Non-Woody Plants

Several long-term studies of various non-woody plants reveal sustained
beneficial responses to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 over periods of
many years.
In Switzerland, Niklaus et al. (2001) exposed a species-rich but nutrient-poor and
water-limited, calcareous grassland dominated by Bromus erectus (which accounted
for approximately half of the ecosystems aboveground vegetative biomass) to
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of approximately 360 and 600 ppm for six years,
using screen-aided CO2 control (SACC) technology. CO2-induced increases in
biomass production in years one through six of the experiment were, respectively,
5%, 20%, 22%, 27%, 31%, and 18%, for an average of 23.6% over the last five
years of the study (Niklaus and Krner, 2004). This biomass increase ultimately
increased carbon stocks in plant shoots and roots by 17 and 24%, respectively, and
enhanced carbon stocks in vegetative litter by 34%. The net effect of these
increases was an initial air-to-soil carbon flux of 210 g C m-2 year-1. After six years
of treatment, however, the CO2-enriched soils held only about 44% of the carbon
expected from this influx rate, due to the low soil residence time of the newly input
carbon. Nevertheless, the study showed atmospheric CO2 enrichment can in fact
enhance plant growth and carbon sequestration in low-nutrient and waterlimited
soils.
In Italy, Bettarini et al. (1998) measured the stomatal densities and conductances of
the leaves of 17 species of plants growing in the vicinity of a natural CO2-emitting
spring that has produced twiceambient atmospheric CO2 concentrations for at least
two centuries, while making similar measurements on plants of the same species
located further from the spring, where normal CO2 concentrations prevail. The
elevated CO2 decreased leaf stomatal conductances in all but one of the species by
19 to 73%. These reductions, however, were not accompanied by decreases in
stomatal density, which remained unaffected by long-term atmospheric CO2
enrichment in all but three species. Consequently, life-long exposure to elevated
CO2 reduced plant water use primarily by controlling leaf stomatal function, not by
changing leaf anatomical features (i.e., the number of stomata per unit leaf area).
Land Conversion 2NC

Land conversion causes extinction by 2050 absent co2
International Panel on Climate Change, 2014, p. 566-567.
Highly CO2-responsive genotypes of a wide variety of plantsranging from food

crops to lumber cropscould be chosen to take advantage of their genetic ability to
optimize growth in response to projected future increases in the atmospheric CO2
content. Doing so is probably essential to the well-being of mankind and to the
survival of much of the worlds wildlands. As human population grows, the
demand for food rises as well, as does the need for land and water to grow that
food. Unless something is done to enhance the per-acre productivity of the
terrestrial biosphere, some species of plants and animals may be pushed out of
existence by the midpoint of the current century . A number of real-world
experiments demonstrate many of Earths food- and lumber-producing plants
possess the genetic potential to grow better while using less water as atmospheric
CO2 content rises. In an important paper by 32 researchers from 12 countries,
Ainsworth et al. (2008) made the case for breeding varieties of major food crops to
best take advantage of the ongoing rise in the atmospheric CO2 content. They note,
the growing world population, increasing demands for grains for animal feeds, land
loss to urban expansion and demand for bioenergy production are exerting more
and more pressure on global agricultural productivity, so a major challenge for
plant biologists, agronomists and breeders will be to provide germplasm and seed
material that maximize future crop production, particularly in the context of rising
atmospheric CO2 concentrations that provide, in their words, a unique opportunity
to increase the productivity of C3 crops. The scientists point out only a fraction of
available germplasm of crops has been tested for CO2 responsiveness and further
research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of yield response to CO2, to assess
the genetic diversity available for improving responsiveness and to devise efficient
schemes for selection for adaptation to rising ambient CO2, whether based on
conventional plant breeding or systems biology approaches for selecting and
engineering improved genetics. They conclude, because it may take 1015 years
to move from discovery of new advantaged genetics to commercial cultivars of
annual grain crops, developing a robust strategy and supporting the planned work
with the best possible facilities should be an urgent priority.
Species Resil 2NC
Species adapt even to rapid warming

