WDW Global Warming File 2008

WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 1 / 189 ]
***Global Warming File – Index***
***Global Warming File – Index***................................................................................................................................................................1
Global Warming Exists – Science Proves.........................................................................................................................................................6
Global Warming Exists – Man Made – CO2 Emissions...................................................................................................................................8
Global Warming Exists – Fossil Records........................................................................................................................................................12
Global Warming Exists – Not Man Made – Natural ......................................................................................................................................13
Global Warming Exists – Satellites.................................................................................................................................................................17
Global Warming Exists – Computer Models .................................................................................................................................................18
Global Warming Exists – Consensus .............................................................................................................................................................19
Global Warming Exists – Coral Reefs............................................................................................................................................................20
Global Warming Exists – Even if it doesn’t, still worth a try.........................................................................................................................21
Global Warming Exists – Temperatures.........................................................................................................................................................22
Global Warming Exists – Sea Levels Rise......................................................................................................................................................23
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Satellites Prove...................................................................................................................................24
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Consensus Poor...................................................................................................................................25
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Poor Science.......................................................................................................................................27
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Scientific Fallacy................................................................................................................................28
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Not Man Made....................................................................................................................................29
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Not a Global Trend.............................................................................................................................30
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Ice IS NOT Melting............................................................................................................................31
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Scientist Deny.....................................................................................................................................32
***Sources/Preventions of Warming***........................................................................................................................................................33
Warming Inevitable – Natural.........................................................................................................................................................................35
Warming Inevitable – Greenhouse Gases.......................................................................................................................................................36
Sun Does Not Cause Warming........................................................................................................................................................................38
Sun Causes Warming......................................................................................................................................................................................39
CO2 Causes Warming – Ice Records..............................................................................................................................................................40
Methane Causes Warming ..............................................................................................................................................................................41
Deforestation Causes Warming ......................................................................................................................................................................42
Fossil Fuel Dependence Causes Warming......................................................................................................................................................43
Grice/Stout/White Lab
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
Biofuels Cause Warming.................................................................................................................................................................................44
AT: CO2 Causes Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................45
CO2 DOES NOT Cause Warming – Other Natural Gases.............................................................................................................................46
CO2 DOES NOT Cause Warming – Ice Records...........................................................................................................................................47
CO2 Is An After Effect to Warming...............................................................................................................................................................48
Development Causes Warming.......................................................................................................................................................................49
Foreign Emissions Cause Warming................................................................................................................................................................50
AT: Foreign Emissions Cause Warming........................................................................................................................................................52
Foreign Emissions – Global Warming NOT Inevitable..................................................................................................................................52
AT: Natural Checks – Cosmic Rays and Clouds............................................................................................................................................53
AT: Natural Checks – Phytoplankton Solve Warming..................................................................................................................................55
Natural Checks – Cosmic Rays and Clouds – Global Warming NOT Inevitable...........................................................................................56
Natural Checks – Global Warming NOT Inevitable – Extension to #2..........................................................................................................57
Natural Checks – Global Warming NOT Inevitable – Phytoplankton ...........................................................................................................58
Natural Checks – Jellyfish...............................................................................................................................................................................60
Natural Checks – Atmosphere.........................................................................................................................................................................61
Computer Models Accurate.............................................................................................................................................................................62
AT: Computer Models Accurate....................................................................................................................................................................63
Alternative Energies Solve ............................................................................................................................................................................67
Technology Crucial to Solve Warming...........................................................................................................................................................68
***Ice***........................................................................................................................................................................................................70
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................70
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................71
Ice Caps Are Melting.......................................................................................................................................................................................72
Ice Caps Growing............................................................................................................................................................................................78
***Global Warming Bad – Impacts***..........................................................................................................................................................82
Global Warming Bad – Probability (1/2)........................................................................................................................................................83
Global Warming Bad – Probability (2/2)........................................................................................................................................................84
Global Warming Bad – Timeframe.................................................................................................................................................................85
Global Warming Bad –Timeframe – Extension to #2.....................................................................................................................................86
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
Global Warming Timeframe – Long Way Off................................................................................................................................................87
Global Warming Bad – Brink..........................................................................................................................................................................88
Global Warming Bad – Magnitude ................................................................................................................................................................89
Global Warming Bad – Biodiversity – Jellyfish (1/2).....................................................................................................................................90
Global Warming Bad – Biodiversity - Jellyfish (2/2).....................................................................................................................................91
Global Warming Bad – Magnitude – Outweighs Nuclear War......................................................................................................................92
Global Warming Bad – Carbon Emissions (Biodiversity)..............................................................................................................................94
Global Warming Bad – Death of Humans......................................................................................................................................................95
Global Warming Bad – Disease .....................................................................................................................................................................96
Global Warming Bad – Droughts (Genocide).................................................................................................................................................99
Global Warming Bad – Droughts (Hunger)..................................................................................................................................................101
Global Warming Bad – Economic Collapse.................................................................................................................................................102
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Polar Bears ......................................................................................................................................103
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Life............................................................................................................................................104
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Life (2/2)....................................................................................................................................106
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Life Extension to #1..................................................................................................................107
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Trout and Salmon.............................................................................................................................110
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Trout and Salmon – Extension to #1................................................................................................111
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Trout and Salmon – Extension to #2................................................................................................112
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Reefs.................................................................................................................................................113
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Levels........................................................................................................................................117
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Levels – Ex. To #1....................................................................................................................119
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Levels – Ex. To #2....................................................................................................................120
Global Warming Bad – Extinction................................................................................................................................................................121
Global Warming Bad – Fire Storms..............................................................................................................................................................122
Global Warming Bad – Fire Storms – Extension of #1.................................................................................................................................123
Global Warming Bad – General Conflict......................................................................................................................................................125
Global Warming Bad – Hurricanes – More Powerful...................................................................................................................................126
Global Warming Bad – Hurricanes – Mass Death........................................................................................................................................128
Global Warming Bad – Middle East Conflict (1/2)......................................................................................................................................129
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
Global Warming Bad – Middle East Conflict (2/2)......................................................................................................................................130
Global Warming Bad – Mini Ice Age...........................................................................................................................................................131
Global Warming Bad – Nuclear War............................................................................................................................................................136
Global Warming Bad – Oscillation...............................................................................................................................................................137
Global Warming Bad – Oxygen – Extinction by Suffocation.......................................................................................................................138
Global Warming Bad – Ozone – Extinction .................................................................................................................................................139
Global Warming Bad – Poverty....................................................................................................................................................................140
Global Warming Bad – Poverty – Extension to #1.......................................................................................................................................142
Global Warming Bad – Poverty – Extension to #2.......................................................................................................................................143
Global Warming Bad – Reefs – Disease ......................................................................................................................................................144
Global Warming Bad – Resource Wars........................................................................................................................................................145
Global Warming Bad – Runaway Greenhouse Effect...................................................................................................................................146
Global Warming Bad – Storms.....................................................................................................................................................................147
Global Warming Bad – Storms – Floods .....................................................................................................................................................149
Global Warming Bad – Terrorism ................................................................................................................................................................150
***Global Warming Bad***.........................................................................................................................................................................157
Global Warming Good – Agriculture (AT: Warming Kill Plants)...............................................................................................................158
Global Warming Good – Saves Rainforests..................................................................................................................................................163
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................163
Global Warming Good – Health and Welfare...............................................................................................................................................164
Global Warming Good – Prevents Next Ice Age..........................................................................................................................................165
Global Warming Good – Costly to Prevent Nationally (Spending Link).....................................................................................................166
Global Warming Good – Costly to Prevent by States (Spending Link)........................................................................................................167
Global Warming Good – Decreases Hurricanes...........................................................................................................................................168
Global Warming Good – Decreases Hurricanes – Extension of #1..............................................................................................................169
Global Warming Good – Economy (1/2)......................................................................................................................................................170
Global Warming Good – Economy (2/2)......................................................................................................................................................171
Global Warming Good – AT: Increases Storms...........................................................................................................................................172
Global Warming Good – AT: Fire Storms...................................................................................................................................................174
Global Warming Good – AT: Reefs.............................................................................................................................................................175
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
Global Warming Good – Health and Welfare (1/2)......................................................................................................................................176
Global Warming Good – Health and Welfare (2/2)......................................................................................................................................177
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................177
Global Warming Good – Ice Age..................................................................................................................................................................178
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................178
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................178
Global Warming Good – Timeframe for Ice Age.........................................................................................................................................179
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................179
AT: Coral Reefs............................................................................................................................................................................................180
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................180
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................181
AT: Biodiversity Extinction Impacts............................................................................................................................................................182
AT: Polar Bears Key....................................................................................................................................................................................183
AT: Polar Bears Key – Extension to #1.......................................................................................................................................................185
AT: Global Warming = Terrorism...............................................................................................................................................................186
Sources Debate .............................................................................................................................................................................................187
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
Global Warming Exists – Science Proves
Research shows global temperatures are increasing and will continue throughout the
decade
Swift, 2008
John, Policy Advisor on Climate Change. “Forget carbon cap-trade-tax schemes. There are better ways to
save the planet.” Times and Transcript, July 3, 2008.
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/344684. Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice
As a result, most credible environmental research indicates climate change is accelerating at a
previously unanticipated rate. The best estimates suggest the average global temperature will
increase by three degrees (Celsius) before the end of the next decade, and that ocean levels will rise
an additional four inches (on top of the six that accrued shortly after the Great Arctic Melt of 2015).
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
Warming now – overwhelming scientific consensus.
Johansen 2
(Prof. of Comm @ UNO, “The Global Warming Desk Reference”, p. 1-2, NetLibrary) DMZ
For the past two centuries, at an accelerating rate, the basic composition of the Earth's atmosphere
has been materially altered by the fossil-fuel effluvia of machine culture. Human-induced warming of
the Earth's climate is emerging as one of the major scientific, social, and economic issues of the
twenty-first century, as the effects of climate change become evident in everyday life in locations as
varied as small island nations of the Pacific Ocean and the shores of the Arctic Ocean. "The risks of
global warming are real, palpable, the effects are accumulating daily, and the costs of correcting the
trend rise with each day's delay," warns Dr. George M. Woodwell, Director of the Woods Hole Research
Center (Eco Bridge N.d.). Dean Edwin Abrahamson, a early leader in the field, comments: "Fossil fuel
burning, deforestation, and the release of industrial chemicals are rapidly heating the earth to
temperatures not experienced in human memory. Limiting global heating and climatic change is the
central environmental challenge of our time" (Abrahamson 1989, xi). Evidence has been accumulating
that sustained, human-induced warming of the Earth's lower troposphere has been in progress since
about 1980, accelerating during the 1990s. During 1997 and 1998, the global temperature set records
for 15 consecutive months; July of 1998 averaged 0.6 of a degree F. higher than July of 1997, an
enormous increase if maintained year to year. The year 1998 was the warmest of the millennium,
topping 1997 by a quarter of a degree F. (Christianson 1999, 275). Alarm bells have been ringing
regarding global warming in the scientific community for the better part of two decades. A statement
issued in Toronto during June, 1988, representing the views of more than 300 policymakers and
scientists from 46 countries, the United Nations, and other international organizations warned
Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate
consequences could be second only to nuclear war. The earth's atmosphere is being changed at an
unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel
use and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions. These changes are already having
harmful consequences over many parts of the globe. (Abrahamson, Global Warming, 1989, 3) Michael
Meacher, speaking as Great Britain's environment minister, has said, "Combating climate change is
the greatest challenge of human history" (P. Brown 1999, 44). If the atmosphere's carbon dioxide level
doubles over preindustrial levels, which is likely (at present rates of increase) before the year 2100,
climate models indicate that temperatures may rise 1.9 to 5.2 degrees C. (3.4 to 9.4 degrees F.) within
a century, producing "a climate warmer than any in human history. The consequences of this amount
of warming are unknown and could include extremely unpleasant surprises" (National Academy 1991,
2).
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
Global Warming Exists – Man Made – CO2 Emissions
CO2 emissions alter cloud cover, increasing the effects of warming
Milloy, October 12, 2006
Steve, FoxNews.com, “New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate”,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html. Accessed on July 7, 2008//AR
That is, cloud cover changes over a 5-year period can have 85 percent of the temperature
effect on the Earth that has been claimed to have been caused by nearly 200 years of
manmade carbon dioxide emissions. The temperature effects of cloud cover during the
20th century could be as much as 7 times greater than the alleged temperature effect of
200 years worth of additional carbon dioxide and several times greater than that of all
additional greenhouse gases combined. So although it has been taken for granted by
global warming alarmists that human activity has caused the climate to warm, Svensmark’s
study strongly challenges this assumption.
CO2 leads to increased temperatures
BO NORDELL, 2001
Elsevier, Division of Water Resources Engineering, Luleå University of Technology. “Thermal pollution causes
global warming,” December 15, 2001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-49FGSB11&_user=508790&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=
d&view=c&_acct=C000025157&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=508790&md5=4891eeb7936f97
1dddab6d88a624027f. Accessed on July 7, 2008.
A global rise in temperatures is undoubtedly real according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) (Macilwain, 2000). An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a
warming world and other changes in the climate system (IPCC, 2001). The estimated temperature
increase during the past century was between 0.4 and 0.8 jC with the 10 warmest years all occurring
within the last 15 years (EPA, 2001). Even though there is a scientific consensus about an ongoing
global warming, there is no consensus about its cause. Most studies, however, assume that it is a
result of the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations into the atmosphere, i.e. the greenhouse
effect. The greenhouse explanation is based on the fact that the global mean temperature increase
coincides with increasing emissions of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) into the
atmosphere, which has been increasing since 1800, from about 275 to 370 ppm today (CDIAC, 2002).
It is presumed that increases in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases will lead to
significant increases in temperature. It is generally believed that most of this increase is due to the
increased burning of fossil fuels.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
CO2 is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect.
JOHN HOUGHTON, Hadley Centre, Meteorological Office, 2005
Institute of Physics Publishing, Global Warming 7/8/08. stacks.iop.org/RoPP/68/1343
In figure 3 emissions from the main greenhouse gases were identified in the infrared spectrum. As was
mentioned in section 2, water vapour provides the largest contribution to the natural greenhouse
effect [21]. But, the most important gas that is increasing in the atmosphere because of human
activities is carbon dioxide. If, for the moment, we ignore the effects of the CFCs and changes in
ozone, which vary considerably over the globe and which are therefore more difficult to quantify, the
increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) has contributed about 70% of the enhanced greenhouse effect to
date, methane (CH4) about 24% and nitrous oxide (N2O) about
6% (figure 13).
Carbon Dioxide is a reason for climate change.
Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall
Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the
Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including
Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, August 2, 2006
Cato.org, Okay Coral, 7/8/08, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6563
The NSF study, released with two other federal research entities and entitled "Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs," landed
with a thud, and it is remarkable how the press has received it. Writers have editorialized about it, literally with one voice, without any
critical fact-checking. In a July 11 editorial, the editors of the Cincinnati Post wrote, "This report is a fraction of the available evidence
indicating anthropogenic climate change....The evidence is clear and convincing. The global-warming critics are neither." On July 12, the
Albuquerque Tribune, in its own in-house editorial, printed the same words (without attribution).It could have done something more
original and scrutinized the NSF report. There's a major problem with it, right at the beginning. Its first paragraph states correctly that, as
a result of the burning of fossil fuel and other activities, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising. From there, however, the
report loses its way. "Rates of increase," it says, "have risen from 0.25% [per year] in the 1960s to 0.75% [per year] in the last five years."
Really? The standard reference for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is that registered at Mauna Loa Observatory, beginning in
1958. The average rate of change in the 1960s was 0.30% per year, and in the last five years, it was 0.55%. This last value is not
statistically distinguishable from the average rate for the past 25 years. The real change from the 1960s to the last five years is 0.25% per
year, while the NSF-sponsored report gives it as twice that.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 10 / 189 ]
Our carbon emissions have been increasing in the past and are going to continue.
Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, August 2, 2006
It’s not just an environmental phenomena – it’s human made.
Pew Center for Climate Change 1
(Ed. Eileen Cluassen, Chairman of the Board, “Climate Change: Science, Strategies, and Solutions”, p. 7-8,
NetLibrary) DMZ
The composition of the atmosphere has changed markedly since pre-industrial times: CO2
concentration has risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to around 370 ppm today, CH4 has
risen from about 700 parts per billion (ppb) to over 1700 ppb, and N20 has increased from about 270
ppb to over 310 ppb. Halocarbons, largely nonexistent prior to the 1950s, are now present in amounts
that have a noticeable greenhouse effect. Pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases are known
because the composition of ancient air trapped in bubbles in ice cores from Antarctica can be
measured directly (Etheridge et al., 1998; Gulluk et al., 1998). These ice cores show that the
concentrations of these gases are much higher than in preindustrial times and far exceed levels of the
preceding 10,000 years. Human activity - fossil-fuel burning, land-use changes, production and use of
halocarbons, etc. - is the dominant cause of these changes in atmospheric composition. Human
activity is the undeniable source of atmospheric halocarbons (the most climatically important of which
are the chlorofluorocarbons, CFC11 and CFC12) because the vast majority of these gases do not occur
naturally. Today, many halocarbons are controlled under the Montreal Protocol ,2 and substitute
chemicals, which do not cause ozone depletion and so are not controlled, are being introduced. These
new gases, like all halocarbons, are strong greenhouse gases (although their net effects on future
climate are expected to be small relative to C02). For C02, CH4, and N2O, the human role is virtually
certain too, partly because their changes since pre-industrial times have been so large and at such
unprecedented rates, and also because computer simulations provide an unequivocal link between the
emissions of these gases in recent decades and observed changes in atmospheric composition. In
addition to the gases mentioned above, anthropogenic emissions of the reactive gases, carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO,), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as butane and
propane have increased concentrations of tropospheric ozone. Tropospheric ozone (03) is a powerful
greenhouse gas. Most greenhouse gases also have natural sources. However, in pre-industrial times
emissions were balanced by natural removal or "sink" processes. Human activities have disturbed this
balance.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 11 / 189 ]
Global warming exists, and it has existed since we started using CO2 in the industrial
Revolution.
Danielle Murray, 2005
(Earth Policy Institute, Ice Melting Everywhere, July 8, 2008, http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Ice/2005.htm)
Ice is melting everywhere—and at an accelerating rate. Rising global temperatures are lengthening melting seasons, thawing frozen
ground, and thinning ice caps and glaciers that in some cases have existed for millennia. These changes are raising sea level faster than
earlier projected by scientists, and threatening both human and wildlife populations. Since the industrial revolution, human activity has
released ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases into the atmosphere, leading to gradual but unmistakable
changes in climate throughout the world—especially at the higher latitudes. Average surface temperatures in the Arctic Circle have risen
by more than half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1981. The extent of Arctic sea ice cover has decreased by 7–
9 percent per decade. And the three smallest extents of summer ice ever seen there have all occurred since 2002. According to the latest
forecasts, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by the end of this century. (See data and map for selected ice melt examples from
around the globe.)
Rainforest fossils show link between carbon dioxide and temperature
Kate Melville. Staff writer for science a go go. January 5, 2007. “Fossil Records Show Yo-Yo Effect Of Changing Climate”. Accessed
July 8, 2008. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070004210624data_trunc_sys.shtml
The mid-Permian transition from ice age to an ice-free planet was marked by dips and rises in carbon dioxide and extreme swings in
climate, according to University of California, Davis (UC) researchers writing in Science. During the mid-Permian, 300 million years ago,
much of the southern hemisphere was covered in thick ice sheets and floating pack ice likely covered the northern polar ocean. But forty
million years later, all the ice was gone and the climate hot and dry with sparse vegetation. UC's Isabel Montanez, lead author on the
paper, derived levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and sea surface temperatures from the fossils of brachiopod shellfish and fossilized
plants from the ancient rainforests. They also looked at the scars and clues left by glacial ice sheets that once covered the great southern
continent of Gondwanaland, which included most of the land masses of the modern southern hemisphere. Montanez's analysis shows
that throughout the change over millions of years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels swung back and forth between about 250 parts per
million (close to present-day levels) to more than 2,000 parts per million. At the same time, the southern ice sheets retreated as carbon
dioxide rose and expanded again when levels fell, a pattern compatible with the idea that greenhouse gases caused the end of the late
Paleozoic ice age. "We can see a pattern of increasing carbon dioxide and increasing temperatures, with a series of rises and dips,"
Montanez said. Previously, it was assumed that as the climate warmed, a tipping point would be reached at which the ice sheets would
melt rapidly and for good. Instead, the new data shows that the climate went back and forth between the extremes. Instead of a smooth
shift, the transition occurred in a series of sharp swings between cold and hot conditions, occurring during perhaps a half-million to few
million years. Montanez pointed out that these results cannot be directly applied to current global warming. The current rise in
atmospheric carbon dioxide is occurring throughout a much shorter timescale, for one thing. But the current work does show that such a
major change in climate will likely not proceed in small, gradual steps, but in a series of unstable, dramatic swings. Somewhat
worryingly, while the mid-Permian changeover took millions of years, similar events might take place during a much shorter time span.
"Perhaps this is the behavior one should expect when we go through a major climate transition," Montanez mused.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 12 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Fossil Records
Fossil records prove high carbon dioxide levels without humans
Peter Donaldson. Staff writer The Express. March 21,2007. The Express. “Let’s try to find the real cause of global warming”. Accessed
July 8, 2008.
TEN thousand years ago, the world was in the grip of an ice age. The human population lived in caves and didn't have a 4x4, a power
station or jet airliner between them - and yet the ice melted. Fossil records prove that high CO2 levels (still a minuscule part of the
atmosphere) are not the cause of global warming but are j ust one of the results of it. The Great Global Warming Swindle, debunking
the CO2 theory, has been shown on TV more than once, but the CO2 theorists have not challenged it because they have no answer. In
our anxiety to do something about global warming, let's not tax ourselves into penury doing the wrong things.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 13 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Not Man Made – Natural
GW is a natural phenomenon.
TIMOTHY BALL, Climatology Professor at the University of Winnipeg. 2007
Canada Free Press, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts 7/9/08
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the
greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while
creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example,
Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate
change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same
time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks
conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and
as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause
global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world
come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that
global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents
humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with
for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance;
the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. I was as opposed to
the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global
Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since
1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the
present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by
changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 14 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 15 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 16 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 17 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Satellites
Satellite technology strengthens the consensus that the world is warming unnaturally
Henderson the Times science correspondent 2004
<Times Online, 7-7-08, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article852640.ece>