Real-world observations reveal plants have many ways of adjusting to changes in

climate in addition to their ability to spread from places of rising warmth to cooler
habitats, and these observations suggest the planets current assemblage of plants
is likely to be around a good deal longer than many theoretical models have
predicted. One of the great horror stories associated with predictions of CO2induced global warming is of warming so fast and furious that many species of
plants will not be able to migrate towards cooler regionspoleward in latitude, or
upward in elevationquickly enough to avoid extinction. Realworld observations
of plants show they have many ways of adjusting to changes in climate in
addition to their ability to move from places of rising warmth to cooler habitats.
These observations suggest the planets current assemblage of plants is
likely to be around longer than many theoretical models have predicted.
Under-yielding species appear to be bufered from extinction because growth
enhancements of smaller plants tend to diminish the relative biomass advantages
of larger plants in crowded conditions, and when species are rare in a local area,
they have a higher survival rate than when they are common, resulting in the
enrichment of rare species and increasing diversity with age and size class in
complex ecosystems. In addition, diversity should increase as a group of individuals
ages, because more common species are selectively removed by pathogens and
predators, especially those commonly associated with them.
Also, individuals of a species compete more intensively with conspecifics than with
individuals of other species, and diversity may increase if an individual benefits
nearby non-conspecifics, as such facilitation makes interspecific interactions more
positive than intraspecific interactions and thus provides an advantage to locally
rare species. Similarly, common trees growing closer together are more prone to
deadly infections, and they may also face stiffer competition for certain resources,
whereas rarer trees, by depending on slightly different sets of resources, may not
have this problem.
Feedbacks 2NC
DMS is unaccounted for by their models, checks any warming
NIPCC, Nongovernment International Panel on Climate Change, CLIMATE CHANGE
RECONSIDERED, Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Warren Anderson, J.Scott Armstrong, Dennis Avery, Franco Battaglia, Robert Carter, Piers Corbyn,
Richard Courtney, Joseph dAleo, Don Easterbrook, Fred Goldberg, Vicent Gray, Williams Gray, Kesten Green, Kenneth Haapala, David Hagen, Richard Alan
Keen, adhav Khandekar, William Kininmonth, Hans Labohm, Anthony Lupo, Howard Maccabee, M.Michael MOgil, Christopher Monckton, Lubos Motl,
Stephen Murgatroyd, Nicola Scafetta, Harrison Schmitt, Tom Segalstad, George Taylor, Dick Thoenes, Anton Uriarte Gerd Weber,
2009, p. 45-
47.
More than two decades ago, Charlson et al. (1987) discussed the plausibility of a
multi-stage negative feedback process, whereby warming-induced increases in the
emission of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the worlds oceans tend to counteract any
initial impetus for warming. The basic tenet of their hypothesis was that the global
radiation balance is significantly influenced by the albedo of marine stratus clouds
(the greater the cloud albedo, the less the input of solar radiation to the earths
surface). The albedo of these clouds, in turn, is known to be a function of cloud
droplet concentration (the more and smaller the cloud droplets, the greater the
cloud albedo and the reflection of solar radiation), which is dependent upon the
availability of cloud condensation nuclei on which the droplets form (the more cloud
condensation nuclei, the more and smaller the cloud droplets). And in completing
the negative feedback loop, Charlson et al. noted that the cloud condensation nuclei
concentration often depends upon the flux of biologically produced DMS from the
worlds oceans (the higher the sea surface temperature, the greater the sea-to-air
flux of DMS). Since the publication of Charlson et al.s initial hypothesis, much
empirical evidence has been gathered in support of its several tenets. One review,
for example, states that major links in the feedback chain proposed by Charlson et
al. (1987) have a sound physical basis, and that there is compelling observational
evidence to suggest that DMS and its atmospheric products participate significantly