POWERFUL evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US
Government, demolishing the chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real. A
new analysis of satellite data has revealed that temperatures in a critical part of the atmosphere are
rising much faster than previously thought, strengthening the scientific consensus that the world is
warming at an unnatural rate.The discovery resolves one of the most contentious anomalies in climate
science, which has often been invoked by the Bush Administration to question whether man-made
global warming is happening. While it is generally accepted that surface temperatures are increasing
by an average of 0.17C (0.31F) per decade, satellites have been unable to detect a parallel trend in
the troposphere — the lowest level of the atmosphere, extending 7.5 miles above the ground, in which
most weather occurs.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 18 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Computer Models
Computer models of climate measure an unnatural energy imbalance in the earth,
proving warming claims
Black BBC News environment correspondent 2005
<BBC News, 7-7-08, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm>

The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new
study by climate scientists in the US. They base their findings on computer models of climate, and on
measurements of temperature in the oceans. The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that
we were looking for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet. The results
are published in the journal Science this week. The study attempts to calculate the Earth's "energy
imbalance" - the difference between the amount of energy received at the top of the atmosphere from
solar radiation, and the amount that is given back into space. Rather than measuring the imbalance
directly, the researchers draw on data from the oceans, in particular from the growing global flotilla of
scientific buoys and floats, now numbered in the thousands, which monitor sea temperature.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 19 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Consensus
Overwhelming consensus proves warming theory
Johansen 2
(Prof of Comm @ UNO, “The Global Warming Desk Reference”, p. 49, NetLibrary) DMZ
The public policy debate regarding global warming has often conveyed an impression that scientists
are hopelessly divided over the issue of whether human activities are warming the lower atmosphere.
In actuality, a high degree of agreement has existed since the IPCC's First Assessment was published
in 1990. The IPCC's first major report forecast widely varying temperature rises by region with an
assumed doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The largest increases (six to seven degrees
C.) were forecast in the interiors of northern North America and Asia during the winter; increases in
the summer for the same regions were forecast at between three and four degrees C. The largest
summer temperature increase (4.8 degrees C.) was forecast for interior southern Asia. the smallest
increases year-round were forecast for the tropics, especially areas near large bodies of water. An
IPCC conference during November, 1990, at Geneva, Switzerland, issued a "ministerial declaration"
representing 137 countries which agreed that while climate had varied in the past, "[t]he rate of
climate change predicted by the IPCC to occur over the next century [due to greenhouse warming] is
unprecedented." The ministers declared, "[C]limate change is a global problem of unique character"
(Jager and Ferguson 1991, 525). The ministers also declared that the eventual goal should be "to
stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with climate" (Jager and Ferguson 1991, 536). The question of whether the Earth is
becoming unnaturally warmer because of huuman activities was largely settled in scientific circles by
1995, with publication of the Second Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), a worldwide group of about 2,500 experts. The panel concluded that the earth's temperature
had increased between 0.5 and 1.1 degrees F. (0.3 to 0.6 degrees C.) since reliable worldwide records
became available between 1850 and 1900. The IPCC noted that warming accelerated as
measurements approached the present day (Bolin et al. 1995). The IPCC's Second Assessment
concluded that human activity-increased generation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases-is
at least partially responsible for the accelerating rise in global temperatures. The amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising nearly every year due to increased use of fossil fuels by
ever-larger human populations experiencing higher living standards. The IPCC's Second Assessment,
according to one observer, "makes an unprecedented, though qualified, attribution of the observed
climate change to human causes. Though the human signal is still building and somewhat masked
within natural variation, and while there are key uncertainties to be resolved, the Panel concludes that
`the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate' "
(Landsea 1999).
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 20 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Coral Reefs
The loss of coral reefs is the first sign of a climate change.
Goreau, 2005
Thomas Goreau, He was educated in Jamaica, MIT, Caltech, and Harvard. His research, focusing on reef
restoration, global warming, coral diseases, and community based coastal zone management of
nutrient pollution, has taken him across the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific, December 5, 2005.
Open Democracy, Global warming and coral reefs, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-
climate_change_debate/2558.jsp Accessed on July 7, 2008//DH
Coral reefs are the most sensitive of all ecosystems to global warming, pollution, and new diseases.
They will be first to go as a result of climate change. As the most important resources for fisheries,
tourism, shore protection, and marine biodiversity for more than a hundred countries, this will be a
huge disaster. Almost all reefs have already been heated above their maximum temperature
thresholds. Many have already lost most of their corals, and temperature rise in most places gives
only a few years before most corals die from heatstroke.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 21 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Even if it doesn’t, still worth
a try
Uncertainty runs both ways – better to risk living than dying
Gelbspan 97
(Pulitizer Prize Winner, “The Heat is On”, p. 31-2, NetLibrary) DMZ

The naysayers' rallying cry of last resort is uncertainty. We know too little about climate change to act,
they assure us. Until the holes of scientific uncertainty are filled, they warn, it would be irresponsible
to actespecially when action could be costly and, worse, so revolutionary as to disrupt the established
order of things. What they do not mention is that to avoid acting could be to compound, incalculably,
the costs of addressing climate change and its disruptions to civilization. What they do not mention is
that uncertainty cuts both ways. At a recent meeting at Tufts University, Dr. Richard Lindzen of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, arguably the most academically accomplished of the scientific
skeptics, described at great length the various shortcomings of the climate models and their inability
to resolve a number of significant uncertainties. When he had finished, Dr. Michael McElroy, chairman
of Harvard University's department of earth and planetary sciences, recalled that in the early 1980s
scientists had spent several years modeling projected ozone depletion. "When researchers finally
conducted actual ozone measurements in the atmosphere, their findings were far worse than the
worst case scenarios of the models," he said, adding, "Just because a situation is uncertain does not
imply that the underlying reality is benign." Our scientific knowledge, in other words may even be
lagging behind nature. The momentum of globally disrupting climate change may be further advanced
than earth science, with its areas of uncertainty, is currently able to prove. What we do know is that
the earth's systems are showing irrefutable signs of climate-related stress. The evidence goes beyond
computer models and laboratory calculations. It lies in numerous research discoveries (examined later
in this book) about the oceans, the forests, the glaciers, and the soils, and in the dramatic outbreaks of
infectious diseases under the forces of climatic change.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 22 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Temperatures
Global Temperatures trends are Rising
Kohler and Dutzik Wisconsin Environment Research and Policy Center and Frontier Group 2007 <Wisconsin
Environment and Research and Policy Center, 7-7-08,
https://www.environmentamerica.org/uploads/Uh/NM/UhNMNKKS4XIGqGDc4LtLTQ/_An_Unfamiliar_Stat
e_Wisconsin_Global-Warming.May2007.pdf>
Over the last century, global average temperatures have increased by 1.3° F.1 Scientists believe that
temperatures in the last half of the 20th century were likely the highest in the last 1300 years.2 Most
of the recent warming is likely due to human-caused releases of global warming pollutants, primarily
carbon dioxide.3 Global warming appears to have intensified in recent years. In 2006, scientists at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reported that, since 1975, temperatures have
been increasing at a rate of about 0.36° F per decade.4 Worldwide, 11 of the last 12 years (1995 to
2006) rank among the 12 warmest years on record, with 2006 likely the warmest year in the United
States since record-keeping began in 1895.5 (See Fig. 1, next page.) While temperatures have
increased on average, patterns of extreme temperatures have also changed. According to the recent
IPCC report, “Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights
and heat waves have become more frequent.”7
We are at the highest temperatures in the last 700,000years and it is only going to
increase
Science Daily, Science publication, 22 May 2006

Dailyscience.com, “Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century”, 07/08/08,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm
Using deuterium-corrected temperature records for the ice cores, which yield hemispheric rather than local temperature
conditions, GCM climate sensitivity, and a mathematical formula for quantifying feedback effects, Torn and Harte calculated the
magnitude of the greenhouse gas-temperature feedback on temperature. “Our results reinforce the fact that every bit of greenhouse
gas we put into the atmosphere now is committing us to higher global temperatures in the future and we are already near the highest
temperatures of the past 700,000 years,” Torn said. “At this point, mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is absolutely critical.”
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 23 / 189 ]
Global Warming Exists – Sea Levels Rise
Sea Level is Already Rising
Kohler and Dutzik Wisconsin Environment Research and Policy Center and Frontier Group 2007. <Wisconsin
Environment and Research and Policy Center, 7-7-08,
https://www.environmentamerica.org/uploads/Uh/NM/UhNMNKKS4XIGqGDc4LtLTQ/_An_Unfamiliar_Stat
e_Wisconsin_Global-Warming.May2007.pdf>
Over the course of the 20th century, average sea level increased by approximately 6.7 inches
worldwide.8 Sea level has risen more quickly in recent years.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 24 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Satellites Prove
Human readings are ineffective. Satellites prove there is no global warming.
Taylor 01
(James Taylor, December 16, 2001, “Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global Warming Theories”)
Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree
Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as
evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages. However, precise
satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global
warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago. "We have seen
no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first
area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the
troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming,"
explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Global warming skeptics have
pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in
underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations
such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics
note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing
urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations. "While the
greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of
the world's climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James
L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4
Chicago Tribune. Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite
prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower atmosphere only after a general warming of
the Earth's surface.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 25 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Consensus Poor
Consensus is a poor warrant – fringe opinions should not be deemed secondary just
because they’re unpopular.
Corcoran 2006
(Terence Corcoran, business editor for the Toronto National Post and one of Canada’s foremost business
writers, June 16 2006, “Climate Consensus and the End of Science, Lexis,)
Back when modern science was born, the battle between consensus and new science worked the
other way around. More often than not, the consensus of the time -- dictated by religion, prejudice,
mysticism and wild speculation, false premises -- was wrong. The role of science, from Galileo to
Newton and through the centuries, has been to debunk the consensus and move us forward. But now
science has been stripped of its basis in experiment, knowledge, reason and the scientific method and
made subject to the consensus created by politics and bureaucrats. As a mass phenomenon, repeated
appeals to consensus to support a scientific claim are relatively new. But it is not new to science. For
more than a century, various philosophical troublemakers have been trying to undermine science and
the scientific method. These range from Marxists who saw science as a product of class warfare and
historical materialism -- Newton was a lackey of the ruling classes and pawn of history -- to scores of
sociological theorists and philosophers who spent much of the 20th century attempting to subvert the
first principles of modern, Enlightenment science. If science were to become a belief system, then the
belief with the greatest number of followers would become established fact and received knowledge.
Knowledge based on observation and rational inference would play second fiddle to what Barnes calls
"customarily accepted belief." This belief is "sustained by consensus and authority." This is not just
one science writer proposing a theory. Barnes is reporting on the mainstream elements of new-science
thought over more than a century. Ideas come from such well-known brand names such as Marx and
Kant, but mostly from a procession of philosophers even most scientists have never heard of. It's a
jungle, to be sure, filled with impenetrable language and philosophical jargon. But the trend is clear.
Global warming science by consensus, with appeals to United Nations panels and other agencies as
authorities, is the apotheosis of the century-long crusade to overthrow the foundations of modern
science and replace them with collectivist social theories of science. "Where a specific body of
knowledge is recognized and accepted by a body of scientists, there would seem to be a need to
regard that acceptance as a matter of contingent fact," writes Barnes. This means that knowledge is
"undetermined by experience." It takes us "away from an individualistic rationalist account of
evaluation towards a collectivist conventionalist account." In short, under the new authoritarian
science based on consensus, science doesn't matter much any more. If one scientist's 1,000-year
chart showing rising global temperatures is based on bad data, it doesn't matter because we still
otherwise have a consensus. If a polar-bear expert says polar bears appear to be thriving, thus
disproving a popular climate theory, the expert and his numbers are dismissed as being outside the
consensus. If studies show solar fluctuations rather than carbon emissions may be causing climate
change, these are damned as relics of the old scientific method. If ice caps are not all melting, with
some even getting larger, the evidence is ridiculed and condemned. We have a consensus, and this
contradictory science is just noise from the skeptical fringe.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 26 / 189 ]
There is no consensus because our climate is not changing.
Jerry Taylor, Under his direction, the Cato Institute has become an influential critic of federal and state environmental policy. Taylor is
active on the lecture circuit and one of the most frequently cited experts in energy and environmental policy in the nation, January 16,
1998. Cato Institute, Global Warming: The Anatomy of the Debate, 7/8/08 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6843 .
Accessed on Jul 8, 2008//DH
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with the IPCC's summary statement that the "balance of the evidence suggests" that anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions explain some of the detected warming observed thus far over the past 100 years. But as noted earlier, that
warming has been extremely moderate, has been largely confined to the northern latitudes during winter nights, and has exhibited no real
detrimental effects thus far. I expect those trends to continue and that's the main reason why I doubt that the costs of warming will be
particularly consequential. If warming takes place primarily at night, the negative vision of future climate change is wrong. Evaporation
rate increases, which are a primary cause of projected increases in drought frequency, are minimized with nighttime, as opposed to
daytime, warming. The growing season is also longer because that period is primarily determined by night low temperatures. Further,
many plants, including some agriculturally important species, will show enhanced growth with increased moisture efficiency because of
the well-known "fertilizer" effect of CO2. Finally, terrestrial environments with small daily temperature ranges, such as tropical forests,
tend to have more biomass than those with large ones (i.e., deserts and high latitude communities) so we should expect a greener planet.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 27 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Poor Science
Warming evidence has proven to be scientifically inaccurate
Singer, 2008
S. Fred, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,” Heartland Institute. March 2008.
http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf. Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice
Objections to the surface data are too numerous to elaborate here in detail [see Lo, Yang, Pielke 2007; McKitrick and Michaels 2006].
They have been vigorously criticized for failing to sufficiently control for urban heat-island effects – the fact that asphalt, buildings, air
conditioning units, and other parts of urban life cause warming of urban areas that has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. One study of
temperature stations in California found no warming in rural counties, a slight warming in suburban counties, and rapid warming in urban
counties (Figure 11). Another criticism of the temperature record is poor geographic distribution and sampling. The number of stations
has varied greatly over time and has decreased markedly from the 1970s, especially in Siberia, affecting the homogeneity of the dataset
(Figure 12). Ideally, the models require at least one measuring point for each 5 degrees of latitude and longitude—2,592 grid boxes in all.
With the decline in stations, the number of grid boxes covered also declined—from 1,200 to 600, a decline in coverage from 46 percent to
23 percent. Further, the covered grid boxes tend to be in the more populated areas.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 28 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Scientific Fallacy
Scientists were wrong, and are just trying to cover up their mistake
Ball Retired Climatology Professor July 7th 2008
<Canada Free Press, 7-7-08, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3850>

Robert Frost said, “There’s nothing I am afraid of like scared people.” Those who perpetrated possibly
the greatest deception in human history that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change are
scared. Events are driving them to extreme, unsubstantiated and even ridiculous claims and threats.
One of these was that sea level would rise, but it foundered when the two Nobel Peace Prize winners,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore were in serious disagreement.
Another was Arctic sea ice except it returned to long term normal levels last winter and NASA
announced the one year anomaly was due to changes in wind patterns. So they return to their central
theme of convincing you that normal weather events are abnormal. An increase in severe weather is a
persistent theme, especially in North America. Recently the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and
the Subcommittee on Global Change Research issued a report with projected changes in weather and
climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 29 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Not Man Made
Even if there was Proof of Global Warming, it isn’t caused by Humans
Bast President and CEO of the Heartland Institute 2003
<Heartland Institute, 7-7-08, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548>
The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the
executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United
Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate
Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean
dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity
limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the
starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial
conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent
accurately the significant climate processes.”
The Opposite of Global Warming is happening right Now
Deweese Writer Canada Free Press 2004
<Canada Free Press, 7-8-08, http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/deweese121404.htm>

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows
warming trends--be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents--is wrong. In fact, scientific
research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling--very slightly--.037
degrees Celsius.A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United
States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in1992
there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only 5 days. Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling"
trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over
dire warnings of "warming."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 30 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Not a Global Trend
Warming is not a global trend but isolated to urban development
Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of
temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global
warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within
0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations
show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by
heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 31 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Ice IS NOT Melting
The Arctic Ice is Not Melting
How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline:
Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070. The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article
is based on a report titled: Impacts of a Warming Arctic, submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessement (ACIA). It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific
data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups who have an agenda. The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is
comprised of a consortium of radical envionmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United
States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle. Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial
stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing “scientists” to the ACIA “researchers” is the World Wildlife
Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers who create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper
environmental conduct.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 32 / 189 ]
Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Scientist Deny
The Scientists Know Global Warming is not happening
And so too is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact.
What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global
warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4,000 scientists. Americans aren’t being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North
American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory. And the deceit knows no
bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two
key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis,
said: 1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases." 2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to…man-made causes." Obviously,
those two paragraphs aren’t consistant with the political agenda the UN is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest
hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world--bar none.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 33 / 189 ]
***Sources/Preventions of Warming***
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 34 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 35 / 189 ]
Warming Inevitable – Natural
Climate Change cannot be controlled by monitoring emissions
Singer, 2007
Fred, “Press Release from Science & Environmental Policy Project,” Science & Environmental Policy Project.
10 December 2007. http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html.
Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of
Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years
are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors,
such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or
modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current
legislation. These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially
the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP).
Warming is not human-caused but a natural evolution of the world
Singer, 2007
Fred, “Press Release from Science & Environmental Policy Project,” Science & Environmental Policy Project.
10 December 2007. http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html.
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-
caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and
atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with
greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and
that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible
contribution to climate warming.” Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon
data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models,
on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason,
therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse
gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds
and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” Co-author S. Fred Singer
said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that
has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of
papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still
under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated
magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such
cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching
the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of
atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that
attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 36 / 189 ]
Warming Inevitable – Greenhouse Gases
There are already too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
GREG EASTERBROOK, Brooking Institute 2007
Brookings Institute, Global Warming: Who Wins, Who Loses? 7/8/08.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2007/04energy_easterbrook/04energy_easterbrook
.pdf
Yet if global-warming theory is right, higher global temperatures are already inevitable. Even
the most optimistic scenario for reform envisions decades of additional greenhouse-gas
accumulation in the atmosphere, and that in turn means a warming world. The warming
may be manageable, but it is probably unstoppable in the short term. This suggests that a
major investment sector of the near future will be climate-change adaptation. Crops that
grow in high temperatures, homes and buildings designed to stay cool during heat waves, vehicles
that run on far less fuel, waterfront structures that can resist stronger storms—the list of needed
adaptations will be long, and all involve producing, buying, and selling. Environmentalists don’t
like talk of adaptation, as it implies making our peace with a warmer world. That peace,
though, must be made—and the sooner businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs get to
work, the better
Global warming is inevitable.
KAY MILTON, Social Anthropology, Queen's University Belfast, April 2008
The Australian Journal of Anthropology, Fear for the Future.mmExpanded Academic ASAP http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?
prodId=EAIM . Accessed on July 8, 2008
The science of climate change tells us that global warming is genuinely dangerous and statistically inevitable. It is also immediate--it is
happening now. Its effects have been evident for many years and will become more severe in the coming decades. In these circumstances,
managing our internal fears and neglecting the danger is the worst thing we can do if we want the world as we know it to survive. And yet
the size and complexity of the problem is enough to make many of us turn inwards, to deal with our fear rather than with its source. An
understanding of fear and how it works suggests that trying to scare us into action, as many of the popular texts on global warming seek
to do, could be counter-productive. We need to find alternatives to fear--more appropriate emotional stimuli--to motivate an effective
response to global warming. Finding those alternatives could be the most urgent and important problem the human sciences ever have to
address.
There’s no way to stop it so prepare for it.
New Scientist Journal 2006
“Adapt or Fry?” 7/8/08 Expanded Academic ASAP http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-

Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28K0%2CNone
%2C25%29global+warming+inevitable
%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=Relevance&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R2
&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=ksu&docId=A151607713&docType=IAC
Is it all over for Kyoto? Should we accept that global warming is inevitable and plan accordingly?
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 37 / 189 ]
Yes, says Frances Cairncross, president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BA) which held its annual festival in
Norwich, UK, this week. On Monday Cairncross described the Kyoto protocol as "ineffectual" and called for the world to accept that "a
hotter, drier world" is coming--even if everyone fulfils their obligations under Kyoto and pegs levels of carbon dioxide back below the
1990 baseline. "Adaptation policies have had far less attention than mitigation," she told the BA. Now Cairncross is saying the UK
should prepare for the inevitable by developing drought-resistant crops, constructing flood defences and perhaps even banning dwellings
close to sea level. "We cannot relocate the Amazon or insulate coral reefs, so we need mitigation too, but the [UK] government could and
should put in place an adaption strategy straight away," she said
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 38 / 189 ]
Sun Does Not Cause Warming
Studies disprove sun spots as the source
Johansen 2
(Prof of Comm @ UNO, “The Global Warming Desk Reference”, p. 87, NetLibrary) DMZ
G L O B A L - W A R M I N G S K E P T I C S A N D T H E S U N S P O T C Y C L E Many global-warming
skeptics argue that the sunspot cycle is causing a significant part of the warming that has
been measured by surface thermometers during the twentieth century's final two decades. Accurate
measurements of the sun's energy output have been taken only since about 1980, however, so their
archival value for comparative purposes is severely limited. Michaels, editor of the World Climate
Report, cites a study of sunspot-related solar brightness conducted by Judith Lean and Peter Foukal,
who contend that roughly half of the 0.55 degree C. of warming observed since 1850 is a result of
changes in the sun's radiative output. "That would leave," says Michaels, "at best, 0.28 degree C.
[due] to the greenhouse effect" (Michaels 1996). J.J. Lean and her associates also estimate that
approximately one-half of the warming of the last 130 years has resulted from variations in the sun's
delivery of radiant energy to the earth (Lean, Beer, and Bradley 1995). While solar variability has a
role in climate change, Martin I. Hoffert and associates (writing in Nature) believe that those who make
it the primary variable are overplaying their hand: "Although solar effects on this century's climate
may not be negligible, quantitative considerations imply that they are small relative to the
anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide" (Hoffert et al. 1999, 764).
The sun is probably not the cause of global warming.
S. K. SOLANKIL, I. G. USOSKIN, University of Oulu, Finland 2004
Nature Magazine, “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”
7/9/08
www.nature.com/nature
Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series
are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing
models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past
11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-
based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number.
According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the
previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past
11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity
and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity
of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the
unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have
been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 39 / 189 ]
Sun Causes Warming
Global Warming is caused by the Sun NOT CO2
Gunter, 2007
Lorne, National Post. Bright Sun, Warm Earth. Coincidence?, National Post. March 12, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7
Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-
like storm. The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm --
Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr.
Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees
Celsius warmer than just a few years ago. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the
unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its
frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer." And I
swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't. Is there
something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be
causing them to warm in unison? Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a
mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees
Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something
like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw! They
must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that
are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too. A decade ago, when global
warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that
bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer,
day or night? And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year? Finally,
which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days? If you answered day, afternoon, summer and
cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming. For the past
century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during
that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of
the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the
Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the
rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not
unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 40 / 189 ]
CO2 Causes Warming – Ice Records
Ice core sample proves carbon dioxide affects the environment
Thomas Stocker. Professor of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern. November 26, 2005. World magazine.
“Ice records of gas startling”. Accessed July 8, 2008. Pg. 27
THERE is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any point during the last 650,000 years, says a major new study that let
scientists peer back in time at the "greenhouse gases" implicated in global warming. The study, by the European Project for Ice Coring
in Antarctica, is published today in the journal Science. Sceptics sometimes dismiss the rise in greenhouse gases as part of a naturally
fluctuating cycle. The new study provides ever-more definitive evidence countering that view. By analysing tiny air bubbles preserved in
Antarctic ice for millennia, the European research team has highlighted how people are dramatically influencing the build-up of these
gases. A previous ice-core sample had traced greenhouse gases back about 440,000 years. This new sample, from East Antarctica, goes
210,000 years further back in time. Today's still rising level of carbon dioxide already is 27 per cent higher than its peak during all those
millennia, said lead researcher Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern, Switzerland. "We are out of that natural range today," he said.
Moreover, that rise is occurring at a speed that "is over a factor of a hundred faster than anything we are seeing in the natural cycles,"
Stocker said. The team, which included scientists from France and Germany, found similar results for methane, another greenhouse gas.
Researchers also compared the gas levels to the Antarctic temperature over that time period, covering eight cycles of alternating glacial or
ice ages and warm periods. They found a stable pattern: lower levels of gases during cold periods and higher levels during warm periods.
Ice record shows correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature levels
Andrew C. Revkin. Staff writer New York Times. November 25, 2005. New York Times. “Gases at Level Unmatched in Antiquity,
Study Shows”. Accessed July 8, 2008. Pg. 14.
The new data from the ice cores also provides the first detailed portrait of conditions during ice-age cycles that occurred more than
400,000 years ago -- a point in Earth's two-million-year history of cold periods and warm intervals after which some unknown influence
lengthened ice ages and shortened and amplified the warm periods. Both before and after that transition, the ice record shows, there was
always a tight relationship between amounts of the greenhouse gases and air temperature. While the overall climate pattern has been set
by rhythmic variations in Earth's orientation to the Sun, the records show that carbon dioxide and methane consistently made the
interglacial climate warmer than it would otherwise have been, said Thomas Stocker, one of the researchers and a physicist at the
University of Bern in Switzerland. Last year, the same cores provided new evidence that the current warm period, the Holocene, which
began about 12,000 years ago, is similar to the longer warm periods that were typical before 400,000 years ago, and could last at least
another 16,000 years. The European team is analyzing deeper, older sections of the Dome C ice cores, and the researchers said they
might be able to take the climate record back 800,000 years, possibly providing information about yet another early warm interval similar
to the Holocene. The new long-term record is essentially creating a subset of climate science, letting scientists compare different warm
periods. They can then sort out influences, including greenhouse gases, said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute
for Space Studies in Manhattan.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 41 / 189 ]
Methane Causes Warming
Methane is 100 times as powerful green house gas as carbon dioxide and it causes
global warming
Hughes, 2008
Wesley G. Hughes, Staff Writer, 06/07/2008, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, “UC Riverside offers program on
climate change”, 07/090-/09, http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_9518606
It's trapped in the permafrost under the ice cap in high latitudes at the top of the world. If the ice cap
melts - as the Greenland ice sheet rapidly is - the methane will be released and methane is 50 times
more active than carbon as a greenhouse gas, the scientist said. The Earth has 5,000 gigatons of
carbon dioxide in its deposits of oil and natural gas. Big numbers. But there are 10,000 gigatons of
methane under the ice sheets and in the ocean floor near the coasts. That's twice the amount of
carbon dioxide and 100 times more powerful.
Methane is the cause of the melting ice caps
Hughes, 2008
Methane lingers in the atmosphere for five or 10 years before oxidation converts it to carbon dioxide.
The more methane released as the ice melts, the warmer it becomes, melting more ice releasing
increasingly more methane. As the ice melts, the planet loses its reflectability - the albedo effect -
absorbing more of the heat from the sun and increasing the warmth. It's like putting your hand on a
white car in the hot summer sun and then putting it on a black one. "Ouch."
Methane will cause a runaway global warming which makes natural disasters worse
Hughes, 2008
A methane age would wreak havoc with the climate, plant and animal life and humanity, Kennedy
said. The results are unpredictable and could be catastrophic with more Hurricane Katrinas, dust
bowls, monsoons, floods and famine. The scientist is director of the Global Climate and
Environmental Change Program, a two-year master's degree program at UCR.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 42 / 189 ]
Deforestation Causes Warming
Land-use promotes climate change.
PHILIP M. FEARNSIDE University of Chicago 2006

National Institute for Research in the Amazon, Mitigation of Climatic Change in the Amazon 7/9/08
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:YP07zlruBAcJ:philip.inpa.gov.br/publ_livres/Preprints/In%2520press/laurance-peres
%2520book%2520ms.pdf+%22global+warming%22+threatens+amazon
“Mitigation” refers to measures to reduce the amount of climate change, as distinguished from
“adaptation,” which refers to protecting, moving, or changing human and natural systems to
accommodate climatic changes with a minimum of disruption. Global warming is a major
worldwide concern caused by net emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Most emissions come from burning of fossil fuels, but
about 30% come from land-use change in the tropics, especially deforestation (Fearnside
2000a). Land-use changes release greenhouse gases from burning and from decay of biomass,
as well as from soil changes, cattle, and hydroelectric dams. In addition to its impact on global
warming, deforestation also provokes climate change by diminishing the supply of water vapor
from evapotranspiration, thereby reducing rainfall in Amazonia and in the heavily populated
central-south portion of Brazil (Salati and Vose 1984, Fearnside 2004, Marengo et al., in press).
Also, changes in the boundary layer above deforested areas in Amazonia can produce
teleconnections that reduce summer rainfall in North America and elsewhere (Avissar et al.,
chap. 2). Furthermore, aerosols in the smoke released by biomass burning impede rainfall
formation by providing an excessive number of cloud-condensation nuclei, thereby forming
water droplets that are too small to fall to the ground as rain (Rosenfeld 1999). Reduction of
deforestation therefore mitigates a variety of climatic changes by avoiding atmospheric
emissions and other land-use-change impacts.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 43 / 189 ]
Fossil Fuel Dependence Causes Warming
As our reliance on fossil fuels increases, our biosphere captures more CO2, increasing
global warming – the trends are already being seen.
Spaulding 3
(Raci Oriona, J.D. @ the U of Iowa College of Law, “Fuel From Vegetables? A Modern Approach to Global Climate Change”, 13
Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 277, Spring, accessed online p. L/N) DMZ
Perhaps the most serious consequence of the ever-increasing global reliance on the products of industrialized economies is the problem of
global climate change. This change in global climate has been largely attributed to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - carbon emissions
caused by burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. n21 Most available evidence suggests that there [*281] is a detectable human
influence on the global climate. n22 For instance, the U.S. Climate Action Report of 2002, written by the Environmental Protection
Agency, indicated that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean
surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." n23 Additionally, Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch
Institute, has noted that: From the ice cap at the North Pole, which has lost 40 percent of its thickness in the last decade, to the coral reefs
near the Equator, one-quarter of which have been killed by rising ocean temperatures and other stresses, the Earth is telling us that we are
entering an era of dangerous climate change that is already threatening populations around the world. Already, economic damages from
natural disasters has reached $ 608 billion over the last decade - as much as in the previous four decades combined. n24 Humans magnify
these effects by increasing the global economy's dependence on fossil fuels. As more fossil fuel is demanded by automobiles, factories,
and power plants, more fossil fuel is burned, thus emitting more carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere and exacerbating global
warming. The effects of global warming, while still somewhat uncertain, are expected to do damage around the globe by causing
excessive droughts in some areas while increasing rainfall in others, exacerbating coastal damage like erosion, and increasing instances of
heat stress and respiratory illness in many nations. n25 Statistics from nations around the world demonstrate the truth of this statement. For
instance: Dramatic examples of the human health impacts from severe flooding can be found in China. In 1996, official national statistics
showed 200 million people affected by flooding. There were more than 3,000 deaths and 363,800 injuries; 3.7 million residences were
destroyed, with 18 million damaged. Direct economic loses exceeded U.S. $ 12 billion. n26Chinese statistics have further shown that "200
million people [were] affected by flooding, more than 3,000 [were killed], and 4 million homes [were] damaged; direct economic losses
exceeded U.S. $ 20 billion." n27 While Chinese scientists could not prove [*282]
that all of these impacts are directly attributable to human-induced climate change, [they could] say that the heating of the planet that has
already occurred is likely to be at least partially responsible for the severity of these human health impacts. Moreover, [they could say
that] future heating will make such adverse impacts more probable. n28
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 44 / 189 ]
Biofuels Cause Warming
All biofuels contribute to global warming by destroying natural ecosystems
Rosenthal, 2008
Rosenthal, Elizabeth. New York Times, Feb 8 2008. “Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat.”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1>
accessed July 1, 2008.
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full
emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published
Thursday have concluded. The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent
months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These
latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy. These
studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge
amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.
The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South
America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and
plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also
absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 45 / 189 ]
AT: CO2 Causes Warming
Most scientists don’t believe the hype
Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000
scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in
part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or
other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the
Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete
petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
Empirically Proven, CO2 doesn’t increase Temperature
Kelm Staff Writer Engineering News July 4, 2008
<ClimateChangeFraud, 7-7-08, http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1556/222/>

During 2008, have we seen many stories in the newspapers about 2007 being particularly warm as a
result of global warming? During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest
year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this? The answer is simple – 2007 turned out to
be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998.
In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling. Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent
computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years.
But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a
vengeance. Why? Certainly, mankind's production of carbon dioxide (CO2) has continued to increase
since 1998 and will continue to increase, particularly since countries such as China and India say that
their economic growth comes first, so they do not intend worrying too much about CO2 production. I
have repeatedly pointed out that there is little or no link between CO2 production by mankind and a
rise in global temperature. In fact, indications are that it is the opposite – an increased temperature
causes more CO2 to be ejected into the atmosphere.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 46 / 189 ]
CO2 DOES NOT Cause Warming – Other Natural Gases
Global warming is caused by non-CO2.
JAMES HASEN, Physical Science and Enviromental Sciences, Aug. 29, 2000
PNAS, Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario, 7/7/08.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that
rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such
as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols,
the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2
GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the
future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero.
Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions,
this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the
danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the
interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate
change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 47 / 189 ]
CO2 DOES NOT Cause Warming – Ice Records
Ice cores show temperature varies not matter the level of carbon dioxide
Jay Lehr. Richard Bennett. Lehr-Science Director of the Heartland Institute, Ph.D in ground water hydrology. Bennett- President of the
Society of Environmental Truth. November 2001. Chemical Innovation. “It’s the sun that makes it hot”. Accessed July 8, 2008. Pg. 56-
58
When scientists analyzed ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to determine the relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and
temperatures dating back 250,000 years, they found that sometimes the concentration of CO2 was high when the temperature was low, and
sometimes the CO2 was low when the temperature was high (2). Moreover, a careful analysis showed that some of the atmospheric CO2
changes did not precede the temperature changes, as the greenhouse warming theory would predict. Instead, changes in atmospheric CO2
followed the temperature changes. The atmospheric CO2 changes were not the cause of the temperature changes but were likely driven by
changes in vegetation in response to natural variations in air and sea-surface temperatures.
Ice records shoe melting is a cyclical pattern
Ian Johnston. Staff writer for The Scotsman. March 9, 2005. The Scotsman. “Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be natural cycle
shrinking could stop soon”. Accessed July 8, 2008. Pg. 12.
THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global
warming, Scottish scientists have found. After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists
believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly
with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature. The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea
ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change. The amount of sea ice is currently
near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 48 / 189 ]
CO2 Is An After Effect to Warming
Excessive CO2 is an after-effect of climate change.
Novosti 2007
“Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming” 7/9/08
Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to
trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a
prominent Russian scientist said Monday. Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research
laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an
increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate
change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as
the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. "Global warming results not from the emission of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a
lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in
an interview. "It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the
emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's
industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of
cause and effect relations."
CO2 rose after the temperature rise.
DR. DAVID EVANS, Head of Science Speak, 2007
Ludwig von Mises Institute, I was on the global warming gravy train. 7/9/08
First crucial point, 2003. We've all seen Al Gore’s movie. It was the early, low resolution ice core data
first gathered in 1985 that convinced the world that CO2 was the culprit: CO2 levels and temperature
marched in rose and fell in lockstep over the last half a million years, to the resolution of the old ice
core data (results from 1985 – 2000, data points over a thousand years apart). It was ASSUMED (bad
assumption # 1) that CO2 levels controlled the world’s temperature. After further research, new high
resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000 – 2003 allowed us to
distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature
changes preceded CO2 changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO2 levels,
and not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started back-pedalling
away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 49 / 189 ]
Development Causes Warming
Sprawl is the leading cause of the warming of the planet
Petix, 2006
Mark, Staff Writer. Urban sprawl, pollution cited in temperature rise, sgvtribune.com. July 30, 2006
Teet said concrete and asphalt hold in the heat, making a miserable situation worse. "Urban spread is
changing the topography, the geography," he said. "There's a lot more concrete. The biggest problem
in California is that they're not getting the cool nights. "It's really affecting the entire state. For the
first time in 57years you've got Northern and Southern California having a heat wave at the same
time." Patzert said the average daytime temperature in the area has risen three degrees in the past
50 years. "The average nighttime temperature has risen seven degrees," he added. "That's the
biggie. Now the heat won't escape." It's even warmer in Reno, where average nighttime temperatures
have risen 12 degrees the past 25 years, said Jim Ashby, a climatologist with the Western Regional
Climate Center. "It's an astounding rise," he said. Global warming is part of it, he said, but
development is once again the key factor.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 50 / 189 ]
Foreign Emissions Cause Warming
China and India have greatly increased coal burning.
“Back to Black” 7/8/08 Expanded Academic ASAP
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS
%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28KE%2CNone%2C26%29china+india+global+warming
%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=
R4&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=ksu&docId=A171623011&docType=IAC
A massive switch to burning coal, especially in China and India, will make it even more difficult to limit global warming in the next 25
years, according to World Energy Outlook 2007, a report by the International Energy Agency and the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development published on Tuesday. In a "business-as-usual" scenario, the report predicts that demand for coal will
increase by 73 per cent between 2005 and 2030, with four-fifths of the predicted increase in China and India. Already, these two countries
account for 45 per cent of all coal burned, and demand is likely to rise as the relatively cleaner fossil fuels--oil and natural gas--become
scarcer and more expensive. The rapid introduction of clean-coal technologies could yet help China, India and other countries keep the
lid on emissions of carbon dioxide. The most promising technique is carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). This involves burying
C[O.sub.2] produced by burning coal deep underground instead of venting it into the atmosphere. The big question, though, is whether
such technologies can be introduced fast enough. In India and China, momentum to reduce emissions might come less from the
imperative to stop global warming and more from pressure to cut local pollution levels and save money through energy efficiency, the
authors suggest. Globally, the report expects energy needs to grow by 50 per cent by 2030 compared with 2005, with India and China
accounting for 45 per cent of the growth. This will raise C[O.sub.2] levels by 57 per cent, with two-thirds of the increase shared by the
US, China, India and Russia.
Global warming isn’t a priority for China.
GURI BANG, 2005
Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Shifting Alliances 7/8/08
China is a key actor in the climate change negotiations because of its status as the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide after
the United States. According to a Chinese source, China contributed 13.5% of global CO2 emissions in 1996,40 whereas IEA figures say
17.2 %.41 As illustrated by figure 1, China’s share of the global GHG emissions was 14.8% in 2000, compared to the US share of 20.6%.
During the 1990s, China’s GHG emissions have increased by almost 40 percent due to strong economic growth (see figure 5). Some
expect the country to soon surpass the United States unless drastic measures are carried out.42 In addition, China’s status and influence in
the G77 makes it a key country in the climate negotiations. On one hand, global climate change is not a critical priority for China, as the
primary objective of the Chinese leaders is to develop the economy and improve the standard of living for China’s citizens, as well as to
reduce local air pollution. On the other hand, Chinese scientists and bureaucrats are increasingly concerned about the impacts of climate
change on China.43
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 51 / 189 ]
China's carbon emissions are 14% higher than the US – we are not critical
Rosentha, 2008
Elizabeth. June 14 2008. "China Increases Lead as Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter." New York Times.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/world/asia/14china.html> accessed July 1, 2008.
China has clearly overtaken the United States as the world's leading emitter of carbon dioxide, the
main heat-trapping gas produced by human activity, a new study has found, its emissions increasing 8
percent in 2007. The Chinese increase accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the year's global
greenhouse gas emissions, the study found. The report, released Friday by the Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency, found that in 2007 China's emissions were 14 percent higher than
those of the United States. In the previous year's annual study, the researchers found for the first time
that China had become the world's leading emitter, with carbon emissions 7 percent higher by volume
than the United States in 2006.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 52 / 189 ]
AT: Foreign Emissions Cause Warming
Foreign Emissions – Global Warming NOT Inevitable
China and India are trying to combat global warming.
“Climate Angst” 7/8/08 Expanded Academic ASAP
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS
%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28KE%2CNone%2C26%29china+india+global+warming
%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=
R4&currentPosition=2&userGroupName=ksu&docId=A160760671&docType=IAC
INTERNATIONAL momentum to combat climate change is growing, even in the gas-guzzling, notoriously sceptical US. At a meeting on
Capitol Hill last week, legislators and officials from 13 countries including, crucially, China and India, agreed a plan for combating global
warming once the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. The plan includes setting an absolute global limit for emissions of carbon dioxide so
that future airborne concentrations stay within 450 to 550 parts per million. The concentration in 2005 was already 379 ppm. The post-
Kyoto plan also advocates emissions targets for all countries, with tough targets for rich countries and softer ones for countries
undergoing industrialisation. Other targets include developing energy-efficient technologies, and creating a global market for trading
C[O.sub.2] credits. Adding to the momentum, European environment ministers met on Tuesday to discuss climate change, and agreed in
principle on a 20 per cent cut in C[O.sub.2] output by 2020, with a further 10 per cent if other industrialised nations join in. The UK,
Spain and Slovenia had pushed for 30 per cent cuts. "This year could potentially be a tipping point in the fight against climate change,"
said UK environment minister David Miliband.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 53 / 189 ]
AT: Natural Checks – Cosmic Rays and Clouds
New research proves that the sun rays and clouds do not effect Global Warming
Daily Science, Science publication, 4 April 2008,
Dailyscience.com, "Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research" 07/07/08,
New research has dealt a blow to the skeptics who argue that climate change is all due to cosmic rays rather than to man-made
greenhouse gases. The new evidence shows no reliable connection between the cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover. Lauded and
criticised for offering a possible way out of the dangers of man made climate change, UK TV Channel 4's programme "The Great Global
Warming Swindle", broadcast in 2007, suggested that global warming is due to a decrease in cosmic rays over the last hundred years.
This would cause a decrease in the production of low clouds allowing more heat from the sun to warm the Earth and cause global
warming.
There is not a correlation to cloud coverage and cosmic ray intensity
Daily Science, Science publication, 4 April 2008,
Dailyscience.com, "Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research" 07/07/08,
The new research shows that change in cloud cover over the Earth does not correlate to changes in cosmic ray intensity. Neither does it
show increases and decreases during the sporadic bursts and decreases in the cosmic ray intensity which occur regularly.
Clouds reflect sun rays, which is now believed to be the root cause in Global
warming
Richard Gray, journalist, 13 Feb. 2007,