in processes of climate regulation and reactive atmospheric chemistry in the remote
marine boundary layer of the Southern Hemisphere (Ayers and Gillett, 2000). But
just how strong is the negative feedback phenomenon proposed by Charlson et al.?
Is it powerful enough to counter the threat of greenhouse gas-induced global
warming? According to the findings of Sciare et al. (2000), it may well be able to do
just that. In examining 10 years of DMS data from Amsterdam Island in the southern
Indian Ocean, these researchers found that a sea surface temperature increase of
only 1C was sufficient to increase the atmospheric DMS concentration by as much
as 50 percent. This finding suggests that the degree of warming typically predicted
to accompany a doubling of the airs CO2 content would increase the atmospheres
DMS concentration by a factor of three or more, providing what they call a very
important negative feedback that could potentially offset the original impetus for
warming. Other research has shown that this same chain of events can be set in
motion by means of phenomena not discussed in Charlson et al.s original
hypothesis. Simo and Pedros-Alio (1999), for example, discovered that the depth of
the surface mixing-layer has a substantial influence on DMS yield in the short term,
via a number of photo-induced (and thereby mixing-depth mediated) influences on
several complex physiological phenomena, as do longer-term seasonal variations in
vertical mixing, via their influence on seasonal planktonic succession scenarios and
food-web structure. More directly supportive of Charlson et al.s hypothesis was the
study of Kouvarakis and Mihalopoulos (2002), who measured seasonal variations of
gaseous DMS and its oxidation productsnon-sea-salt sulfate (nss-SO4 2-) and
methanesulfonic acid (MSA)at a remote coastal location in the Eastern
Mediterranean Sea from May 1997 through October 1999, as well as the diurnal
variation of DMS during two intensive measurement campaigns conducted in
September 1997. In the seasonal investigation, DMS concentrations tracked sea
surface temperature (SST) almost perfectly, going from a low of 0.87 nmol m-3 in
the winter to a high of 3.74 nmol m-3 in the summer. Such was also the case in the
diurnal studies: DMS concentrations were lowest when it was coldest (just before
sunrise), rose rapidly as it warmed thereafter to about 1100, after which they
dipped slightly and then experienced a further rise to the time of maximum
temperature at 2000, whereupon a decline in both temperature and DMS
concentration set in that continued until just before sunrise. Consequently, because
concentrations of DMS and its oxidation products (MSA and nss- SO4 2-) rise
dramatically in response to both diurnal and seasonal increases in SST, there is
every reason to believe that the same negative feedback phenomenon would
operate in the case of the longterm warming that could arise from increasing
greenhouse gas concentrations, and that it could substantially mute the climatic
impacts of those gases. Also of note in this regard, Baboukas et al. (2002) report the
results of nine years of measurements of methanesulfonate (MS-), an exclusive
oxidation product of DMS, in rainwater at Amsterdam Island. Their data, too,
revealed a well distinguished seasonal variation with higher values in summer, in
line with the seasonal variation of its gaseous precursor (DMS), which, in their
words, further confirms the findings of Sciare et al. (2000). In addition, the MSanomalies in the rainwater were found to be closely related to SST anomalies; and
Baboukas et al. say this observation provides even more support for the existence
of a positive oceanatmosphere feedback on the biogenic sulfur cycle above the
Austral Ocean, one of the most important DMS sources of the world. In a newer
study of this phenomenon, Toole and Siegel (2004) note that it has been shown to
operate as described above in the 15 percent of the worlds oceans consisting
primarily of high latitude, continental shelf, and equatorial upwelling regions,
where DMS may be accurately predicted as a function of the ratio of the amount of
surface chlorophyll derived from satellite observations to the depth of the
climatological mixed layer, which they refer to as the bloom-forced regime. For
the other 85 percent of the worlds marine waters, they demonstrate that modeled
surface DMS concentrations are independent of chlorophyll and are a function of the
mixed layer depth alone, which they call the stress-forced regime. So how does
the warming-induced DMS negative feedback cycle operate in these waters? For
oligotrophic regimes, Toole and Siegel find that DMS biological production rates are
negatively or insignificantly correlated with phytoplankton and bacterial indices for
abundance and productivity while more than 82 percent of the variability is
explained by UVR(325) [ultraviolet radiation at 325 nm]. This relationship, in their
words, is consistent with recent laboratory results (e.g., Sunda et al., 2002), who
demonstrated that intracellular DMS concentration and its biological precursors
(particulate and dissolved dimethylsulfoniopropionate) dramatically increase under
conditions of acute oxidative stress such as exposure to high levels of UVR, which
are a function of mixed layer depth. These resultswhich Toole and Siegel
confirmed via an analysis of the Dacey et al. (1998) 1992-1994 organic sulfur timeseries that was sampled in concert with the U.S. JGOFS Bermuda Atlantic TimeSeries Study (Steinberg et al., 2001)suggest, in their words, the potential of a
global change-DMS-climate feedback. Specifically, they say that UVR doses will
increase as a result of observed decreases in stratospheric ozone and the shoaling
of ocean mixed layers as a result of global warming (e.g., Boyd and Doney, 2002),
and that in response, open-ocean phytoplankton communities should increase their
DMS production and ventilation to the atmosphere, increasing cloud condensing
nuclei, and potentially playing out a coupled global change-DMS-climate feedback.
This second DMS-induced negative-feedback cycle, which operates over 85 percent
of the worlds marine waters and complements the first DMSinduced negativefeedback cycle, which operates over the other 15 percent, is another manifestation
of the capacity of earths biosphere to regulate its affairs in such a way as to
maintain climatic conditions over the vast majority of the planets surface within
bounds conducive to the continued existence of life, in all its variety and richness. In
addition, it has been suggested that a DMS-induced negative climate feedback
phenomenon also operates over the terrestrial surface of the globe, where the
volatilization of reduced sulfur gases from soils may be just as important as marine
DMS emissions in enhancing cloud albedo (Idso, 1990). On the basis of experiments
that showed soil DMS emissions to be positively correlated with soil organic matter
content, for example, and noting that additions of organic matter to a soil tend to
increase the amount of sulfur gases emitted therefrom, Idso (1990) hypothesized
that because atmospheric CO2 is an effective aerial fertilizer, augmenting its
atmospheric concentration and thereby increasing vegetative inputs of organic
matter to earths soils should also produce an impetus for cooling, even in the
absence of surface warming. Nevertheless, and in spite of the overwhelming
empirical evidence for both land- and ocean-based DMS-driven negative
feedbacks to global warming, the efects of these processes have not been
fully incorporated into todays state-of-the-art climate models. Hence, the
warming they predict in response to future anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be
considerably larger than what could actually occur in the real world. It is very
possible these biologically driven phenomena could entirely compensate for the
warming influence of all greenhouse gas emissions experienced to date, as well as
all those anticipated to occur in the future.
ocean convection creates Co2 thermostat-NIPCC, Nongovernment International Panel on Climate Change, CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED, Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Warren Anderson, J.Scott Armstrong, Dennis Avery, Franco
Battaglia, Robert Carter, Piers Corbyn, Richard Courtney, Joseph dAleo, Don Easterbrook, Fred Goldberg, Vicent Gray, Williams Gray, Kesten Green, Kenneth Haapala, David Hagen, Richard Alan Keen, adhav
Khandekar, William Kininmonth, Hans Labohm, Anthony Lupo, Howard Maccabee, M.Michael MOgil, Christopher Monckton, Lubos Motl, Stephen Murgatroyd, Nicola Scafetta, Harrison Schmitt, Tom Segalstad,
George Taylor, Dick Thoenes, Anton Uriarte Gerd Weber, 20
09, p. 27-28.
Based on data obtained from the Tropical Ocean Global AtmosphereCoupled