The Sydney Morning Herald, "Clouds do have silver lining, say scientists", 07/07/08,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/clouds-do-have-silver-lining-say-
scientists/2007/02/12/1171128900068.html
MAN-MADE climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.
Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts
previously thought. In a book to be published this week, they say that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere
directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet. High levels of cloud cover blanket the Earth and reflect heat from the sun back out
into space, causing the planet to cool.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 54 / 189 ]
The sun contributes to global warming, and clouds help shield the earth
Phil Schewe and Ben Stein, Physicist and Science Guy, 22 November 2000
American Institute of Physics, "Cosmic Rays and Cloud Cover", 07/08/08, http://physicist.org/pnu/2000/split/513-2.html
Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) play an important role in controlling global cloud cover on Earth, according to recent studies by researchers
at the Danish Space Research Institute in Copenhagen (Nigel D. Marsh, 011-45-35325740). GCRs, consisting principally of energetic
protons emitted from stars within our galaxy, are a primary source of the atmospheric ionization which affects cloud formation. Because
cloud cover has an impact on both the reflection of solar radiation and the retention of heat in the atmosphere, correlation between GCRs
and low level clouds suggests a link between global climate changes and cosmic ray flux (see figure at Physics News Graphics). The
discovery reveals a convoluted connection between solar variability and climate change. Fluctuations in the sun's radiative output are
generally dismissed as too small to account directly for global warming and other climate variations. Periods of intense solar activity,
however, lead to powerful solar winds which shield the atmosphere from cloud-forming GCRs, potentially modulating the global climate.
(N. D. Marsh; H. Svensmark, Physical Review Letters, 4 December.)
Green House gases increase cloud cover so global warming will never be a life threatening issue
Thomas Gale Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, 1998

NY Times Books, "Climate of Fear Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming" 07/08/08,
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/moore-climate.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
Some believe that the warming will be very modest while predicting that a buildup of greenhouse gases will result in increased
evaporation and cloud cover. In that scenario, climate change will affect temperature marginally but will have greater impact on rainfall.
If that view of warming is correct, any rise in sea levels will be small; the levels may even drop. Accordingly, even though the oceans
may warm marginally and thus expand, increased precipitation and especially snowfall in Antarctica will add to the amount of water
trapped in glaciers and perhaps lead to a net fall in water levels.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 55 / 189 ]
AT: Natural Checks – Phytoplankton Solve Warming
Phytoplankton is not enough to off-set Global warming, they only reduce CO2 in the atmosphere
by 11ATM or 10%
Kevin R. Arrigo, Journalist, 21 November 2007

International Weekly Journal of Science, “Carbon cycle: Marine manipulations”, 07/08/08,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/full/450491a.html
Nevertheless, there are some notable conclusions to be drawn from this study. First, although CO2 uptake by
phytoplankton may be stimulated in a high-CO2 world, this negative feedback will only partly offset
expected increases in atmospheric CO2. In fact, Riebesell et al. perform some clever calculations to
show that the CO2-enhancement effect they identified has probably reduced the rise in atmospheric CO2
by only 11 atm (about 10%) since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 56 / 189 ]
Natural Checks – Cosmic Rays and Clouds – Global
Warming NOT Inevitable
1 – Research proves that cosmic rays from the sun cause clouds
Steve, FoxNews.com, “New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate”, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html.
Accessed on July 7, 2008//AR
Just last week, Svensmark and other researchers from the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre
published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A – the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the
venerable Royal Society of London – announcing that they had experimentally verified the physical mechanism by which cosmic rays
affect cloud cover. In the experiment, cosmic radiation was passed through a large reaction chamber containing a mixture of lower
atmospheric gases at realistic concentrations that was exposed to ultraviolet radiation from lamps that mimic the action of the sun’s rays.
Instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber. The data collected indicate that the
electrons released by the cosmic rays acted as catalysts to accelerate the formation of stable clusters of sulfuric acid and water
molecules – the building blocks for clouds.
2 – Cloud cover reflects cosmic rays making extinction from warming impossible
Steve, FoxNews.com, “New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate”,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html. Accessed on July 7, 2008//AR
Ten years ago, Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first hypothesized that
cosmic rays from space influence the Earth’s climate by effecting cloud formation in the
lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic
radiation and cloud cover – that is, the greater the cosmic radiation, the greater the cloud
cover. Clouds cool the Earth’s climate by reflecting about 20 percent of incoming solar
radiation back into space. The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th
century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the sun’s magnetic field which shields
the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less
cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures – precisely what was observed during the 20th
century.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 57 / 189 ]
Natural Checks – Global Warming NOT Inevitable –
Extension to #2
Clouds cover checks back global warming
Science Daily, Science publication, July 31, 2002,
Sciencedaily.com, “Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming”, 7/07/08,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm Accessed on July 8, 2008//AR
In addition, recent satellite data have revealed a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and the
fraction of the Earth covered by low clouds. Yu proposes that the amount and charge of cosmic ray-
generated ions can contribute to the formation of dense clouds by stimulating the production rate of
low-atmosphere particles that make the clouds more opaque. In addition, natural and man-made
differences in atmospheric chemistry, like greenhouse gas concentrations, can also affect the cosmic
rays' influence on clouds, according to Yu. Such height-dependent atmospheric differences can
increase the quantity of ambient particles in the lower troposphere and decrease the particles in the
upper air, thus affecting the type of cloud cover. High clouds, for example, generally reflect sunlight
while lower clouds tend to retain surface energy; both effects are scientifically well established and
have a significant effect on global temperatures. The data provides evidence supporting Yu's claim
that cosmic ray-induced cloud changes may have warmed the Earth's surface but cooled the lower
troposphere, which could provide an explanation of the Earth's varying temperature trends. The
research was supported by the National Science Foundation.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 58 / 189 ]
Natural Checks – Global Warming NOT Inevitable –
Phytoplankton
1 – Phytoplankton, tiny creatures in the ocean that fight global warming, are
disappearing, which makes global warming worse.
Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer, 2006
(LiveScience, New Data Show Global Warming Kills Marine Life, July 9, 2008,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061206_phytoplankton_warming.html)
Satellite data revealed for the first time that global warming could devastate key marine life, scientists announced today. The decade-long
analysis showed that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined. Tiny marine plants, called
phytoplankton, impact the network of organisms that directly or indirectly depend on them for food. Changes in ocean color--a measure of
phytoplankton mass--detected from space allowed researchers to calculate their photosynthetic rates and correlate these changes to the
climate. As rising air temperatures heat up the ocean's surface, this water becomes less dense and separates from the cold dense layer
below, which is full of nutrients. Since phytoplankton need light for photosynthesis, these floating plants are restricted to the surface
layer--now separated from nutrients needed for growth. When phytoplankton is abundant, the color of the water shifts from blue to green.
These marine plants remove carbon dioxide and convert it to organic carbon, accounting for almost half of the Earth's photosynthesis.
During periods of cooler temperatures, there is a flowering of these marine plants. Such was the case in late 1999 when the oceans were
recovering from a strong El Nino and the globe was cooling. But between 2000 and the present, researchers found that as the oceans
warmed and became more stratified, phytoplankton productivity declined by 190 million tons of carbon each year. "This clearly showed
that overall ocean productivity decreases when the climate warms," said lead author Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University.
Unlike terrestrial plants that can stick around for hundreds of years, these tiny greens have quick turnover rates. Every two to six days,
predators munch down the entire global phytoplankton mass. "This very fast turnover, along with the fact that phytoplankton are limited
to just a thin veneer of the ocean surface where there is enough sunlight to sustain photosynthesis, makes them very responsive to changes
in climate," Behrenfeld said. "This was why we could relate productivity changes to climate variability in only a 10-year record. Such
connections would be much harder to detect from space for terrestrial plant biomass." The problem could create a vicious cycle. As the
carbon dioxide levels rise, phytoplankton production is reduced. This means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse
gas, which worsens the overall problem, Behrenfeld said.
2 – Phytoplankton sequestration decreases atmospheric levels of CO2 saving the

environment
Hurst, 2001
Blake,“Farming the Ocean,” PERC Reports: Volume 19, No. 4. December 2001. http://www.perc.org/articles/article320.php .
Markels' core idea is to use iron to increase fish in the ocean. Around 80% of the world's oceans have low fish populations because
phytoplankton—the tiny plant organisms that float in the ocean—are scarce. Oceanographers hypothesize that lack of iron causes the
barren areas. Adding iron should increase phytoplankton and thus fish. "The return to the United States and the world from the success of
such a program, leading to farming in the three-quarters of the world covered by the oceans, could be great indeed," Markels says. And
then there's carbon sequestration. A one-time shot of iron could cause a phytoplankton bloom that would sink to the ocean floor, where it
would remain for centuries, taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. While Markels is a skeptic on global warming, such sequestration
could decrease atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. (Ocean fish farming would also have some carbon sequestration benefits, as some of
the organic material produced would also sink to the ocean bottom.)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 59 / 189 ]
Phytoplankton offset Global warming because they take CO2 out of the air
Kevin R. Arrigo, Journalist, 21 November 2007

International Weekly Journal of Science, “Carbon cycle: Marine manipulations”, 07/08/08,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/full/450491a.html
This is the context for Riebesell and colleagues' research2 into how phytoplankton might respond to increasing CO2 concentrations. They
conducted CO2 manipulations in large cylindrical enclosures called mesocosms that were placed in a fjord in southern Norway and
extended from the surface to a depth of approximately 9–10 metres. Although this approach is complex and logistically difficult, the
advantage is that mesocosms are exposed to the same environmental influences as the surrounding waters, making them reasonable
analogues for natural systems. And they can be manipulated experimentally. In Riebesell and colleagues' study, phytoplankton were
grown in different mesocosms with the partial pressure of CO2 adjusted to simulate the present (350 atm) or projected future (2 present
CO2, 700 atm, and 3 present CO2, 1,050 atm) atmosphere. What the authors found was intriguing. Uptake of CO2 by phytoplankton
(mainly bloom-forming diatoms and coccolithophores) in the 2 CO2 and 3 CO2 treatments was 27% and 39% higher, respectively, than
in the present-day CO2 treatment. But the additional CO2 removed from surface waters at elevated CO2 was not balanced by increases in
particulate organic carbon (POC) in the surface layer. Furthermore, the loss of nitrate from the surface waters was the same in all three
CO2 treatments, indicating that the ratio of carbon to nitrogen uptake increased at higher CO2 concentrations whereas the cellular
carbon/nitrogen ratio of the phytoplankton remained unchanged. This result suggests that, although higher ambient CO2 concentrations
increased CO2 uptake by phytoplankton, the additional carbon incorporated into cells was rapidly lost as dissolved organic carbon (DOC).
However, although DOC concentrations in the mesocosms increased, these were insufficient to balance the measured CO2 deficits. In
nature, organic molecules excreted from phytoplankton (for example, as DOC), or otherwise lost as these organisms die or are grazed, can
coalesce to form semi-solid structures called transparent exopolymer particles (TEPs). These structures are sticky and facilitate the
aggregation and increased sinking speeds of other particulate matter. In the mesocosms, TEP concentrations increased fourfold during the
experiment (the carbon content of these TEPs is not presented by Riebesell et al.). The authors propose that accumulations of TEPs in the
elevated-CO2 treatments facilitated aggregate formation, increasing the flux of particulate matter from the mesocosm surface. Coupled
with higher DOC production, this may explain why POC did not increase in the elevated CO2 treatments. Thus, it seems that increased
CO2 uptake fuelled by higher CO2 concentrations was rapidly converted to DOC and TEPs, and any additional carbon incorporated into
POC was lost from the surface of the mesocosm owing to increased particle aggregation and sinking (Fig. 1). Assuming that their results
are representative of the larger ocean, increased atmospheric CO2 may lead indirectly to increased particle fluxes from the surface ocean
to depth, providing a negative feedback to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Unfortunately, the authors did not measure POC
sinking fluxes in their mesocosms to confirm this link.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 60 / 189 ]
Natural Checks – Jellyfish
Jellyfish-like creatures get rid of CO2 in ocean. Nature’s way to solve Global Warming.
Astrobiology Magazine, 2006
(Astrobiology Magazine, Jellyfish-like creatures fight Global Warming, July 9, 2008, http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?
op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2010)
Transparent jellyfish-like creatures known as salps, considered by many a low member in the ocean food web, may be more important to
the fate of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the ocean than previously thought. In the May issue of Deep Sea Research, scientists
report that salps, about the size of a human thumb, swarming by the billions in hot spots may be transporting tons of carbon per day from
the ocean surface to the deep sea and keep it from re-entering the atmosphere. Salps are semi-transparent, barrel-shaped marine animals
that move through the water by drawing water in the front end and propelling it out the rear in a sort of jet propulsion. The water passes
over a mucus membrane that vacuums it clean of all edible material. The oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,
some from the burning of fossil fuels. In sunlit surface waters, tiny marine plants called phytoplankton use the carbon dioxide to grow.
Animals then consume the phytoplankton and incorporate the carbon, but most of it dissolves back into the oceans when the animals
defecate or die. The carbon can be used again by bacteria and plants, or can return to the atmosphere as heat-trapping carbon dioxide
when it is consumed and respired by animals. Biologists Laurence Madin of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and Patricia
Kremer of the University of Connecticut and colleagues have conducted four summer expeditions to the Mid-Atlantic Bight region,
between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank in the North Atlantic, since 1975. Each time the researchers found that one particular salp
species, Salpa aspera, multiplied into dense swarms that lasted for months. One swarm covered 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square
miles) of the sea surface. The scientists estimated that the swarm consumed up to 74 percent of microscopic carbon-containing plants
from the surface water per day, and their sinking fecal pellets transported up to 4,000 tons of carbon a day to deep water. Salps swim,
feed, and produce waste continuously, Madin said. They take in small packages of carbon and make them into big packages that sink fast.
The warmer waters have helped the jellyfish population grow in size and move to more
territory.
MSNBC, June 5, 2008
(MSNBC, Like Jellyfish? Warming gives them a boost, July 9, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24987863/)
Global warming certainly threatens many species, but some can actually benefit — at least in the short run. The lifestyle of the jellyfish is
testament to that, according to a new study. The study looked at jellyfish populations in the Bering Sea off Alaska, noting a boom in the
1990s followed by a decline since 2000. By about 2000, the jellyfish were about 40 times more abundant than they had been in 1982,
according to analyses of collections from fishing trawlers that were reported in the May 29 issue of the journal Progress in Oceanography.
The National Science Foundation, which helped fund the study, said in a statement that the Bering Sea jellyfish also expanded their
ranges since 1991 by fanning out north and west of the Alaskan Peninsula.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 61 / 189 ]
Natural Checks – Atmosphere
Warming will dry the atmosphere but that will reverse the effect of warming
Fred Pearce, Journalist, 12 February 2005

New Scientist, "Climate change: Menace or myth?" 07/08/08, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.400
More credible is the suggestion that some other important negative feedbacks have been left
out. One prominent sceptic, meteorologist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, has made an interesting case that warming may dry out the upper levels of the
innermost atmospheric layer, the troposphere, and less water means a weaker greenhouse
effect. Lindzen, who is one of the few sceptics with a research track record that most
climate scientists respect, says this drying effect could negate all the positive feedbacks
and bring the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 levels back to 1 °C. While there is little
data to back up his idea, some studies suggest that these outer reaches are not as warm as
IPCC models predict (see "Areas of contention). This could be a mere wrinkle in the models
or something more important. But if catastrophists have an Achilles' heel, this could be it.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 62 / 189 ]
Computer Models Accurate
New algorithms are being developed making models reliable
Michael Graham Richard. Editor of Science and Technology for treehugger.com, employed by Discovery. May 27, 2008.
Treehugger.com. “More accurate air pollution computer model by the Argonne National Laboraotry”. Accessed July 8, 2008.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/air-pollution-quality-computer-model-argonne.php.
Scientists from the Argonne National Laboratory in the US, in collaboration with scientists from the University of North Carolina and
Bristol University in the UK, have created a new air pollution computer model based on new algorithms that can generate more reliable
forecasts based on observational data. The model was made to predict carbon monoxide, but its underlying principles and innovations
could also be used to work with CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Computer models can carefully analyze the environmental
Angnes Perrin, Sari Zizi, Najete Ben, Jean Demaison. NATO researchers. 2006. Remote sensing of the atmosphere for environmental
security. Accessed July 8, 2008.
A NATO Advanced Research Workshop (ARW) was organized at Rabat (Morocco) on the 17-19th of November 2005 on the "Remote
sensing of the Atmosphere for Environmental Security". The first part of the proceedings describes the current capabilities of various
satellite experiments which are performing measurements of the Earths atmosphere, as for example some of the results obtained recently
by three experiments onboard the ENVISAT Environment Satellite (ENVISAT), namely, the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment
(GOME), the SCanning Imaging Absorption for Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY) and the Michelson Interferometer for
Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS). For the analysis of spectra recorded by these instruments it is necessary to make good use of
efficient radiative transfer codes. These computer codes need as input, a dataset of high quality spectroscopic parameters which can be
generated only through a careful analysis of high quality laboratory measurements.
New model accounts for more variable and therefore is more accurate
Science Daily. Science research news website. December 13, 2007. “New Model Revises Estimates Of Terrestrial Carbon Dioxide
Uptake”. Accessed July 9, 2008.
Researchers at the University of Illinois have developed a new model of global carbon and nitrogen cycling that will fundamentally
transform the understanding of how plants and soils interact with a changing atmosphere and climate. The new model takes into account
the role of nitrogen dynamics in influencing the response of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change and rising atmospheric carbon
dioxide. Current models used in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change do not account for nitrogen
processing, and probably exaggerate the terrestrial ecosystem’s potential to slow atmospheric carbon dioxide rise, the researchers say.
They will present their findings this week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the face of
global climate change, world leaders are in need of models that can reliably predict how land use and other human activities affect
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Deforestation and the burning of coal and oil increase atmospheric carbon dioxide and contribute to
global warming.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 63 / 189 ]
AT: Computer Models Accurate
Computer Models aren’t accurate

Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of
global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to
produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux
adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations,
the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers
have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
Models don’t take weather variations into account and are therefore inaccurate
Lee R. Kump. Department of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State. September 12, 2002. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Sciences.
“Reducing uncertainty about carbon dioxide as a climate driver” Accessed July 7, 2008. Page 188-190.
There is considerable uncertainty in model predictions of climate change (see the review in this issue by Allen and Ingram, pages 224–
232). This results in part from the coarseness of the gridded representation of spatially continuous physical processes that numerical
models must adopt, especially as it affects our ability to predict cloud cover and rainfall. The climate system has processes acting at
microscopic to megascopic scales, and the fine-scale processes (for example, the formation of clouds) must be parameterized rather than
treated explicitly in global models.
Models are neglecting key factors to monitor climate change
Lee R. Kump. Department of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State. September 12, 2002. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Sciences.
“Reducing uncertainty about carbon dioxide as a climate driver” Accessed July 7, 2008. Page 188-190.
There is also the possibility that the models are missing key climate feedbacks, with biotic processes perhaps being neglected most in
previous models. State-of-the-art climate models have added interactions with terrestrial (land-based) ecosystems. For example, current
models incorporate the ability of plants to pump vast amounts of water into the atmosphere through evapotranspiration and modify the
surface albedo, thus affecting local energy budgets and precipitation. Fully interactive models also allow the vegetation type to change as
the climate predicted by the model changes. However, most models neglect the potentially critical role that marine algae play in the
formation and reflectivity of clouds over the remote ocean.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 64 / 189 ]
Computer Models have been empirically proven incorrect
William Kininmonth. Former head of Australia’s Climate Center, Member of World Meteorological Organization. July 8, 2008. Lexis
Nexis Academic. “Why So Much Climate Talk Is Hot Air”. Accessed July 7, 2008.
Some would claim that these options are not alternatives because the computer models incorporate known science and can replicate past
climates. This is a false claim and overlooks the known limitations of computer models. In July 2007, after the release of the IPCC
fourth assessment report, Frank Wentz and colleagues of Remote Sensing Systems, California, published a paper in the prestigious
international journal, Science. This paper reported a finding of the international Working Group on Numerical Experimentation that the
computer models used by the IPCC significantly underestimated the rate of increase of global precipitation with temperature. The
computer models give a 1-3% increase of precipitation with every degree centigrade while satellite observations, in accordance with
theory, suggest that atmospheric water vapour and precipitation both increase at a rate of 7 % for each degree centigrade rise. It is,
therefore, not surprising that over inland Australia the computer models project a drying trend. But the trend is specious and only a
manifestation of computer model deficiency. Underestimation of precipitation and evaporation increase in the computer models has even
more far-reaching ramifications for the veracity of global temperature projections. Evaporation is crucial for regulating surface
temperature because evaporation takes latent heat from the surface - the more evaporation then, the cooler the surface temperature.
Scientists agree computer models should not be trusted
Phillip Lloyd, Andrew Kenny. Lloyd-staff writer Business Day. Kenny-South African environmental journalist. November 4,2006.
Business Day South African Magazine. “Climate Scare is just a Hoax”. Accessed July 7, 2008. Pg. 8
Scientists question everything - and we mean everything. Scientists have a world view that enables them to accept some things as "true"
only until Nature tells them otherwise. That is why we question the basis of climate-change "science". The climate of our planet is
immensely complicated, far beyond our present understanding. None of the scientists involved in climate change can predict successfully
what the climate will be like next year, yet some pretend to be able to tell us what it will be like for the next generation. They rely on
huge computer models. But the models cannot even reproduce history. Sixty of the world's leading scientists recently wrote a petition to
the Canadian prime minister pleading for science instead of propaganda on the climate. "Observational evidence does not support
today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future," they said.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 65 / 189 ]
Models for climate change are wrong, and are understating the truth about global
warming.
Thomas Goreau, He was educated in Jamaica, MIT, Caltech, and Harvard. His research, focusing on reef restoration, global warming,
coral diseases, and community based coastal zone management of nutrient pollution, has taken him across the Caribbean, Indian Ocean,
Pacific, December 5, 2005. Open Democracy, Global warming and coral reefs, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-
In Rio I also presented comparisons of historical changes in temperature, CO2, and sea level over the last 130,000 years recorded in ice-
caps versus those predicted by the best models endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The real data
showed that model predictions seriously underestimate the actual observed sensitivity of the climate system. Changes in temperature due
to carbon dioxide, for example, are probably underestimated about tenfold. By contrast, the models then in use only predict short-term
changes which have not come to steady state, because this is much longer than the time horizon IPCC presents to policymakers. The
logical fallacy is as if you kick a football, measure how far it moves in one tenth of a second, and confuse this with how far the ball will
go! Climate models are still too imprecise to say how hot it will get and how long this will take. So let us ignore model predictions as
uncertain and look at the real data. The last time global temperature was 1 degree Centrigrade above today’s level, 125,000 years ago
(which humans now alive will experience), sea level was not the few centimeters higher predicted by the IPCC models but more than six
metres (twenty feet) higher. Crocodiles and hippopotamuses flourished in tropical swamps in London (see them in the Natural History
Museum), and Caribbean reefs were flattened by monster hurricanes while huge sand dune islands were built in days. Our long-term
global satellite coral reef temperature database shows that worldwide changes in ocean circulation are underway, affecting all coral reefs
and marine fisheries. Our data shows that the crisis is more imminent than policymakers realise. But we can’t get them to act
because people who have not studied the real data and rely on inaccurate models think the coral crisis is centuries to millennia
away.
Computers do not take water vapor into account, which is crucial
Stewart Franks. Professor University of Newcastle, hydroclimatologist. February 16, 2007. The Daily Telegraph. “Climate doomsayers
are just full of hot air”. Accessed July 8, 2008. Pg.29.
Above all, global climate models are not accurate descriptions of how the climate works -- we know that there are errors and
uncertainties. For the Stern report to base a grossly uncertain economic analysis on top of extremely dubious climate forecasts is entirely
unjustifiable. For example, we carbon dioxide is increasing, the physics of water vapour -- in particular of clouds -- is almost entirely
unknown despite dominating the natural greenhouse effect. This is at the heart of the real climate change debate as water vapour is the
most significant greenhouse gas and varies substantially for reasons yet to be fathomed. Consequently, water vapour effects could
potentially swamp the relatively small role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is in fact some evidence for this based on available
data (although you won't find this in the Stern report). However as the physics know that carbon dioxide represents about 2 to 3 per cent
of the natural greenhouse effect whereas water vapour makes up the vast majority of the remainder. While we know why of water vapour
is grossly uncertain in the models, this is never tested. It should not therefore be a surprise when the model results show carbon dioxide
leads to warming -- they've ignored the uncertain role of the largest greenhouse gas, water vapour. What these models can't do is tell us
how much of the historic warming is due to carbon dioxide and how much is due to water vapour. Irrespective of the causes of the
variable warming last century, Australia's flood and drought risk has little to do with carbon dioxide. The reality is that our climate is
largely driven by the behaviour of El Nino and La Nina events. At present, current climate models cannot represent this behaviour in
anything like a realistic way. Moreover, there is no evidence that this behaviour has been changing.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 66 / 189 ]
Computer models can’t accurately predict the climate
Ian Pilmer. Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of geology at University of Adelaide. July
12,2007. The Age. “Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate”. Accessed July 8, 2008. Pg. 19.
Since the beginning of time, climate has always changed. It has warmed and cooled faster than any contemporary change. Nothing
happening at present is unusual. The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the
current figure and the world did not end. Quite the contrary - life thrived. Computer models are models, albeit primitive. They
are not predictions, they are not scenarios. They don't do clouds. They don't do turbulence. They don't do unseen submarine emissions of
greenhouse gases. They deal only with greenhouse gas emissions from volcanos in times of little volcanic activity. They don't do
starbursts, which have probably given us the greatest climate changes on Earth. They don't do variations in cosmic ray fluxes, which
produce clouds in the lower atmosphere. They don't do mountain building, plate tectonics and closing or opening of seaways, which have
profound effects on climate.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 67 / 189 ]
Alternative Energies Solve
Government investment into ethanol production can turn around carbon emissions to an
extent further than even the Kyoto Protocol.
Spaulding 3
(Raci Oriona, J.D. @ the U of Iowa College of Law, “Fuel From Vegetables? A Modern Approach to Global Climate Change”, 13
Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 277, Spring, accessed online p. L/N) DMZ
Today, due in part to Ford's dream, the United States consumes more oil than any country in the world. n3 As a result, the United States
emits more dangerous carbon gases - gases that significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect, than any other nation on earth. n4
Automobile consumption is partly responsible for the United States' incredibly high carbon emissions; 62% of petroleum used is in the
transportation industry. n5 The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon accepted by most scientists. n6 These scientists believe that while the
greenhouse effect is a natural process, it has become a serious threat to life on earth because of human aggravation. n7 As support for its
existence, these scientists point to the growing number of natural disasters and the increase in global temperatures. n8 Believers offer "grim
possibilities for the future if global warming is not harnessed." n9 [*279] In 1997, in an effort to reverse the greenhouse effect, a number
of world leaders met in Kyoto, Japan and developed a plan designed to combat global warming: the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto or Protocol).
n10
While the Protocol exempts developing nations, it calls for industrial countries to reduce their annual greenhouse gas emissions by an
average of five percent below 1990 levels. n11 The Protocol includes various mechanisms designed to help countries meet their reduction
requirements. These include a joint implementation mechanism, a clean development mechanism, and an emissions trading mechanism.
n12
Despite the fact that the leaders of almost every country signed the document, the world's largest polluter, the United States, refused to
participate. n13 Although the United States rejected the Kyoto agreement, the nation remains bound by the United Nations Framework on
Climate Change (UNFCC or Framework). In 1992, the United States Senate ratified the Framework, which requires signatories to reduce
emissions regardless of whether the science behind global warming is questionable. n14 Consequently, even without Kyoto, the United
States must act to reduce its domestic emissions. This Note will argue that the United States could effectively meet its environmental
obligations, and alleviate a number of non-environmental problems, by returning to Diesel's early vision: power from vegetables. A
Congressional bill mandating the use of renewable fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, could provide the United States and the
international community with a solution to the greenhouse problem superior to Kyoto. To reach this conclusion, this Note will discuss the
climate change problem and the international community's solution, the Kyoto Protocol. Then, this Note will examine the United States'
response to Kyoto and why Bush's solution is inadequate.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 68 / 189 ]
Technology Crucial to Solve Warming
China isn’t going to stop developing.
VICTORIA KIM Reporter for Financial Times 2007
Financial Times, Technology key to climate change 7/9/08
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f765a1e-6d1b-11dc-ab19-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=bd12ca98-5fa3-11dc-b0fe-0000779fd2ac.html
Advances in technology to reduce carbon emissions will be key to solving the issue of climate change without damping
growth for developing countries, Tony Blair, the former UK prime minister, said on Thursday. ”The problem is now very
simple: how do you get a global framework that incentivises the development of the technology to reduce emissions? How do
you get such a global framework that includes America, but also China and India?” said Mr Blair at the Clinton Global
Initiative. Technological development is crucial to addressing the risk of climate change because of the impossibility of asking
developing countries to compromise their growth or forcing consumers to reduce demand, Mr Blair said. ”The brutal reality is,
you’re not going to stop people consuming, or taking flights, and you’re not going to stop China,” he told a panel that included
Hank Paulson, US Treasury secretary, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, UN special envoy on climate change
Technological innovation mitigates their impacts – we will constantly adapt
Schwartz and Randall, 2003
Peter and Doug “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,”
Global Business Network, October 2003. http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?
aid=26231&url=/UploadDocumentDisplayServlet.srv?id=28566. Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice
When most people think about climate change, they imagine gradual increases in temperature and
only marginal changes in other climatic conditions, continuing indefinitely or even leveling off at some
time in the future. The conventional wisdom is that modern civilization will either adapt to
whatever weather conditions we face and that the pace of climate change will not
overwhelm the adaptive capacity of society, or that our efforts such as those embodied in
the Kyoto protocol will be sufficient to mitigate the impacts. The IPCC documents the threat of
gradual climate change and its impact to food supplies and other resources of importance to humans
will not be so severe as to create security threats. Optimists assert that the benefits from
technological innovation will be able to outpace the negative effects of climate change.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 69 / 189 ]
We have the technology to slow global warming it just needs to be used.
JASON PONTIN Technology Review 2006. Technology Review Cambridge, Mass, Why can’t we use them? Expanded Academic
ASAP http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM. Accessed on July 8, 2008//grice
This month, in a package of stories edited by our chief correspondent, David Talbot, we argue that "It's Not Too Late" (the stories begin
on page 57). We believe the energy technologies that could forestall the worst effects of global warming already exist. Rather than
waiting for futuristic alternatives like the much-bruited "hydrogen economy" the nations of the world could begin to control the growth of
greenhouse-gas emissions today. What is lacking is any considered strategy. The problem of anthropogenic climate change is real and
urgent. Scientists still debate how quickly and ruinously the climate is changing, but it is now settled fact that our industries are changing
the weather. The geological record is clear: atmospheric changes in carbon dioxide, Earth temperature, and sea levels have moved
together in predictable formation for 400,000 years. Today, carbon dioxide concentrations are 40 percent higher than at any other time
during that period, largely because humans burn oil, gas, and coal. According to Jim Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, we are approaching a climacteric: if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to grow at current rates,
Earth's temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 [degrees]C this century, and sea levels by 15 to 55 meters. Many cities would be destroyed,
hundreds of millions of people displaced. The frightfulness of the threat has suggested what Hansen calls "the Alternative Scenario."
Other climate scientists and energy technologists use similar language for similar ideas (including MIT, the owner of Technology Review,
which announced an energy initiative last year). These alternatives propose to slow or stop the growth in greenhouse gases, even as we
develop carbon-free technologies that will satisfy our ever-growing demand for energy. By 2050, these pragmatists propose, we should
produce as much as 50 terawatts of power without carbon emissions. The Alternative is, above all, realistic. It accepts that in the short
term, at least, we must use the technologies we have rather than those we wish might exist; and it understands that the rich world will
never voluntarily accept any reduction in its accustomed manner of living, nor will the poor world surrender its legitimate aspirations to
wealth.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 70 / 189 ]
***Ice***
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 71 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 72 / 189 ]
Ice Caps Are Melting
The research put out to the general public by the media is flawed. The polar ice caps are
not melting.
Nina Sanandaji, president of Swedish think tank and editor of Captus Journal, and Fred Goldberg, associate professor at the
Royal School of Technology, 2006. (LewRockwell.com, The Global Warming Scam, July 8, 2008,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html)
The media portrays a dramatic image of how the ice is melting in the polar regions as a consequence of global warming. We are warned
that the North Pole might become icefree during the summer months at the end of this century and that the polar bears might become
extinct due to this development. But is this really a realistic image? Sure, there is research that indicates that the ice sheets are being
reduced, but there are also studies that show the complete opposite. An example of this is a study in the scientific journal Geophysical
Research Letter where the Swedish researcher Peter Winsor compares data collected by submarines below the Arctic ice. His conclusions
are that the thickness of the ice has been almost constant between 1986 and 1997. If you look at the South Pole there are studies that show
an increase in the mass of the ice. In a study published in the journal Nature a number of polar researchers showed that they had observed
a net cooling of 0.7 degrees in the region between 1986 and 2000. Another study published in Science showed that the East-Antarctic ice
sheet had grown with 45 million metric tones between 1992 and 2003. Are the ices growing or melting? The simple answer is that there
exist studies that point to both directions, perhaps indicating that scientists know relatively little about global climate. But what counts to
most ordinary people is what media is reporting, and media is often highlighting the most alarming studies and seldom report of studies
that go against the notion that human activity leads to global warming. To put it simply, the news is filtered through an environmentalist
view of the world. An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how journalists reported that there had never been so
little ice in the Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice
sheet had never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic
melts each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The
problem is that satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness. Capten Årnell at the summer expedition with the polar-
ship Oden could tell that he had never seen so much ice in the Arctic than in 2005. It was with great difficulty that he had passed through
the region. What had happened in 2005 seems to be that the ice had packed densely against the Canadian part of the Arctic. The
geographical extent had been reduced but the ice was thicker.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 73 / 189 ]
Global Warming is melting ice all around the world, depleting some of our largest
sources of ice.

The Greenland ice sheet is the largest land ice mass in the Northern Hemisphere. It holds enough fresh water to raise the earth’s sea level
by 7.2 meters (24 feet) if it were to melt completely, a result expected if the regional temperature rises 3 degrees Celsius. Scientists
project that concentrations of greenhouse gases will be high enough by 2100 to push temperatures past this threshold. Satellite data show
Greenland’s ice has been melting at higher and higher elevations every year since 1979. A conservative estimate of annual ice loss from
Greenland is 50 cubic kilometers (12 cubic miles) per year, enough water to raise the global sea level by 0.13 millimeters a year. The
Amundsen Sea region in the West Antarctic has experienced some of the world’s greatest temperature change, with annual temperatures
up 2.5 degrees Celsius over the past 60 years. The glaciers flowing into the sea from the Antarctic continent have been getting thinner for
the past 15 years, and ice shelves in the region have decreased by more than 13,500 square kilometers since the 1970s. Since the collapse
of the Delaware-sized Larsen B Ice Shelf in 2002, satellites have shown a two- to sixfold increase in the speed of glaciers flowing toward
the former ice shelf. While most glaciers typically move a few centimeters to several hundred meters annually, these glaciers are currently
moving as much as 1.5 kilometers each year. This type of acceleration has been witnessed throughout Antarctica and Greenland when ice
shelves collapse, removing the barrier to the sea for interior glaciers and quickening the rate of fresh water loss to the ocean. Glaciers in
West Antarctica are discharging about 250 cubic kilometers of ice and water into the ocean per year, 60 percent more than is accumulated
in their catchment areas—a net change sufficient to raise global sea levels by more than 0.2 millimeters per year . Ice melting is not
limited to the poles. According to glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, all but 13 of the 2,000 glaciers in southeast
Alaska are retreating. Montana’s Glacier National Park may have no glaciers left by 2030, and the ice cap on Tanzania’s Kilimanjaro may
disappear completely by 2015.
The largest Ice Shelf in the Northern Hemisphere broke in two and melted completely
due to 100 years of Global Warming.
Jim Motavilli, 2003
(E: Environment and Energy Magazine , Climate Change Reality Check, July 8, 2008, on Articlefirst)
If further proof were needed that global climate change is real (see "Welcome to the Greenhouse Century," features, September/October
2000), the breakup of the largest ice shelf in the Northern Hemisphere would seem to offer it. The Canadian Ward Hunt Ice Shelf (which
is up to 100 feet thick and had been in place for at least 3,000 years) began to crack in 2000. Last September it broke in two, draining a
trapped freshwater lake into the Arctic Ocean. Scientists attributed the disintegration to 100 years of relentless warming, a pattern that
had accelerated in recent years. Warwick E Vincent, a Laval University biologist, told the New York times, "It is part of a long-term
process, we believe. But the most recent changes are substantial and correlate with this recent increase in warming that we've seen from
the 1960s to the present. It's an example where a critical threshold has been passed." Average temperatures in the Canadian Arctic have
increased about four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit every 10 years since 1967. According to the Washington Post, average July
temperatures on the Shelf are now only slightly above freezing.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 74 / 189 ]
The largest Ice Shelf in the Northern Hemisphere broke in two and melted completely
due to 100 years of Global Warming.
Jim Motavilli, 2003
(E: Environment and Energy Magazine , Climate Change Reality Check, July 8, 2008, on Articlefirst)
If further proof were needed that global climate change is real (see "Welcome to the Greenhouse Century," features, September/October
2000), the breakup of the largest ice shelf in the Northern Hemisphere would seem to offer it. The Canadian Ward Hunt Ice Shelf (which
is up to 100 feet thick and had been in place for at least 3,000 years) began to crack in 2000. Last September it broke in two, draining a
trapped freshwater lake into the Arctic Ocean. Scientists attributed the disintegration to 100 years of relentless warming, a pattern that
had accelerated in recent years. Warwick E Vincent, a Laval University biologist, told the New York times, "It is part of a long-term
process, we believe. But the most recent changes are substantial and correlate with this recent increase in warming that we've seen from
the 1960s to the present. It's an example where a critical threshold has been passed." Average temperatures in the Canadian Arctic have
increased about four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit every 10 years since 1967. According to the Washington Post, average July
temperatures on the Shelf are now only slightly above freezing.
Sources of Ice around the world are rapidly decreasing, bringing harm to people who
rely on the meltwater.
Frances C. Moore, February 4, 2008
(Earth Policy Institute, Ice Melt Accelerates Around the World, July 7, 2008, http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Ice/2008.htm)
High-altitude glaciers in mountainous regions around the world are also retreating at an alarming rate. The World Glacier Monitoring
Service in Zurich has tracked 30 glaciers from around the world since 1975. Between 1996 and 2005, these glaciers on average lost mass
at twice the rate of the preceding decade, and four times the rate of the decade before that. If the current acceleration continues, large
areas of many mountainous regions will lose all their ice in the coming decades. For example, Glacier National Park in Montana could
lose the very features it is named for as early as 2030, and the Alps could be essentially ice-free by 2050. (See additional examples.)
Glaciers in the mountains of Asia nourish rivers that supply drinking and irrigation water to about 1.3 billion people. Without them, river
flows could decline by up to 70 percent, meaning that some rivers would flow only during the rainy season. Currently, glaciers on the
Tibet-Qinghai Plateau in China are retreating at an average of 7 percent a year, and as many as two thirds could disappear entirely by
2060. River systems that are at risk include the Yangtze, Yellow, Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra. Glaciers in the Andes are also
melting rapidly, a potential catastrophe for countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru that depend heavily on meltwater for water
supplies. Glaciers in Bolivia and Peru lost a third of their surface area between the 1970s and 2006, and continued loss could decrease
river flows as early as 2030. In Peru’s coastal region, where 70 percent of the population resides, 80 percent of water resources come from
snow and ice melt, which often constitutes the only source of water during the dry season. Peru’s major cities will face alarming water
shortages in the near future if the glacial retreat continues.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 75 / 189 ]
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting, which could cause sea level rise.
At the other end of the earth, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is also showing disturbing early signs of disintegration. These include
the thinning and acceleration of glaciers near the coast, the retreat of grounding lines (the point at which glaciers leave the land and
become floating ice shelves), and the increased calving of large icebergs. A recent study estimates that West Antarctica is losing
approximately 132 billion tons of ice per year, 59 percent faster than only a decade ago. In 2007, researchers reported satellite data
showing large lakes and rivers of meltwater flowing beneath the ice sheet, suggesting that the positive-feedback mechanisms recently
found to be accelerating ice loss in Greenland are also at work in Antarctica. The WAIS is thought to be particularly vulnerable to
warming because its base rests largely below sea level; higher sea level or a warmer ocean could lead to an unstable retreat of the
grounding line toward the interior, producing a sudden and rapid disintegration of the ice sheet. The Pine Island Bay area of the WAIS
near the Amundsen Sea has been called the “weak underbelly” of the ice sheet because glaciers there are not buttressed by large floating
ice shelves and so are most vulnerable to climate change. Disintegration of this sector, which alone contains enough ice to raise sea level
by one meter, could trigger widespread retreat in the rest of the ice sheet. Worryingly, a recent study suggests that the rate of mass loss
from these glaciers has more than doubled since 1996: they now account for nearly 70 percent of West Antarctic melt.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting, which could cause sea level rise.
At the other end of the earth, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is also showing disturbing early signs of disintegration. These include
the thinning and acceleration of glaciers near the coast, the retreat of grounding lines (the point at which glaciers leave the land and
become floating ice shelves), and the increased calving of large icebergs. A recent study estimates that West Antarctica is losing
from these glaciers has more than doubled since 1996: they now account for nearly 70 percent of West Antarctic melt.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 76 / 189 ]
Ice Sources around the globe are experiencing drastic loss of ice for many reasons.
With atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at new record highs and global average temperature now some 0.8 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels, the frozen regions of the earth are showing us just how rapidly climate change can take effect. Recent years have
seen ice melt accelerate and spread to new, previously unaffected regions. In many areas, the pace of melting has surprised even the
scientists studying it most closely, providing a strong early indication that the consequences of climate change could come faster and be
more severe than previously believed. The most dramatic loss of ice in recent years has been the decline of summer sea ice in the Arctic
Ocean. Between 1953 and 2006, the area covered by sea ice in September shrunk by 7.8 percent per decade, more than three times as fast
as the average rate simulated by climate models. Researchers were further stunned in the summer of 2007 when Arctic sea ice extent
plummeted to the lowest level ever measured, more than 20 percent below the 2005 record. This decline is rapidly changing the
geopolitics of the Arctic region, opening the Northwest Passage for the first time in recorded history and triggering a scramble among
governments to claim large swaths of the potentially resource-rich Arctic sea floor. An important factor behind the sudden drop in ice
cover in 2007 was that the sea ice at the start of the spring melt-season was thinner and less extensive than usual. The fact that the ice was
unable to fully recover over winter has led researchers to suggest that a tipping point has already been reached: many now believe the
summer Arctic Ocean could be ice-free by 2030, decades earlier than previously thought possible. Arctic sea ice both reflects sunlight and
acts as an insulating layer between the relatively warm ocean and the colder atmosphere. As it melts away, these cooling effects
disappear, warming the region still further. Sea-ice decline may therefore be part of the reason why average Arctic temperatures have
risen at almost twice the global rate in the last 100 years. Warmer temperatures are also accelerating ice melt on the nearby Greenland
ice sheet, which contains enough ice to raise sea level by seven meters (23 feet). Mass loss in Greenland more than doubled between 1996
and 2005, with loss in the southeast accelerating even further since 2004. The summer of 2007 saw a record area of ice melt on
Greenland, 10 percent more than the previous maximum in 2005. In 2006, scientists reported that “glacial earthquakes” caused by large
masses of ice moving rapidly over bedrock had doubled in frequency in Greenland over the last five years. These earthquakes are
associated with meltwater from the glacier surface, which flows to the base of the ice sheet and lubricates it, causing rapid glacial
movement. Positive feedback mechanisms such as this meltwater lubrication accelerate the speed with which glaciers react to warmer
temperatures; ice sheets once thought to change only over millennia are now seen to be responding to warmer temperatures in just
decades. At the other end of the earth, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is also showing disturbing early signs of disintegration.
These include the thinning and acceleration of glaciers near the coast, the retreat of grounding lines (the point at which glaciers leave the
land and become floating ice shelves), and the increased calving of large icebergs. A recent study estimates that West Antarctica is losing
from these glaciers has more than doubled since 1996: they now account for nearly 70 percent of West Antarctic melt. High-altitude
glaciers in mountainous regions around the world are also retreating at an alarming rate. The World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich
has tracked 30 glaciers from around the world since 1975. Between 1996 and 2005, these glaciers on average lost mass at twice the rate of
the preceding decade, and four times the rate of the decade before that. If the current acceleration continues, large areas of many
mountainous regions will lose all their ice in the coming decades. For example, Glacier National Park in Montana could lose the very
features it is named for as early as 2030, and the Alps could be essentially ice-free by 2050. (See additional examples.) Glaciers in the
mountains of Asia nourish rivers that supply drinking and irrigation water to about 1.3 billion people. Without them, river flows could
decline by up to 70 percent, meaning that some rivers would flow only during the rainy season. Currently, glaciers on the Tibet-Qinghai
Plateau in China are retreating at an average of 7 percent a year, and as many as two thirds could disappear entirely by 2060. River
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 77 / 189 ]
systems that are at risk include the Yangtze, Yellow, Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra. Glaciers in the Andes are also melting rapidly, a
potential catastrophe for countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru that depend heavily on meltwater for water supplies.
(Continued on next page…)
(…Continued from previous page)
Glaciers in Bolivia and Peru lost a third of their surface area between the 1970s and 2006, and continued loss could decrease river flows
as early as 2030. In Peru’s coastal region, where 70 percent of the population resides, 80 percent of water resources come from snow and
ice melt, which often constitutes the only source of water during the dry season. Peru’s major cities will face alarming water shortages in
the near future if the glacial retreat continues. Ice melt serves as a highly visible, early indicator of the effects of climate change, and
recent years have seen the pace of melting accelerate, producing sea-level rise that is faster than had been predicted. Rising sea level today
is already worrying for many small island nations and low-lying coastal areas that face severe flooding and possible submersion. The
geologic record, however, shows us that ice sheets have collapsed catastrophically in the past, producing rates of sea-level rise up to 20
times faster than today. Such examples warn us to take seriously today’s rapid ice melt as a possible harbinger of more serious and
devastating consequences if greenhouse gas emissions are not brought rapidly under control.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 78 / 189 ]
Ice Caps Growing
The Glaciers on Mount Shasta are not melting, instead, they are growing because of
Global Warming.
Samantha Young, Associated Press Writer, 2008
(USA Today, Glaciers on California’s Mt. Shasta Keep Growing, July 9, 2008,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm)
It's a different story at Mt. Shasta, the southernmost volcano in the Cascade Range that is about 270 miles north of San Francisco.
Scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air sweeping over far Northern California. Because of Shasta's location and
14,162-foot elevation, the precipitation is falling as snow, adding to the mass of the mountain's glaciers. "It's a bit of an anomaly that they
are growing, but it's not to be unexpected," said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash., who is
currently studying retreating glaciers in Alaska and the northern Cascades of Washington. Historical weather records show Mt. Shasta has
received 17% more precipitation in the last 110 years. The glaciers have soaked up the snowfall and have been adding more snow than is
lost through summer melting.
While the Ice at the South Pole diminishes, the ice at Antarctica might grow.
Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Senior Writer, 2005
(LiveScience, Global Warming Might Create a Lopsided Planet, July 9, 2008,