Ocean-Atmosphere Response Experiment, Sud et al. (1999) demonstrated that deep
convection in the tropics acts as a thermostat to keep sea surface temperature
(SST) oscillating between approximately 28 and 30C. Their analysis suggests that
as SSTs reach 28-29C, the cloud-base airmass is charged with the moist static
energy needed for clouds to reach the upper troposphere, at which point the cloud
cover reduces the amount of solar radiation received at the surface of the sea, while
cool and dry downdrafts promote ocean surface cooling by increasing sensible and
latent heat fluxes there. This thermostat-like control, as Sud et al. describe it,
tends to ventilate the tropical ocean efficiently and help contain the SST between
28-30C. The phenomenon would also be expected to prevent SSTs from rising
any higher in response to enhanced CO2-induced radiative forcing. Lindzen et al.
(2001) used upper-level cloudiness data obtained from the Japanese Geostationary
Meteorological Satellite and SST data obtained from the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction to derive a strong inverse relationship between upperlevel
cloud area and the mean SST of cloudy regions of the eastern part of the western
Pacific (30S-30N; 130E-170W), such that the area of cirrus cloud coverage
normalized by a measure of the area of cumulus coverage decreases about 22
percent per degree C increase in the SST of the cloudy region. In describing this
phenomenon, Lindzen et al. say the cloudy-moist region appears to act as an
infrared adaptive iris that opens up and closes down the regions free of upper-level
clouds, which more effectively permit infrared cooling, in such a manner as to resist
changes in tropical surface temperature. The findings of Lindzen et al. were
subsequently criticized by Hartmann and Michelsen (2002) and Fu et al. (2002), and
then Fu et al. were rebutted by Chou et al. (2002), an exchange that is summarized
in Section 1.2 of this report. The debate over the infrared adaptive iris still rages in
the scientific community, but Lindzen and his colleagues are not the only scientists
who believe the cooling effect of clouds has been underestimated. Croke et al.
(1999) used land-based observations of cloud cover for three regions of the United
States (coastal southwest, coastal northeast, and southern plains) to demonstrate
that, over the period 1900- 1987, cloud cover had a high correlation with global air
temperature, with mean cloud cover rising from an initial value of 35 percent to a
final value of 47 percent as the mean global air temperature rose by 0.5C. Herman
et al. (2001) used Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer 380-nm reflectivity data to
determine changes in radiation reflected back to space over the period 1979 to
1992, finding that when the 11.3-year solar-cycle and ENSO effects are removed
from the time series, the zonally averaged annual linear-fit trends show that there
have been increases in reflectivity (cloudiness) poleward of 40N and 30S, with
some smaller but significant changes occurring in the equatorial and lower middle
latitudes. The overall long-term effect was an increase in radiation reflected back
to space of 2.8 Wm-2 per decade, which represents a large cloud-induced cooling
influence. Rosenfeld (2000) used satellite data obtained from the Tropical Rainfall
Measuring Mission to look for terrestrial analogues of the cloud trails that form in
the wakes of ships at sea as a consequence of their emissions of particulates that
redistribute cloud-water into larger numbers of smaller droplets that do not rain out
of the atmosphere as readily as they would in the absence of this phenomenon.
Visualizations produced from the mission data clearly revealed the existence of
enhanced cloud trails downwind of urban and industrial complexes in Turkey,
Canada, and Australia, to which Rosenfeld gave the name pollution tracks in view of
their similarity to ship tracks. Rosenfeld also demonstrated that the clouds
comprising these pollution tracks were composed of droplets of reduced size that
did indeed suppress precipitation by inhibiting further coalescence and ice
precipitation formation. As Toon (2000) noted in a commentary on this study, these
smaller droplets will not rain out as quickly and will therefore last longer and
cover more of the earth, both of which effects tend to cool the globe. In summation,
as the earth warms, the atmosphere has a tendency to become more cloudy, which
exerts a natural brake upon the rising temperature. Many of mans aerosolproducing activities tend to do the same thing. Hence, there appear to be a number
of cloud-mediated processes that help the planet keep its cool.
Adaptation 2NC
Their ev is alarmist groupthink- insiders
Torres 4/3/2014 (Richard, William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review
Institute, IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming Report,
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374986/print)
Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on
climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agencys
inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution. In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and
much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories, Tol tells National Review Online.
Were all going to die , the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the
direction [the IPCC report] was going. Tol, who has been working with the IPCC since 1994, was the lead
Richard
author of Chapter 10 of the report, on key economic sectors and services. He was also a contributor to Chapters 17 and 19, on the economics of
felt the IPCC did