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_lopsided_planet.html)
Extra precipitation expected as a result of global warming could create a lopsided world in which sea ice increases around the South Pole
while the far north melts away. A new study illustrates the difficulty in predicting how the planet might react to overall warming, which
most but not all scientists believe is underway, in part due to greenhouse gas emissions by industry and autos. "Most people have heard
of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic," said Dylan Powell of the University of
Maryland Baltimore County. "However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the
Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic." Powell, a doctoral student, is lead author of a paper describing
the results in this month's Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans). Powell and his colleagues used satellite data from NASA's Special
Sensor Microwave/Imager to study snow depth on sea ice. The data allowed "more stable and realistic precipitation data" to be fed into
computer models that project changes around the globe. "On any given day, sea ice cover in the oceans of the polar regions is about the
size of the United States," said Thorsten Markus, a co-author of the paper and a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center. "Far-flung locations like the Arctic and Antarctic actually impact our temperature and climate where we live." Polar sea ice
formation and climate patterns drive large ocean circulation currents, which in turn affect local climates at moderate latitudes where most
people live. A warmer world should fuel more precipitation, most experts agree. For Antarctica, the new study concludes, the extra
precipitation will mean deeper snow, which will suppress sea ice below, making it thicker over time.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 79 / 189 ]
Ice caps were abnormally large recently- not melting, getting back to normal size
Patrick J. Michaels. Senior fellow in environmental studies at CATO institute. July 6, 2006. CATO institute. “Public Disservice: Melting
Myths”. Accessed July 9, 2008.
The public-service announcements are all similarly big on melting polar ice caps and consequent rises in sea level. The Arctic cap loses
ice in the summer, but no one bothers to mention that we only began collecting data on it in 1979, at the end of the second-coldest period
in the Arctic in a century. The ice had to be abnormally expanded then.
Ice region temperature are actually declining and ice is sometimes accumulating
Patrick J. Michaels. Senior fellow in environmental studies at CATO institute. July 6, 2006. CATO institute. “Public Disservice: Melting
Myths”. Accessed July 9, 2008.
It's also floating ice, and melting it and doesn't change sea level at all. And, for all the headlines about loss of ice in Greenland, which
does contribute to rising sea levels, the mean temperature there was much higher from 1910 through 1940. Between then and the late
1990s, temperatures in southern Greenland — the region where ice is melting — declined sharply. One has to presume that
Environmental Defense knows this. Around the world, in Antarctica, for the last few decades, average temperatures across the continent
have been going down. Snowfall has increased, resulting in more continental ice. In fact, every modern computer simulation of 21st
century climate has Antarctica continuing to accrete ice.
Ice has survived climate change for millions of years- melting is normal and claims are
exaggerated
William Robert Johnston. Global warming writer, astrologist and master degree in physics. December 29, 2005. "What If All the Ice
Melts?" Myths and Realities. Accessed July 9, 2008.
In either case, such a change in climate would take thousands of years to accomplish. Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of
the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To
melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East
Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide
ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting
involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years." [31] The IPCC is the
United Nations' scientific committee on climate change; its members tend to be the minority that predicts global warming and its
statements tend to be exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the potential for sea level
rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side of the scientific debate on global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica's ice.
Consider also this abstract of an article by Jacobs contrasting scientific and popular understanding:
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 80 / 189 ]
Studies prove ice is actually getting thicker
Associated Press. May 21, 2005. “Antarctic ice sheet thickening, researcher says”. Accessed July 9, 2008.
Part of the Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, slightly slowing rising ocean levels, according to a new report co-authored by a
University of Arizona graduate student. In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of the Antarctic ice sheet
have allowed that air to gather more moisture. Snow has been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken — slowing the rise of the
sea level by a tiny amount. "The interior of the east Antarctic ice sheet is the only large terrestrial ice body that is likely gaining mass
rather than losing it," said Curt Davis, an engineering professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who co-authored the report.
Ice is growing in Antarctica
Kenneth Chang. New York Times writer. May 21,2005. New York Times. “East Antarctica's surface slowly rising”. Accessed July 9,
2008.
The eastern half of Antarctica is unexpectedly gaining more than 45 billion tons a year, according to a new study. Data from orbiting
satellites bouncing radar signals off the ground show that the surface of east Antarctica appears to be growing higher, by about 1.8
centimeters a year, as snow and ice pile up. The gain in east Antarctica snow partly offsets the rise predicted by climate models," said
Curt H. Davis, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Missouri and the lead author of a paper published in
the journal Science. "This is the first observational evidence." The accumulation occurring across 2.75 million square miles of east
Antarctica corresponds to a gain of 45 billion tons of water a year or, equivalently, the removal of the top 0.12 millimeter of the world's
oceans. "This is the only the large terrestrial ice body that is likely gaining mass rather than losing it," Davis said.
Antarctica is thickening
Amanda Onion. ABC News staff writer. January 12, 2002. “Satellite Reveals Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Is Getting Thicker”. Accessed July
9, 2008.
A series of troubling reports in recent years have suggested Antarctica is warming and shedding its ice shelves at an alarming rate. But a
new study that used a highly precise image-snapping satellite suggests at least one prominent ice sheet — the West Antarctic Ice Sheet —
is in fact getting thicker. The report, plus other work finding that desert valleys on the continent have cooled recently, appear to
contradict predictions that global warming is melting the continent's massive ice reservoirs.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 81 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 82 / 189 ]
***Global Warming Bad – Impacts***
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 83 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Probability (1/2)
1 – And climate is very balanced – even slight emissions can cause drastic changes.
Gelbspan 97
(Pulitzer Prize Winner, “The Heat is On”, p. 30, NetLibrary) DMZ

Ancient ice cores are made of annual layers of frozen water, which hold natural records of our ancient atmosphere. Several years ago
researchers examining them found that those ice age transitions, involving temperature changes of up to 10 degrees Celsius, occurred
within the space of only ten years-a virtual millisecond in geological time. In the last 70,000 years, they learned, the earth's climate has
snappedabruptly and dramatically-into radically different temperature regimes. "Our results suggest that the present climate system is very
delicately poised," said Scott Lehman, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, announcing findings in 1993. "The
system could snap suddenly between very different conditions with an abruptness that is scary. It's a strongly non-linear response,
meaning shifts could happen very rapidly if conditions are right, and we cannot predict when that will occur. Our studies tell us only that
when a shift occurs, it could be very sudden." In an interview with The Boston Globe he added, "You don't want to push your luck by
perturbing the system. A small effect might produce a major change."
2 – Global Warming effects animals and humans both directly by disintegrating sources
of water or energy and indirectly by effecting the ecosystem.

In South America, Andean glaciers have been melting three times faster in recent years than they were in the mid-twentieth century.
Bolivia’s Chacaltaya, once home to the world’s highest ski slope, is estimated to be a mere 2 percent of its former size. It lost two thirds
of its mass in the 1990s alone and may disappear completely by 2010. Shrinking glaciers may mean a loss of power in Peru, where 70
percent of electricity comes from hydroelectric turbines powered by the annual runoff from glaciers. In fact, millions of people living in
Asia and South America rely on glacial runoff for drinking water and irrigation. If the glaciers disappear, severe water shortages are sure
to follow. Meanwhile, rapidly filling glacial lakes in both the Andes and Himalayas threaten to break their banks and flood towns below.
In Europe, shrinking glaciers and snow cover in the Alps are undermining the continent’s ski and tourism industries. By 2025, Alpine
glaciers are likely to contain only half their 1970s volume, dwindling to 5 percent by the end of the century. Pollution from European
cities does not help the situation: scientists have measured black carbon concentrations atop these mountains high enough to double the
area’s absorption of sunlight. Such widespread glacial melting has local as well as global effects. Global sea level has risen 10–20
centimeters in the past century. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, up to 1 meter of sea level rise is projected
by 2100, with half the rise attributed to melting ice and half to thermal expansion. As sea level rises, inundation and loss of coastal land
will force millions of people to relocate. Warming and melting could force local plant and animal species to adapt or relocate—an
increasingly difficult proposition as wildlife habitats are fragmented by expanding human populations. Changes to the food base of
ecosystems, such as decreases of algae and plankton in the Arctic Ocean, could have a ripple effect all the way up to the top predators,
including the people who hunt and fish these animals.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 84 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Probability (2/2)
3 - As Global Warming Melts ice, It makes the conditions even more ideal to melt more
ice.
Most disturbing, many of the effects of ice melting are self-reinforcing. As ice disappears, land and open water are exposed. When
sunlight strikes ice and snow, approximately 80 percent is reflected back into space and 20 percent is absorbed as heat. The opposite holds
true for land and open water—20 percent is reflected and 80 percent is absorbed. This decrease in reflectivity, or albedo, creates a positive
feedback loop, perpetuating the temperature rise and ice melting. Additionally, soot from faraway sources has darkened snow and ice,
further decreasing albedo. Melt water on top of glaciers and ice sheets contributes to fracturing and destabilization of the ice masses and
increases flow rates as the water lubricates the underside of the ice. Thawing tundra releases trapped carbon dioxide and methane from
newly created wetlands, contributing to further warming. Finally, increased fresh water from melting glaciers and sea ice could alter
ocean circulation patterns and destabilize regional climate patterns, perhaps weakening the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents that
moderate Europe’s climate. Warmer waters may also decrease the ocean’s ability to act as a carbon sink. If no action is taken to halt
global warming, these positive feedbacks could quickly send climate change spiraling out of control.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 85 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Timeframe
1 – And we can’t wait – we can overpass a threshold making catastrophe inevitable.
Oppenheimer and Boyle 90
(Prof of Geosciences and Intl Affairs @ Princeton, “Dead Heat: The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect”, p. 84-85, NetLibrary) DMZ
Warming beyond three degrees, the boundary of experience for the modern human species, is like going over a cliff with little notion
of how far we will fall. Circumstances are changing so rapidly that, even without knowing it, we may approach the edge in a few
short years. The faster we emit greenhouse gases, the further we will be committed to an overshoot before much can be done, and
the harder the fall will be when the effects are manifest. As with Wile E. Coyote, we will have gone quite far past the edge before we
understand our situation.
2 – Warming will only accelerate – as ice caps melt, oceans lose ability to absorb hear –
the end is near
Fred Pearce, Journalist, 12 February 2005

New Scientist, "Climate change: Menace or myth?" 07/08/08, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.400
There are counterbalancing negative feedbacks, some of which are already in the models. These include the
ability of the oceans to absorb heat from the atmosphere, and of some pollutants - such as the
sulphate particles that make acid rain - to shade the planet. But both are double-edged. The models
predict that the ocean's ability to absorb heat will decline as the surface warms, as mixing between
less dense, warm surface waters and the denser cold depths becomes more difficult. Meanwhile,
sulphate and other aerosols could already be masking far stronger underlying warming effects than
are apparent from measured temperatures. Aerosols last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, while
greenhouse gases last for decades. So efforts to cut pollution by using technologies such as scrubbers
to remove sulphur dioxide from power station stacks could trigger a surge in temperatures. Sceptics
also like to point out that most models do not yet include negative feedback from vegetation, which is
already growing faster in a warmer world, and soaking up more CO2. But here they may be onto a
loser, as the few climate models so far to include plants show that continued climate change is likely
to damage their ability to absorb CO2, potentially turning a negative feedback into a positive one.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 86 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad –Timeframe – Extension to #2
Ice melt accelerates Warming
Martyn McLaughlin, Journalist, June 20, 2008

The Scotsman, “Big thaw could leave the Arctic ice-free by 2013”, 07/09/08, LexisNexis
From a climate point of view, the melt could bring global impacts accelerating the rate of warming and the
rising of the sea level. Dr Ian Willis, of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, said: "This is a
positive feedback process. Sea ice has a higher albedo [reflectivity] than ocean water, so as the ice
melts the water absorbs more of the sun's energy and warms up more, and that in turn warms the
atmosphere more - including the atmosphere over the Greenland ice sheet."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 87 / 189 ]
Global Warming Timeframe – Long Way Off
Don’t evaluate their impacts - Warming timeframe is hundred to thousands of years
away
Burns, 2008
John, “Climate change, Global Warming and our Earth,” Australia’s National Website. July 7, 2008.
http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23040467-445,00,00.html. Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice
As usual mankind over plays its importance in relation to its effect on mother Earth. It
would literally take hundreds and hundreds, if not a thousand years, for any man made
pollution based on past, current and foreseeable future outputs to have any significant
and near immediate effects on the Earth. The Earth is to greater life form and complex Eco
System, to be so immediately effected, in any Earth based time calculation. It is after all around 4.5 -
4.8 billion years old. Global climate change is also being effected on all the other planets in our solar
system and quite possibly on our immediately neighbouring closer solar systems, any anywhere from
5-200 light years away?
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 88 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Brink
We are on the brink of abrupt climate change
The past examples of abrupt climate change suggest that it is prudent to consider an
abrupt climate change scenario for the future as plausible, especially because some recent
scientific findings suggest that we could be on the cusp of such an event. The future
scenario that we have constructed is based on the 8,200 years before present event, which
was much warmer and far briefer than the Younger Dryas, but more severe than the Little
Ice Age. This scenario makes plausible assumptions about which parts of the globe are likely to be
colder, drier, and windier. Although intensified research could help to refine the assumptions, there is
no way to confirm the assumptions on the basis of present models.
We are already reaching the points of no return.
FRED PEARCE, Author of The Last Generation 2007
New Scientist Journal, Too Late to Escape Climate Disaster? 7/8/08 Expanded Academic ASAP
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en
%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28K0%2CNone%2C25%29global+warming+inevitable
%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=Relevance&searchType=BasicSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&searchId=
R2&currentPosition=12&userGroupName=ksu&docId=A168435581&docType=IAC . Accessed on July 8, 2008//grice
SOME climate tipping points may already have been passed, and others may be closer than we thought, it emerged this week. Runaway
loss of Arctic sea ice may now be inevitable. Even more worrying, and very likely, is the collapse of the giant Greenland ice sheet. So
said Tim Lenton of the University of East Anglia, UK, speaking on Monday at a meeting on complexity in nature, organised by the
British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. Lenton warned the meeting that global warming might trigger tipping points that could cause
runaway warming or catastrophic sea-level rise. The risks are far greater than suggested in the current IPCC report, he says. Yet climate
modellers are in a quandary. As models get better and forecasts more alarming, their confidence in the detail of their predictions is
evaporating. The IPCC says the Greenland ice sheet will take at least 1000 years to melt. But Lenton's group--whose members include
John Schellnhuber, the chief scientist on climate change at the recent G8 meeting in Germany--says the sheet could break up within 300
years, raising sea levels by 7 metres. This would flood hundreds of millions of people or more out of their homes. "We are close to being
committed to a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet," Lenton says. "But we don't think we have passed the tipping point yet." The
calculations show the Greenland collapse could be triggered by temperatures 1 [degrees]C warmer than today's, of which 0.7 [degrees]C
is already "in the pipeline" held up by time lags in the system. Lenton's study has identified eight dangerous tipping points that could be
passed this century. Several could have a cascade effect, with each triggering the next, he says.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 89 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Magnitude
The impacts of warming will only magnify in the future – just because we don’t see a
‘problem’ now is NOT a reason why the situation won’t get worse.
Spaulding 3
(Raci Oriona, J.D. @ the U of Iowa College of Law, “Fuel From Vegetables? A Modern Approach to Global
Climate Change”, 13 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 277, Spring, accessed online p. L/N) DMZ
Although experts may differ in opinion about exactly how global warming may negatively impact the
Earth, most agree that the problem will only worsen as time goes on. As a Department of Energy
report recently stated, "the direness of the GHG emission problem is compounded by the prediction
that worldwide energy consumption is expected to increase by seventy-five percent between 1995
and 2020, leading to a proportionate increase in GHG emissions." n29 This increased concentration of
GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere is expected to cause tens of thousands of premature deaths and
illnesses, such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and heart disease each year. n30 Additionally, one study
estimates that the global climate change's impact on agricultural output will cause thirty million more
people to be hungry. n31 Given the direness of these future predictions, it is critical that the global
community act to reverse the harmful consequences growing emissions will have on the planet.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 90 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Biodiversity – Jellyfish (1/2)
1 – The warmer waters have helped the jellyfish population grow in size and move to
more territory.
MSNBC, June 5, 2008
(MSNBC, Like Jellyfish? Warming gives them a boost, July 9, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24987863/)
Global warming certainly threatens many species, but some can actually benefit — at least in
the short run. The lifestyle of the jellyfish is testament to that, according to a new study. The study
looked at jellyfish populations in the Bering Sea off Alaska, noting a boom in the 1990s followed by a
decline since 2000. By about 2000, the jellyfish were about 40 times more abundant than
they had been in 1982, according to analyses of collections from fishing trawlers that were reported
in the May 29 issue of the journal Progress in Oceanography. The National Science Foundation, which
helped fund the study, said in a statement that the Bering Sea jellyfish also expanded their ranges
since 1991 by fanning out north and west of the Alaskan Peninsula.
2 – Jellyfish collapse ecosystems.
George Monbiot, recipient of the United Nations Global 500 award for his work on the environment, 2007. (The Guardian, “Feeding
Frenzy” Accessed on July 10, 2008, http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/03/feeding-frenzy/)
But beyond a certain point the collapse is likely to be permanent. Off the coast of Namibia, where the fishery
has crashed as a result of over-harvesting, we have a glimpse of the future. A paper in Current Biology
reports that the ecosystem is approaching a “trophic dead-end”(17). As the fish have been mopped up
they have been replaced by jellyfish, which now outweigh them by three to one. The jellyfish eat the
eggs and larvae of the fish, so the switch is probably irreversible. We have entered, the paper tells us,
the “era of jellyfish ascendancy”. It’s a good symbol. The jellyfish represents the collapse of the
ecosystem and the spinelessness of the people charged with protecting it.
3 – And, ecosystem collapse causes biodiversity loss.
MIT, 2007, (Mass. Institute of Technology, “Mission 2011: Saving the Ocean,” Accessed on July 10, 2008,
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2011/finalwebsite/future/future.shtml)
Evidence from global fisheries data and a plethora of experiments point to the catastrophic impact of
biodiversity loss in human-dominated marine ecosystems. As populations shrink and species die off,
the ocean's food chains, water quality, and recovery potential are adversely affected. This adds to the
instability of the ecosystems, which are already under strain from climate change and pollution, but
the information available also suggests that we can still reverse these trends (Worm et al., 2006). With
estimates placing the collapse of fisheries and all seafood species by the year 2050 (ScienCentral,
2006), we have little time to take action and save the oceans and global fisheries from unprecedented
crises.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 91 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Biodiversity - Jellyfish (2/2)
4 – And, loss of biodiversity leads to extinction.
David Diner, Major US Army, 1993 (The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, “THE ARMY
AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:WHO' S ENDANGERING WHOM?” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA456541&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
It may be difficult to accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew,
74 could save mankind. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense.
Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpation could negatively affect
a directly useful species. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of each species affects other
species dependent upon it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the affect of each new
extinction on the remaining * species increases dramatically 76 4. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY The main
premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity.77 As the current mass
extinction progresses, there has been a general decrease in the world's biological diversity. This trend
occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the
number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 Biologically diverse
ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches.
These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems: "'The more complex the
ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress...[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to
others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of
threadswhich if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.", 79 By causing widespread extinctions
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity rises, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in
the U.S. are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse, and human extinction. Certainly, each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may
be edging closer to the abyss.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 92 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Magnitude – Outweighs Nuclear
War
Even if nuclear war happens, it can be limited and people can hide – global warming
doesn’t allow this even.
Hunter 3
(Founder of Greenpeace, “Thermageddon”, p. 58-9, Net Library) DMZ