not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of
adaptation to climate change and emergent risks, respectively. He took his name off of the final summary because he
there are a number of statements in there that are widely

cited that are just not correct, Tol says. One prediction has it that crop yields will begin
to fall dramatically, a statement that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself, Tol says. What it completely forgets is
technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as weve
looked at crop yields. Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how
much it will cost to protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions. Why do we show the maximum but not
the average? he says. Estimates say that for a tenth of a percent of [worldwide] GDP we can protect all vulnerable
populations along all coasts. The report also stresses that global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores
that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each year. Tol is far from a
conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it
from adequately checking alarmism. First, there is a self-selection bias: People
who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to
be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in
similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who
reinforce each others views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who
review the report, because their departments, jobs, and careers depend on
climate being a problem, Tol says. There are natural forces pushing these people in
the same direction. I think the IPCC should have safeguards against this tendency, but
it does not.
global warming. In the current SPM
Sources 2NC
peer review has been coopted
Bob Carter, palaeoclimatolgist, James Cook University, Money Corrupts the Peer
Review Process, NATIONAL POST, 61512, p. FP13.
Scientific knowledge, then, is always in a state of flux. Much though bureaucrats

and politicians may dislike the thought, there is simply no such thing as
"settled science," peer-reviewed or otherwise. During the latter part of the
20th century, Western governments started channelling large amounts of research
money into favoured scientific fields, prime among them global-warming research.
This money has a corrupting influence, not least on the peer-review process.
Many scientific journals, including prestigious internationally acclaimed ones, have
now become captured by insider groups of leading researchers in particular
fields. Researchers who act as editors of journals then select referees from within a
closed circle of scientists who work in the same field and share similar views.
The Climategate email leak in 2009 revealed for all to see that this cancerous
process is at an advanced stage of development in climate science. A
worldwide network of leading climate researchers were revealed to be actively
influencing editors and referees to approve for publication only research that
supported the IPCC's alarmist view of global warming, and to prevent the
publication of alternative or opposing views.
IPCC cherry picks data- NIPCC is unbiased

International Panel on Climate Change, 2014, p. viii-ix.
A careful reading of the chapters below reveals thousands of peer-reviewed

scientific journal articles do not support and often contradict IPCCs alarmist
narrative. NIPCC scientists have worked hard to remain true to the facts in their
representations of the studies cited in this work. The research is usually quoted
directly and at some length, along with a description of the methodology used
and qualifications that accompanied the stated conclusions. Editorial commentary
is generally limited to introductions and sometimes brief conclusions at the end of
sections.
Whether the subject is the likely effects of warming on crops, trees, weeds, birds,
butterflies, or polar bears, it seems IPCC invariably picks the studies and models
that paint global warming in the darkest possible hues. IPCC sees death, injury,
and disrupted livelihoodsto borrow a phrase from Working Group IIeverywhere
it looks.
Oftentimes, IPCCs pessimistic forecasts fly in the face of scientific observations.

The global ecosystem is not suffering from the rising temperatures and atmospheric
CO2 levels IPCC has called unprecedented, despite all the models and hypotheses
IPCCs authors marshal to make that case. Real-world data show conclusively that
most plants flourish when exposed to higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2
and that the planets terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great post-Industrial
Revolution greening that is causing deserts to retreat and forests to expand,
enlarging habitat for wildlife. Essentially the same story can be told of global
warmings impact on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this perspective missing from IPCCs reports?
NIPCC has been publishing volumes containing this research for five yearslong
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCCs reports to have taken notice, if
only to disagree. But the draft of the Working Group II contribution to IPCCs Fifth
Assessment Report suggests otherwise. Either IPCCs authors purposely ignore
this research because it runs counter to their thesis that any human impact on
climate must be bad and therefore stopped at any cost, or they are inept and have
failed to conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of the pertinent literature.
Either way, IPCC is misleading the scientific community, policymakers, and the
general public. Because the stakes are high, this is a grave disservice.
We are not alone in questioning the accuracy or reliability of IPCC reports. In 2010,
the InterAcademy Council, an international organization representing the worlds
leading national academies of science, produced an audit of IPCC procedures. In its
report, Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes & Procedures of the
IPCC, the IAC decried the lack of independent review, reliance on unpublished and
non-peer-reviewed sources, refusal by some of the lead authors to share their
data with critics, and political interference in the selection of authors and
contributors.
their authors are bought of

Jasper 7/13/12 senior editor of the New American, one of the USs top
investigative reporters, attended of several international conferences hosted by the
UN (William F, Climate Science in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-unagenda, )
Until recently, the AGW alarmists definitely had the upper hand. For one thing, they
have been organized. For another, they have been outspending the climate realists
by a huge order of magnitude. In 2007, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking
member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, showed that proponents of
man-made global warming enjoyed a monumental funding advantage over the
skeptics. The alarmists had received a whopping $50 billion mostly from the
federal government compared to a paltry $19 million and some change for the
realists. A 2009 study entitled Climate Money, by Joanne Nova for the Science &
Public Policy Institute, found that the U.S. government had sunk $79 billion into
climate-change-related activities (science research, alternative energy technology,
foreign aid, etc.) between 1989 and 2009. That total does not include additional
massive funding from state governments, foundations, and corporations. Similar
levels of funding have been poured into climate policy by European Union
institutions and the national governments of European nations and Japan. This
super-extravagant lavishing of state funding on a new scientific field has created an
instant global climate industry that is government-fed and completely political.
However, these sums, impressive as they are, represent only the very tip of the
mountain of climate cash that has the political classes panting and salivating.
They smell not only tens of billions of dollars for research and technology, but also
hundreds of billions for climate debt foreign aid, and trillions to be made in CO2
cap-and-trade schemes.
Peer review isnt accurate

-doesnt check original data, statistical calculations or computer modelling
Bob Carter, palaeoclimatolgist, James Cook University, Money Corrupts the Peer
Review Process, NATIONAL POST, 61512, p. FP13.
The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has referred to
its work as the gold standard, based on its oft-made claim that it only surveys work
published in peer-reviewed professional research papers. Interestingly, Albert
Einstein's famous 1905 paper on relativity was not peer-reviewed. It is therefore
quite clear that peer review is not a precondition for excellent, indeed epochmaking, scientific research. So what is a peer-reviewed (also termed refereed)
research paper? Peer-review is a technique of quality control for scientific papers
that emerged slowly through the 20th century, only achieving a dominant influence
in science after the Second World War. The process works like this. A potential
scientific author conducts research, writes a paper on his or her results and submits
the paper to a professional journal that represents the specialist field of science in
question. The editor of the journal then scan-reads the paper. Based upon his
knowledge of the contents of the paper, and of the activities of other scientists in
the same research field, the editor selects (usually) two persons, termed referees,
to whom he sends the draft manuscript of the paper for review. Referees, who are
unpaid, differ in the amount of time and effort that they devote to their task of
review. At one extreme a referee will criticize and correct the writing of a paper in
detail, including making comments on the scientific content; at the other extreme, a
referee may merely skim-read a paper, ignoring obvious mistakes in writing style or
grammar, and make some general comments to the editor about the scientific
accuracy, or otherwise, of the draft paper. Neither type of referee, nor those who lie
between, pretend to check either the ori-ginal data or the detailed
statistical calculations (or, today, complex computer modelling) that often
form the kernel of a piece of modern scientific research. Each referee makes a
recommendation to the editor as to whether the paper should be published (usually
with corrections) or rejected, the editor making the final decision regarding
publication based on this advice. In essence, then, peer-review is a technique of
editorial quality control. That a scientific paper has been peer-reviewed is absolutely
no guarantee that the science it portrays is correct. Indeed, it is the very nature of
scientific research that nearly all scientific papers require later emendation, or
reinterpretation, in the light of new discoveries or understanding.
M Ans: War
Not a threat multiplies
Jeff Kueter, President, The Climate of Insecurity, POLICY OUTLOOK, George C.
Marshall Institute, 314, http://marshall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ClimateSecurity-Mar-14.pdf, accessed 4-28-14.
Even when droughts occur, they dont lead to war. One recent survey explored
the linkages between water scarcity, drought, and incidence of civil wars. They
found that factors other than the environment were much more significant in
explaining the onset of conflict. They conclude: The results presented in this article
demonstrate that there is no direct, short- term relationship between drought and
civil war onset, even within contexts presumed most conducive to violence
Ethnopolitical exclusion is strongly and robustly related to the local risk of civil war.
These findings contrast with efforts to blame violent conflict and atrocities on
exogenous non-anthropogenic events, such as droughts or desertification. The
primary causes of intrastate armed conflict and civil war are political, not
environmental.17 Furthermore, my detailed review of the empirical literature on
the role of environmental degradation as a source of conflict shows: By
themselves, environmental factors and climate change are not threat multipliers.
The review of actual experiences with environmental stresses and calamities
reveals that they contribute to conflict and state instability only at the margins.
From tribesmen in Africa to nation states in both the developing and developed
world, environmental and climatic variables fail to demonstrate explanatory power
as a source or driver of conflict.
**Warming solves war- multiple studies