Even though, from the beginning, Rachel Carson had warned of worldwide chemical fallout patterns, the individuals who were most
sensitive to her message believed (some still do) it must be possible to find a haven or refuge outside The System, somewhere beyond the
reach of the thrashing tails of the dying urban dinosaurs. The back-to-the-land movement, with its flurry of communes being set up as
close to the end of the road as possible, in remote valleys or on the shores of isolated bays, was a reenactment of the North American
pioneer stage, embodying the same spirit of independence and naive faith in Utopia. A fantasy existed that even a nuclear war was
survivable if you lived far enough away from any big cities and you had a supply of seeds, some solar panels, iodine pills, a gun, and a
copy of The Whole Earth Catalogue. And it was true, should the nuclear exchange be limited, that it was just possible there would be
survivors out in the bush and the countryside, somewhat unscathed. In the face of a truly drastic climate flip of the ecosystem,
unfortunately, there ultimately will be no safe, remote places left anywhere. The Pacific Northwest's coniferous forests are expected to
last longer than boreal forests, as rising temperatures turn the glacial moraine into a frying pan, but with climate itself affected, everything
- everywhere - is affected. The skies and air and water of even Walden Pond are already degraded and slipping further. If the sudden
global heating we have triggered does indeed activate an ice age, there will be no place in the entire northern hemisphere to hide. In the
worst-case situation, a runaway greenhouse effect, there would be no place on Earth, period. The fantasy of escaping to an organic
farm is no longer a reasonable, let alone viable, option. A better, more realistic hope, by the time my grandson is my age, will be to head
out into space. Good luck making the final crew list, Dexter.
Civilization could survive Nuke war, not Global Warming.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006 (ABC, “Gore in Fight for Truth on Global Warming,” Accessed on
July 10, 2008, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1738433.htm)
AL GORE: That's [Nuclear War’s] the only one that could be deemed comparable but human civilisation
could survive, could have survived a nuclear exchange between the superpowers. The consequences
would, of course, have been so devastating. But what is unique about the climate crisis is that it could
end all human civilisation. It will not - I'm convinced because I'm certain that we will act in time - but if
we allow the melting of the polar caps, if we allow the radical reorganisation of the earth's
environmental system, then those conditions that were favourable to the emergence of the human
species and to the development of the human civilisation could well be lost and people could be driven
from the areas that we now populate toward the pole-ward areas, and there are few of them.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 93 / 189 ]
Even if nuclear war accesses extinction, it can be stopped with last-minute diplomacy –
warming can’t.
Hunter 3
(Founder of Greenpeace, “Thermageddon”, p. 12, Net Library) DMZ

Surely, my contemporaries will argue, the crisis cannot be compared to the threat of an all-out nuclear exchange, such as we faced until as
recently as the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Union. Even by the late 1980, there was nothing self-evident about the proposition that we
would survive until the end of the century. For a long while, the odds seemed stacked against us. But we did not nuke ourselves, and thus
it can be said that humanity has demonstrated a remarkable gift for last-minute salvation -or incredible luck. Either way, all history since
the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 can rightly be described as borrowed time. Collectively, we had a near-death experience. We thought we
had survived rather nicely, only to look up when the dust of the Cold War settled and see a climate cataclysm rumbling towards us that
could have as devastating an impact on the northern hemisphere as a nuclear exchange. And, if one can bear to think about it, this raises
the even more soul-crushing question of how we are affecting the millennial cycle of climate. Contemplate that. Not just the next few
generations affected, but generation after generation after generation. We won the struggle against those who would have nuked us all, but
now it is all of us who are doing the nuking. It was a relatively simple business, in retrospect, avoiding nuclear destruction. All we had to
do was make sure no one pushed The Button. What do you do to prevent half a billion vehicles' ignition keys from being turned on?
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 94 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Carbon Emissions (Biodiversity)
Fossil records prove that increased carbon dioxide has lead to mass extinction in the
past
Green Car Congress. Energy research company. October 24, 2007. “Fossil Record Provides Evidence Linking
Mass Extinction Events with Climate Change”. Accessed July 8, 2008.
Researchers at the Universities of York and Leeds have identified a close association between
Earth's climate and mass extinction events in a study that examines the relationship between the
two over the past 520 million years—almost the entire fossil record available. Matching data sets of
marine and terrestrial diversity against temperature estimates, evidence shows that global
biodiversity is relatively low during warm greenhouse phases and extinctions relatively
high, while the reverse is true in cooler icehouse phases. The research, published in the latest issue
of Proceedings of the Royal Society B, was carried out by University of York student Gareth Jenkins,
together with his supervisor, Dr Peter Mayhew, and University of Leeds Professor Tim Benton, both of
whom are population ecologists. Proceedings B is the Royal Society’s main biological research journal.
“Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate may explain substantial variation in
the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. If our results hold for current warming—the
magnitude of which is comparable with the long-term fluctuations in Earth climate—they
suggest that extinctions will increase.” —Dr Peter Mayhew. Future predicted temperatures are
within the range of the warmest greenhouse phases that are associated with mass extinction events
identified in the fossil record. Of the five mass extinction events(Cretaceous-Tertiary, End-
Triassic, End-Permian, Late Devonian, Ordovician-Silurian), four—including the one that
eliminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago—are associated with greenhouse phases.
The largest mass extinction event of all, the end-Permian, occurred during one of the
warmest ever climatic phases and saw the estimated extinction of 95% of animal and plant
species.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 95 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Death of Humans
Global Warming will kill billions of people
Martyn McLaughlin, Journalist, June 20, 2008

The Scotsman, “Big thaw could leave the Arctic ice-free by 2013”, 07/09/08, LexisNexis
JAMES Lovelock, the environmental guru, yesterday said he was more certain than ever that billions
of people will die over the next century as a result of global warming, writes Ian Johnston
Professor Lovelock, famous for developing the Gaia theory of the planet as a living entity in which all
life is interconnected, believes the Earth has a fever that will increase temperatures by 8C,
making large parts of the world uninhabitable. This would see most forms of life forced to
move to the Arctic Circle apart from a few oases, such as mountainous regions like
Switzerland and oceanic islands such as the UK and Japan, where the sea will help keep
things cool.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 96 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Disease
Global warming threatens infectious disease at a time that public health systems are on
the brink – threatens human extinction.
Dotto 2k
(Science Writer, Canadian Science Writers Association awardee, “Storm Warming”, p. 149-52, Netlibrary) DMZ
Global warming skeptics have vigorously attacked suggestions of a link between climate change and infectious diseases. The World
Climate Report claims that advocates of greenhouse gas cuts are trying to scare the public by alleging that a warmer climate would cause
death and disease. Some skeptics argue that if any health problems arise, health care and social support systems will cope with them.
Leaving aside the fact that billions of people don't have access to even the most basic health care and social support systems (some of
whom, it should be noted, live in developed countries like Canada and the U.S.), there is the question of financing. As Scheraga said,
"effective health care comes at a cost. There are those who argue we can adapt, but even if that's true, adaptation costs something and
those resources must be diverted from other activities." In any event, there are doubts about how well the much-vaunted health care
systems of industrialized countries would respond to added pressures caused by an increase in climate- and weather-related health
problems. Many are hard-pressed to deal with existing demands. In the U.S., with a mostly private health system, more than 40 million
people are without basic medical coverage. Nor is the U.S. health care system well prepared to respond to natural disasters, according to
emergency medicine specialists who spoke at a 1996 conference at the University of Colorado. The report summarizing their remarks said
the U.S. will face "significant problems in providing sufficient emergency medical resources at the local level following catastrophic
disasters." They attributed the lack of medical preparedness to several factors, including fragmentation and downsizing of hospitals and
health support systems, increased costs, and confusion in emergency planning. In Canada, where the public health care system until
recently has been a source of national pride, there's also mounting concern about the erosion caused by years of government cutbacks.
There are ominous signs that the system is starting to crumble from the stress of too much demand and too few resources. With the baby
boom generation just entering its senior years, the situation will continue to deteriorate unless these trends are reversed. It's hard to be
sanguine about the ability of this system to handle additional pressures stemming from climate change and weather extremes. Some
infectious disease experts have also expressed concern about failures of public health infrastructure all over the world. There's worrying
evidence that disease outbreaks are increasing everywhere, including in developed countries. A 1995 study by Ann Platt of the World
Watch Institute found that mortality from infectious diseases was rising worldwide and that these diseases accounted for a third of all
deaths, more than those caused by cancer and heart disease combined. The CDC found that U.S. deaths with infectious disease as an
underlying cause increased by 58% between 1980 and 1992 (39% when adjusted for population aging). Contrary to previous predictions
that infection diseases would wane in the U.S., "these data show that infectious disease mortality has actually been increasing in recent
years," said Robert Pinner of the CDC. The crisis results from both the emergence of new diseases and the reemergence of old diseases
like tuberculosis, once thought beaten in developed countries. The growing drug resistance of many disease organisms is an added
problem that could be exacerbated by climate change. A warming climate is likely to accelerate the reproduction of parasites, facilitating
genetic adaptations that help them fend off drugs and other control methods. Climate change may also reduce the effectiveness of
programs to control disease-carrying vectors. Platt blamed the global increase in infectious diseases on a "deadly mix of exploding
populations, rampant poverty, inadequate health care, misuse of antibiotics, and severe environmental degradation." She noted that 80%
of all disease in developing countries stems from unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation. Even in the U.S., with its advanced sanitation
facilities, water-borne diseases cost an estimated $20 billion a year. A 1993 outbreak of cryptosporidium, which affected more than
400,000 people, was partly caused by a nonfunctioning water filtration plant; similar deficiencies have been found in other U.S. cities.
Even with all its resources, the U.S. public health system hasn't been able to prevent either the resurgence of old diseases like tuberculosis
or outbreaks of emerging diseases like hantavirus and Lyme disease. When skeptics argue that the best way to cope with infectious
diseases is to improve sanitation and other public health measures, there's often an assumption that this is not a big problem. The World
Climate Report, for example, states that dealing with cholera is "simple"-merely a matter of filtering and chlorinating the water supply. "A
warmer climate, if it were to occur, would not reduce the effectiveness of these water purification measures." While this is true, it's hardly
the point. The effectiveness of purification measures is irrelevant if they're not implemented, and the fact is, they're not being
implemented nearly enough as it is. If this were really that simple a matter, it would long since have been accomplished. However, many
countries are stymied by budget cuts, population growth, and grinding poverty (which has been described as the deadliest disease of all).
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 97 / 189 ]
Eradicating world poverty is hardly more trivial a challenge than preventing global warming.
(Continued on next page…)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 98 / 189 ]
(…continued from previous page.)
We're not dealing particularly well today with the threat of infectious diseases. Indeed, there's evidence that we're losing ground, even in
developed countries. There's little reason to assume our already stressed public health systems can readily handle an increased threat
caused by global warming. At a conference sponsored by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, scientists concluded that, while more
research is needed to reduce uncertainties in linking climate change and infectious diseases, "the lack of complete data should not be used
as an excuse for inaction. Instead, the precautionary principle should apply: If the risk to public health is great, even if there is uncertainty,
both policy and action should be biased in favor of precaution." A report by the World Health Organization notes that humans can
probably deal with even fairly major climatic changes-after all, they live in nearly all climatic environments right now-but the adjustments
needed to do this could be substantial, expensive, and "may require many sacrifices in life-style and wellbeing to re-establish and
maintain the basic needs." All aspects of life-housing, clothing, nutrition, mobility, education, health services, industrial production, and
much of the established infrastructure-would be affected. This reality highlights one of the oddest aspects of the argument that improved
social and health care programs can handle any health problems global warming may throw our way-which is that it's so often proffered
by people who generally are not enthusiastic supporters of government spending on social programs or foreign aid. It seems rather
disingenuous to urge delay in cutting greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that social programs are a better way of coping with health
problems caused by global warming. One wonders if this can be taken as an endorsement of spending whatever's needed to eradicate
world poverty and provide everyone with adequate medical care, clean water, and air conditioning.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 99 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Droughts (Genocide)
1 – Climate change alters weather patterns to enduce overwhelming drought resulting in
resource wars ending in genocide – Darfur Proves
Ban Ki Moon, United Nations Secretary-General, 16 June 2007

Washington Post, “A Climate Culprit In Darfur”, 07/10/08, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061501857.html It would be natural to view these as
distinct developments. In fact, they are linked. Almost invariably, we discuss Darfur in a convenient
military and political shorthand -- an ethnic conflict pitting Arab militias against black rebels and
farmers. Look to its roots, though, and you discover a more complex dynamic. Amid the diverse social
and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part
from climate change. Two decades ago, the rains in southern Sudan began to fail.
According to U.N. statistics, average precipitation has declined some 40 percent since the early 1980s.
Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent
investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean,
disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa
derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming. It is no accident that the
violence in Darfur erupted during the drought. Until then, Arab nomadic herders had lived
amicably with settled farmers. A recent Atlantic Monthly article by Stephan Faris describes how
black farmers would welcome herders as they crisscrossed the land, grazing their camels
and sharing wells. But once the rains stopped, farmers fenced their land for fear it would be ruined
by the passing herds. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and
water for all. Fighting broke out. By 2003, it evolved into the full-fledged tragedy we
witness today.
2 – We have a moral obligation to prevent genocide
Washington Post, As Genocide Unfolds. June 20, 2004. p. B06
THE BUSH administration is waking up to Darfur, the western Sudanese province where Arab death squads have herded African
villagers into refugee camps and are waiting for them to die. Two weeks ago Andrew Natsios, the administration's top aid official,
estimated that at least a third of a million refugees are likely to perish for lack of food or basic medicines, and earlier this month Secretary
of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged to the New York Times that the death squads have been supported by Sudan's government. Mr.
Powell added that State Department lawyers are determining whether the killing, which the administration has already characterized as
ethnic cleansing, may qualify for the term "genocide" -- a determination that would impose moral, political and arguably also legal
obligations to intervene in Darfur. The Darfur killings do look very much like genocide. The U.N. Convention on Genocide defines it as
"acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" by, for example, "deliberately
inflicting on members of the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." In keeping
with this language, the Darfur violence has been targeted at a group defined by its black skin, with the objective not merely of looting land
or cattle but of physical destruction. Aerial maps, interviews with refugees and reports from the region show that villages with ethnic
African populations have been singled out for destruction; in one area, U.N. fact-finders came upon 23 African villages burned to the
ground, while ethnic Arab villages, some separated from an African one by as little as 500 yards, were unscathed. Moreover, the refugees
from the burned villages now face death not as some byproduct of conflict; their extermination is a main objective of the death squads and
Sudan's government. The death squads attack refugees who venture out of their camps in search of food or firewood, and the government
deliberately hampers international humanitarian efforts to deliver relief supplies. After a rebellion began in Darfur early last year, the
Sudanese regime appears to have decided that, by wiping out a large fraction of the civilian population, it could deter copy-cat rebellions
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 100 / 189 ]
elsewhere. Whatever label one attaches to these killings, there is a moral obligation to do everything possible to stop them. To ignore
slaughter on this scale is to subscribe to an intolerably cramped view of Western interests, one that would drain foreign policy of its moral
content, undermine its support among voters and damage the West's reputation in developing countries that already seek to paint high-
minded Western rhetoric as hypocritical. The Bush administration, to its credit, understands this. But its strategy is out of kilter with the
crisis on the ground.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 101 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Droughts (Hunger)
Global warming will lead to droughts and millions will die due to hunger
Cahal Milmo, Journalist, September 19, 2007

The Independent (London), “'Too late to avoid global warming,' say scientists”, 07/10/08, LexisNexis
A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures - the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change
which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding - is now "very unlikely" to be avoided, the world's leading climate
scientists said yesterday. The latest study from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the
inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world - in particular
Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic - are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most
devastating changes. For more than a decade, EU countries led by Britain have set a rise of two degrees centigrade or less in global
temperatures above pre-industrial levels as the benchmark after which the effects of climate become devastating, with crop failures, water
shortages, sea-level rises, species extinctions and increased disease. Two years ago, an authoritative study predicted there could be as little
as 10 years before this "tipping point" for global warming was reached, adding a rise of 0.8 degrees had already been reached with further
rises already locked in because of the time lag in the way carbon dioxide - the principal greenhouse gas - is absorbed into the atmosphere.
The IPCC said yesterday that the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest
people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing
world. In its latest assessment of the progress of climate change, the body said: "If warming is not kept below two degrees centigrade,
which will require the strongest mitigation efforts, and currently looks very unlikely to be achieved, the substantial global impacts will
occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding." Under the scale of risk used by
IPCC, the words "very unlikely" mean there is just a one to 10 per cent chance of limiting the global temperature rise to two degrees
centigrade or less.
Impact to hunger
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 102 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Economic Collapse
1 – Warming risks economic catastrophe – business relies on the environment and other
life – takes our your economy DA’s.
Brandenburg and Paxon 1999
(Rocket Scientist and Science Editor, “Dead Mars, Dying Earth”, p. 44-5, NetLibrary) DMZ
It is not a time for seeking certainties, it is a time for estimating risks-the probability of human complicity in global change, multiplied by
the damage that will accrue if we do not desist. Since the potential damage is terrible, even a low probability is enough to argue that
certain activities should cease. There are scientists who insist that all the effects, from deformed frogs to ozone holes, to, finally,
greenhouse gas-induced global warming trends, are either illusory or misunderstood natural effects. How certain can they be? Given the
potentially life-threatening consequences, shouldn't we err on the side of safety? Having identified the probable human causes, isn't it
better to dramatically curtail these activities? If we are cautious, even overly cautious, little damage will ensue other than a slowing down
in economic growth. But if we fail to act, to act conservatively-to conserve life on Earth-then the real price in catastrophic economic
losses could bring the U.S. economy and the world's economy to their knees. British Environment Minister Michael Meacher has
suggested that, "People are starting to wake up to the cost of devastating climate change." He warned that the economic costs of rising
seas, hurricanes, flooding and heat waves will "dwarf the costs of trying to prevent them."" It is reasonable to ask how problems such as
global warming can be remedied with the minimum of economic detriment and dislocation, especially for the poor. Economic dislocation
kills people as surely as does pollution or climatic change. But it is also reasonable to consider that, while the economic costs of
environmental problems accrue to everyone, as with most environmental problems, the burdens fall disproportionately on the poor. Yet,
economic consequences can cut both ways, since there may also be economic benefits for those companies and organizations that
innovate and develop new energy solutions, as Amory Lovins at the Aspen Institute points out so powerfully. Nevertheless, fears about
the economy do not represent an adequate justification to delay solving the problems of carbon dioxide. If we are truly committed to a
vibrant world economy, the best strategy would be to make an all-out effort to ensure that safe, low-cost, lowcarbon energy is available to
everyone.
2 - The impact is extinction.
Bearden 2k
(Lieutenant Colonel, THE UNNECESSARY ENERGY CRISIS: HOW WE CAN SOLVE IT, 2000, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Big-
Medicine/message/642)DMZ
Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight
years. As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed
nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take
desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts,
to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be
released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces
there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States -
attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the
conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a
few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's
adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the
only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as
rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the
WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 103 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Polar Bears
1 – Polar bears are declining directly because of global warming.
Fred Langan and Tom Leonard, written articles published in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, September 3, 2007
Telegraph.co.uk, Polar Bears ‘thriving as the Arctic warms up’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-

bears-'thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up'.html
"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation
Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in
hunting bears." Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said. "They are
declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his
group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'.
"The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. "To say that bear populations are
growing in one area now is irrelevant."
2 – Polar bears are a keystone species
WWF, World Wide Fund for Nature. From the Amazon to the Bering Sea, WWF is building a future where human needs are met in
harmony with nature. By 2020 we will conserve 19 of the world’s most important natural places and significantly change global forces to
protect the future of nature, May, 2002
WWF, Polar Bears At Risk, 7/10/08, www.wwf.org
As the polar bear is a keystone species at the top of the food web in the arctic seas, which include some of the world’s most productive
marine ecosystems, it is a good indicator of the overall status of these ecosystems (Eisenberg 1980). Successful conservation of polar
bears and their habitats can thus have positive effects on many other species, in several key ecoregions, as well as on local human
communities within the Arctic. Addressing the conservation of such keystone species therefore has a high priority within WWF. Through
its work in priority ecoregions, WWF is a driving force in the protection of large expanses of unfragmented land and marine areas to
ensure that space-demanding species, such as the polar bear, can continue to roam undisturbed in intact ecosystems.
3 - Without keystone species the rest of the ecosystem will collapse
Rocky Mountain Animal Defense, Keystone Species; Why Prairie Dogs Are So Important. February 22, 2004
http://www.prairiedogs.org/keystone.html accessed July 10, 2008
A keystone species is a species whose very presence contributes to a diversity of life and whose
extinction would consequently lead to the extinction of other forms of life. Keystone species help to
support the ecosystem (entire community of life) of which they are a part.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 104 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Life
1 – The accelerated rate of melting ice endangers sealife.