Idsos et al. 10 Sherwood, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of
[
Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota, **Keith, B.S. in
Agriculture with a major in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his
M.S. from the same institution with a major in Agronomy and Plant Genetics. He
completed his Ph.D. in Botany at Arizona State University, and **Craig Idso, B.S. in
Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University
of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University,
War and Peace ... and Climate Change, Volume 13, Number 13: 31,March 31,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N13/EDIT.php, ]
In an insightful new study recently published in Climatic Change, Richard Tol and
Sebastian Wagner write that in "gloomier scenarios of climate change, violent
conflict plays a key part," noting that in such visions of the future "war would break
out over declining water resources, and millions of refugees would cause mayhem."
In this regard, the two researchers state that "the Nobel Peace Prize of 2007 was
partly awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore for their contribution to slowing climate
change and thus preventing war." However, they say that "scenarios of climatechange-induced violence can be painted with abandon," citing the example of
Schwartz and Randall (2003), because, as they continue, "there is "little research
to either support or refute such claims." Consequently, and partly to fill this gaping
research void, Tol and Wagner proceeded to go where but few had gone before,
following in the footsteps of Zhang et al. (2005, 2006), who broke new ground in
this area when they (1) constructed a dataset of climate and violent conflict in
China for the last millennium, and (2) found that the Chinese were "more inclined
to fight each other when it was cold," which propensity for violence they
attributed to the reduced agricultural productivity that typically prevailed during
cooler times. Hence, the two researchers essentially proceeded to do for Europe
what Zhang et al. had done for China. The results of Tol and Wagner's analyses
provide additional evidence that, as they describe it, "periods with lower
temperatures in the pre-industrial era are accompanied by violent conflicts."
However, they determined that "this effect is much weaker in the modern world
than it was in pre-industrial times," which implies, in their words, "that future global
warming is not likely to lead to (civil) war between (within) European countries."
Therefore, they conclude that "should anyone ever seriously have believed that, this
paper does put that idea to rest." In light of this refutation of the rational for the
awarding of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, we are inclined to say to its most visible
recipient -- in the spirit of the sentiment expressed by President Ronald Reagan on
12 June 1987 at the base of the Brandenburg Gate, near the Berlin wall -- Mr. Gore,
give back that prize!

Minnesota Held The Line On Warming Good and Got To Semis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Minnesota Held The Line On Warming Good and Got To Semis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Minnesota held the line on

warming good and got to semis

Co2 good SHORT 1NC (:30

Co2 solves ice age- extinction

**Adaptation solves but mitigation trades of

IPCC report in 2007 specifically

in some cases mitigation may impede adaptation

Co2 Good 1NC (2:30

The key findings of this chapter are listed below.

In the future, plants should be able to adjust their physiology to accommodate a

Real-world observations reveal plants have many ways of adjusting to changes in

Food wars cause extinction outweighs warming

Co2 solves ice age- extinction

negative feedbacks check--Co2 key to forests, wetlands, and

Key Findings: CO2, Plants, and Soils

Results obtained under 3,586 separate sets of experimental conditions

Humans adapttheir models are flawed

The paper notes that global warming impact studies systematically

their authors are hacks

The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the

--A2 Distribution Thumps

Both are important- resolving scarcity is a necessary condition

feed them. Scarcity is further exacerbated by our appetite for resource-intensive

Food Wars M 2NC

Its a conflict multiplier most probable scenario for nuclear

Food crisis destabilizes Russia, China, and India

Russian instability causes global nuclear war

china instability causes nuke war

**Food shortages cause global instability

Keating 14 (Joshua, staff writer at Slate focusing on international affairs and

food is often the difference between a n unhappy but quiescent

since the times of

the 200708 food crisis, which triggered food riots in

Egypts revolution, in particular, is

Arab Spring may become the textbook example of the

the green revolution, which improved the efficiency of agriculture in

slowing economic growth; the spread of

Co2 Ag: L 2NC

Several researchers have expressed concerns about a looming food production

590 studies prove co2 ag

Five years later, at the International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon

Higher CO2 levels help plantsten reasons

Key Findings: Plant Characteristics

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment (henceforth referred to as rising CO2) enhances

The net efects on plant productivity are positive

Summary for Policymakers, CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED II: BIOLOGICAL

Chapter 2 examines these and other effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on

1.1.3.1 Non-Woody Plants

Land Conversion 2NC

Highly CO2-responsive genotypes of a wide variety of plantsranging from food

Species Resil 2NC

Species adapt even to rapid warming

Real-world observations reveal plants have many ways of adjusting to changes in

Based on data obtained from the Tropical Ocean Global AtmosphereCoupled

felt the IPCC did

there are a number of statements in there that are widely

Scientific knowledge, then, is always in a state of flux. Much though bureaucrats

IPCC cherry picks data- NIPCC is unbiased

A careful reading of the chapters below reveals thousands of peer-reviewed

Oftentimes, IPCCs pessimistic forecasts fly in the face of scientific observations.

their authors are bought of

Peer review isnt accurate

**Warming solves war- multiple studies