The Arctic melt season has lengthened by 10–17 days, shrinking the amount of ice buildup that remains from year to year. As sea ice thins
and recedes from coastlines, indigenous hunters and fishers are finding themselves cut off from traditional hunting grounds. Coastal
communities face more violent and less predictable weather, rising sea levels, and diminishing access to food sources. Polar bears, unable
to cross thin or nonexistent ice to hunt seals, will soon face a severely reduced food source. Scientists fear that with continued melting, the
bears may become extinct by the end of the century. Seals, walruses, and seabirds will also lose key feeding and breeding grounds along
the ice edge. Marine transport through the Arctic is expected to increase as ice melts and new shipping routes become available. The
length of the navigation season along the Northern Sea Route is projected to increase to about 120 days by 2100, up from the current 20–
30 days. While this could have positive economic effects, some observers worry about the environmental costs that might accompany
increased ship access to Arctic waters, such as oil spills and fishery depletion.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 105 / 189 ]
2 - Phytoplankton disappearance caused by Global Warming threatens marine life.
Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer, 2006

(USA Today, Global warming threatens basis of marine life In the world’s oceans, July 9, 2008,
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-12-06-marine-life-threatened_x.htm)
The critical base of the ocean food web is shrinking as the world's seas warm, new NASA satellite data
show. The discovery has scientists worried about how much food will grow in the future for the world's
marine life. The data show a significant link between warmer water — either from the El Nino climate
phenomenon or global warming — and reduced production of phytoplankton of the world's oceans,
according to a study in Thursday's journal Nature. Phytoplankton are the microscopic plant life that
zooplankton and other marine animals eat, essentially the grain crop of the world's oceans.
"Everything else up the food web is going to be impacted," said oceanographer Scott Doney of the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. "What's worrisome is that small changes that happen in the
bottom of food web can have dramatic changes to certain species at higher spots on the food chain."
This is yet another recent scientific study with real-time data showing the much predicted harmful
effects of global warming are not just coming, but in some cases are already here and can be tallied
scientifically, researchers said. A satellite commissioned by NASA tracked water temperature and the
production of phytoplankton from 1997 to 2006, finding that for most of the world's oceans when one
went up the other went down and vice versa, said study lead author Michael Behrenfeld, a biological
oceanographer at Oregon State University. As water temperatures increased from 1999 to 2004, the
crop of phytoplankton dropped significantly, about 200 million tons a year. On average about 50 billion
tons of phytoplankton are produced yearly, Behrenfeld said. During that time, some ocean regions,
especially around the equator in the Pacific, saw as much as a 50% drop in phytoplankton production,
he said. However, the satellite first started taking measurements in 1997 when water temperatures
were at their warmest due to El Nino. That's the regular cyclical warming of part of the Pacific Ocean
that affects climate worldwide. After that year, the ocean significantly cooled until 1999 and the
phytoplankton crop soared by 2 billion tons during those two years. "The results are showing this very
tight coupling between production and climate," Behrenfeld said. Phytoplankton, which turn sunlight
into food, need nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphates and iron from colder water below, Behrenfeld
said. With warmer surface water, it's harder for the phytoplankton to get those nutrients. Behrenfeld
said the link between the El Nino changes and phytoplankton production is clear. For years scientists
warning about climate change have said warmer waters will reduce phytoplankton production and this
shows it's happening, he said. Other oceanographers agree with the El Nino link but said with only a
decade of data it is harder to make global warming connections. "It's something you certainly can't
ignore, because its potential is quite significant," said James Yoder of the Woods Hole Institute. "But
there are some caveats because of the shortness of the record." Another worry is that with reduced
phytoplankton, the world's oceans will suck up less carbon dioxide, increasing the Earth's chief global
warming gas, said NASA ocean biology project manager Paula Bontempi. That's because
phytoplankton take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in making food. This is at least the third
significant peer-reviewed research paper in the past six months showing that long-anticipated global
warming biological side effects are already happening. A study earlier this year linked increases in
Western U.S. wildfires to global warming and a mega-study showed that dozens of species of plants
and animals were dying off from global warming. "What you're looking at is almost an avalanche of
each individual effect," said Stanford University biological sciences professor Stephen Schneider. "As it
gets warmer and as we measure more things, the evidence accumulates."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 106 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Life (2/2)
3 – Oceans health is key to survival
Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law. Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness
Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii, McGeorge Law Review. Winter, 2003. L/N
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy
percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells,
aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and
quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the
ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary
biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and
coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people
assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively
intact to future generations.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 107 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Life
Extension to #1
Global warming threatens thousands of sea animals with extinction
Jeremy Lovell, 9-9-02,
Reuters News Agency, “Exotic Antarctic Species Face Climate Wipeout” Reuters. http://www.well.com/~davidu/antarctic.html.
LEICESTER, England (Reuters) - Thousands of the world's most exotic species of sea animals from spiders the size of dinner plates to
giant woodlice face extinction if Antarctic sea temperatures rise as predicted, a scientist said Monday. "If the models are correct, we are
likely to lose large populations of scallops, giant isopods, bivalve molluscs and giant sea spiders among others," scientist Lloyd Peck of
the British Antarctic Survey told reporters. "So far we have looked at 11 species and the answer has come up the same each time. At a
temperature rise of two to three degrees, they asphyxiate," he said at the British Association for the Advancement of Science annual
festival. The behemoth-scale giant isopods resemble woodlice but grow to the size of a mobile phone. Peck said water temperatures
around the Antarctic -- one of the last outposts of relatively untouched environment in the world -- were rising at more than twice the rate
of the land temperature, having climbed by one degree in the past 15 years. Scientific models trying to predict the pace and scale of
future change pegged the likely rise at up to three degrees within 100 years. Surveys have shown that the Antarctic sea dwellers were
unable to adapt to such temperature changes so they effectively suffocated due to their inability to move oxygen round their bodies.
GROW SLOWLY "These are probably the most fragile group of animals in the world to temperature change," he said. "They grow very
slowly, producing only a few generations in 100 years. Yet studies show it takes several generations to adapt." "Several thousand species
of cold-blooded invertebrate animals would be at risk if we get the kind of temperature rise indicated. In this part of the world we have
some of the most exotic animals there are," Peck said. He said there was every possibility that such a wholesale climatic slaughter would
have an impact higher up the food chain, but that it was impossible to say just how they would be affected.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 108 / 189 ]
The Ecosystem of the Ocean is at risk as the temperatures in the ocean rise.
(Environment News Service, Global Warming Threatens Ocean Ecosystems, July 8, 2008,
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-14-06.asp)
Climate change will create increasing challenges to U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems over the next
century, warns a new report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Temperature changes,
altered patterns of rain and snowfall, and rising sea level are expected to upset the delicate balance of
fragile coastal ecosystems. The Earth's climate is expected to change must faster than normal over
the coming decades due to the warming influence of human caused increases in greenhouse gas
emissions. The world's oceans, which cover almost 70 percent of the planet's surface, are likely to
show the effects of climate change in dramatic and devastating ways, the Pew Center warns. "Such
high rates of change will probably result in local if not total extinction of some species, the alteration
of species distributions in ways that may lead to major changes in their interactions with other
species, and modifications in the flow of energy and cycling of materials within ecosystems," warns
the new report, titled "Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate Change: Potential Effects on
U.S. Resources." "Climate change could likely be the 'sleeper issue' that pushes our already stressed
and fragile coastal and marine ecosystems over the edge," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew
Center on Global Climate Change. "Particularly vulnerable are coastal and shallow water areas already
stressed by human activity, such as estuaries and coral reefs. The situation is analogous to that faced
by a human whose immune system is compromised and who may succumb to a disease that would
not threaten a healthy person."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 109 / 189 ]
Global Warming puts risk to the species of the Ocean for many reasons.
(Environment News Service, Global Warming Threatens Ocean Ecosystems, July 8, 2008, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-14-06.asp)
Critical coastal ecosystems such as wetlands, estuaries and coral reefs are particularly vulnerable to climate change, the report concludes.
Such ecosystems are among the most biologically productive environments in the world, but their location at the interface between the
land and ocean environments exposes them to a wide variety of human and natural stressors. The added burden of climate change may
further degrade these valuable ecosystems, threatening their ecological sustainability and the flow of goods and services they provide to
human populations, the report warns. Temperature changes in coastal and marine ecosystems will influence the metabolism of marine
species, and alter ecological processes such as productivity and species interactions, the researchers said. Species are adapted to specific
ranges of environmental temperature, the report explains. As temperatures change, the geographic ranges of different species may expand
or contract, creating new combinations of species that will interact in unpredictable ways. Species that are unable to migrate or compete
with other species for resources may face local or global extinction. Changes in precipitation and sea level rise will have far reaching
consequences for the water balance of coastal ecosystems, the report notes. Increases in precipitation and runoff will increase the risk of
coastal flooding, while decreases in precipitation may trigger droughts. Meanwhile, sea level rise will gradually inundate coastal lands,
the study warns. Coastal wetlands may migrate inland with rising sea levels, but only if they are not obstructed by human development.
Climate change is also likely to alter patterns of wind and water circulation in the ocean environment. Such changes may influence the
vertical movement of ocean waters, increasing or decreasing the availability of nutrients and oxygen to marine species. Changes in ocean
circulation patterns can also cause substantial changes in regional ocean and land temperatures and the geographic distributions of marine
species.
The Carbon Emissions threaten the life of many Marine animals.
CNN, 2005
(CNN.com, Carbon Emissions Threaten Sea Life, July 8, 2008, http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/04/oceans.acid/)
Excessive carbon in the atmosphere is already causing irreparable environmental damage to the Earth's oceans and drastic cuts in
emissions are necessary to prevent further devastation, a panel of leading scientists has warned. A report by the Royal Society, the UK's
leading scientific academy, said that rising carbon levels caused by the burning of fossil fuels had dramatically increased the acidity of
seawater, threatening the oceans' ecosystems. Sea creatures such as coral, shell fish and star fish are likely to suffer because higher levels
of acidity will make it harder for them to form shells and skeletons. The report predicts that some types of plankton, a major food source
for marine life, may be unable to make their calcium carbonate shells by the end of the 21st century. Larger marine animals such as squid
could face extinction as they find it harder to extract oxygen from sea water and their food supplies dwindle. Combined with the effects of
climate change, ocean acidification also poses a threat to tropical and subtropical reefs such as Australia's Great Barrier Reef and the
hundreds of thousands of species that live off them, as well as to the human communities that depend on reefs for food and as natural
coastal defenses. "Along with climate change, the rising acidity of our oceans is yet another reason for us to be concerned about the
carbon dioxide we are pumping into the atmosphere," said Professor John Raven, chair of the Royal Society working group on ocean
acidification. "World leaders ... must commit to taking decisive and significant action to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Failure to do so
may mean that there is no place in the oceans of the future for many of the species and ecosystems that we know today." Raven said that
the burning of fossil fuels over the past two centuries had changed the chemistry of the oceans at a rate that was 100 times faster than had
happened for millions of years. Those changes could also contribute directly to global warming if the carbon-saturated oceans reach a
point when they can no longer soak up any further emissions from the atmosphere. In the past two centuries the oceans have absorbed
around half of all carbon produced by humans, soaking up one ton for each person on the planet each year. "The oceans play a vital role in
the earth's climate and other natural systems which are all interconnected. By blindly meddling with one part of this complex mechanism,
we run the risk of unwittingly triggering far reaching effects," said Raven. While the report said that rising levels of ocean acidity are
irreversible in current lifetimes, it warned that urgent action was needed to reduce levels of carbon in the atmosphere and called for
further research into the consequences of ocean acidification.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 110 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Trout and Salmon
1 – Global Warming threatens the livelihood of Salmon and Trout.
Natural Resource Defense Council, 2002
(Natural Resource and Defense Council, Global Warming Threatens Cold Water Fish, July 8, 2008,
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/ntrout.asp)
Why are salmon and trout so vulnerable to global warming? It's simple: cold-water fish such as trout and salmon thrive in
streams with temperatures of 50 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit. In many areas, the fish are already living at the upper end of their
thermal range, meaning even modest warming could render streams uninhabitable. Projected increases in water temperature
differ by location, but average 0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030, 1.3 to 3.2 degrees by 2060, and 2.2 to 4.9 degrees by
2090, depending on future emissions of heat-trapping gases and the climate model on which projections are based. The
analysis covers four species of trout -- brook, cutthroat, rainbow and brown -- and four species of salmon -- pink, coho,
chinook and chum. Researchers looked at air and water temperature data from more than 2,000 sites across the United
States (not including Alaska or Hawaii). Then, using three internationally recognized climate models, they estimated changes
in stream temperatures under a variety of pollution scenarios. In reality, habitat loss could be even more extensive than
predicted. NRDC's study examined only the direct effects of higher air temperatures on water, and did not cover indirect
impacts of global warming, such as shifts in precipitation and evaporation. Nor did it take into account changes in the ocean,
where salmon and some trout species spend much of their lives. As with other consequences of global warming, the
disappearance of trout and salmon is expected to vary by region. For trout, the greatest losses are likely to occur in the
South, Southwest and Northeast, largely because stream temperatures in those areas already are warmer than in other
regions. For salmon, significant losses are expected throughout the current range of the four species, with the most dramatic
losses occurring in California. Regardless of location, the disappearance of cold-water fish will come at a significant cost -- to
jobs, recreation and regional culture. Roughly 10 million Americans spend an average of 10 days a year angling for salmon
and trout, and the estimated value of the combined fisheries ranges from $1.5 billion to $14 billion a year. Trout are also
central to the culture of the Rocky and Appalachian mountains, while salmon are an integral part of the Northwest's Native
American heritage.
2 – Salmon are a Keystone species
Sierra Club, Salmon; Keystone of the Coast. February 06, 2007 http://www.savethegreatbear.org/CAD/Salmon.htm accessed July 10,
2008
Salmon are keystone species in the rainforest. Not only are they a critical fall food source for the grizzly bear, wolves, eagles and otters,
but they also act as fertilizer for the trees. In addition, because spawning is highly sensitive to stream temperature and sedimentation,
salmon act as an indicator species for the overall health of the ecosystem.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 111 / 189 ]
– Extension to #1
The Salmon Population will have a hard time living in a hot river.
National Wildlife Federation, March 23, 2008
(National Wildlife Federation, pacific Southwest Salmon In Hot Water, July 8, 2008,
http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageId=B78FFA91-0385-8B0A-44A6DFA8FC022F09)
By 2040 up to 20 percent of the Pacific Northwest could become too warm for salmon, steelhead and trout if
global warming is left unchecked, an analysis released today by the National Wildlife Federation
shows. Ongoing research conducted by the University of Washington indicates that higher regional
temperatures could also change the timing and volume of rain and snow coming from nearby glaciers
and mountains, affecting stream flows that the fish have historically depended on. “Salmon in the
region are struggling to survive amidst dams, water diversions and development along river
shorelines,” says Paula Del Giudice, director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Northwest Natural
Resource Center in Seattle. “Global warming will add an enormous amount of pressure onto what’s left
of the region’s prime cold-water fish habitat. If we don’t act now to curb pollution, within our lifetimes
a significant portion of this region’s salmon, steelhead and trout could be pushed out of existence. We
have a responsibility to protect this region’s wildlife heritage for our children’s future. That means we
must unite in confronting global warming starting now.” A 3º F rise in average August temperatures in
the region could cause as much as 20 percent of the area containing suitable habitat for some cold-
water fish in the Columbia River Basin and coastal watersheds of Washington and Oregon to reach
nearly 70 degrees F. If translated to stream temperature, the area could become highly stressful for
salmon, steelhead, and trout, concludes the report, Fish Out of Water. Based on recent global warming
projections, a 3º F rise in temperature is plausible by 2040 due to increasing pollution from fossil fuels
such as coal and oil. If streams in the region continue to be degraded by other factors, the impact will
likely be even greater.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 112 / 189 ]
– Extension to #2
The Salmon supports 137 other species.
Ed Hunt, 2000
(Environment News Service, Ecosystem Keystone: Salmon Support 137 Other Species, July 8, 2008,
http://www.bluefish.org/keystone.htm)
More than 137 species of fish and wildlife - from orcas to caddisflies - depend on the Northwest salmon for their survival, a revelation
that makes salmon recovery efforts of far greater importance than the protection of a single species. A new report released by
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has found that salmon play a vital role in watershed health, transporting nutrients from the
ocean back to the watershed. The discovery could spark major changes in fishery and hatchery management and the direction of salmon
recovery efforts in the future. "It's not just salmon, it's the ecosystem," said Jeff Cederholm, a salmon research scientist with Washington
Department of Natural Resources, principal author of the report. "We need to start giving out the whole story of what made the
ecosystem; it's an abundance of fish on the spawning grounds." Northwest species now struggling because of depleted salmon runs
include the bald eagle, grizzly bear, black bear, osprey, harlequin duck, Caspian tern and river otter. "They are all so closely tuned with
the pacific salmon that many of these populations are in decline, partially due to declining food supply," Cederholm said.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 113 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Reefs
Oceans are taking the brunt of the warming effect
nutrient pollution, has taken him across the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific, December 5, 2005
Open Democracy, Global warming and coral reefs, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-
Today, we do not feel the effects of global warming because most of the trapped heat is flowing down
to the deep sea. This introduces a 1,000-year timelag, the mean turnover time of the deep ocean to
the surface. If you have your furnace on full blast and your attic windows open, you won’t feel warm
on the ground floor until after the attic warms up because heat flows to the coldest spot. If the
circulation shuts down, the heat builds up more quickly. The qualitative argument is solid, but the
timing highly uncertain. We are many generations away from feeling the effects of the excess carbon
dioxide already in the atmosphere as a result of industrial activities to date, and when this plays out
the effects will be much greater than 125,000 years ago, even if we never burn any more coal, oil or
gas from today forwards. Sudden changes in temperature and sea level will follow when there are
dramatic shifts in ocean surface currents (something taking place already in slow motion), and sudden
slipping of ice shelves and glaciers lubricated beneath by meltwater. Eventually the surface ocean
layer will become so warm and thick that it can’t get dense enough to sink, shutting down deep ocean
circulation and greatly speeding surface atmosphere warming.
The loss of coral reefs is the first sign of a climate change.
Pacific, December 5, 2005. Open Democracy, Global warming and coral reefs, 7/7/08, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-
climate_change_debate/2558.jsp
Coral reefs are the most sensitive of all ecosystems to global warming, pollution, and new diseases. They will be first to go as a result of
climate change. As the most important resources for fisheries, tourism, shore protection, and marine biodiversity for more than a hundred
countries, this will be a huge disaster. Almost all reefs have already been heated above their maximum temperature thresholds. Many
have already lost most of their corals, and temperature rise in most places gives only a few years before most corals die from heatstroke.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 114 / 189 ]
Global Warming is the most urgent harm for coral reefs.
nutrient pollution, has taken him across the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific, December 5, 2005Open
Democracy, Global warming and coral reefs, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-
It has been long known that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will raise ocean acidity (that is,
lower ocean pH), but this keeps being re- “discovered” as a new problem. But corals will die of global
warming long before increased acidity kills them. Our long-term global satellite coral reef temperature
database shows that worldwide changes in ocean circulation are underway, affecting all coral reefs
and marine fisheries. Our data show the crisis is more imminent than policymakers realise. But we
can’t get them to act because people who have not studied the real data and rely on inaccurate
models think the coral crisis is centuries to millennia away.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 115 / 189 ]
Global warming has devastating effects on coral reefs.
Sean Markey, for National Geographic News, May 16, 2006
National Geographic News, Global Warming Has Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs, Study Shows,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html. Accessed on July 7, 2008//DH
Many reefs have been reduced to rubble, a collapse that has deprived fish of food and shelter. As a result, fish diversity has tumbled by
half in some areas, say authors of the first long-term study of the effects of warming-caused bleaching on coral reefs and fish. The study
focused on reefs near Africa's Seychelles islands, north of Madagascar (see Seychelles map), which sustained heavy losses from
bleaching in 1998. "The outlook for recovery is quite bleak for the Seychelles," said lead study author Nicholas Graham, a tropical
marine biologist at England's University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. The study, in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, predicts that isolated reef ecosystems like that around the Seychelles will suffer the most from global warming-caused bleaching
events.
Even slight changes in temperature are too much for coral reefs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html Accessed on July 7, 2008//DH
Small but prolonged rises in sea temperature force coral colonies to expel their symbiotic, food-producing algae, a process known as
bleaching. While the dying reefs, which turn ghostly white, can recover from such events, many do not. In 1998 an El Niño weather
pattern sparked the worst coral-bleaching event ever observed. "Over 16 percent of the world's reefs … were lost in that one year," said
Graham, part of a team that recently received an unrelated research grant from the National Geographic Society Committee for Research
and Exploration. (National Geographic News is a part of the National Geographic Society.) "It was a huge event." With data from a 1994
survey in hand, researchers returned to the Seychelles in 2005 to study the bleaching event's long-term impact on coral reefs and fish
communities. Surveying 60,000 square yards (50,000 square meters) of coral reef across 21 sites, researchers found that fish diversity
declined the most on reefs that had sustained physical and biological erosion. The finding by U.K., Australian, and Seychelles researchers
confirms what many scientists had long suspected. The census also revealed that four fish species—butterfly fish, damselfish, and two
wrasses—may now be locally extinct. Six other fish species have declined to critically low numbers. Describing reefs in the inner
Seychelles as in "various states of collapse," Graham says it appears unlikely they can recover. He says the reefs are too isolated to
recruit young coral from other reef systems. "Coral cover at the moment is at about seven and a half percent [of previous levels] in the
[inner] Seychelles," Graham said. "However less than one percent of that is fast-growing [branching] and plating corals, which in other
places in the world are often the ones that come back and start a recovery process."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 116 / 189 ]
Reduction of coral reefs is a problem because of global warming.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html Accessed on July 7, 2008//DH
Experts say word of vanishing coral reefs has become all too familiar. "By and large, reefs have collapsed catastrophically just in the
three decades that I've been studying them," said Nancy Knowlton, a marine biology professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
in La Jolla, California. Knowlton, who is also a member of National Geographic Society Committee for Research and Exploration, notes
that corals live precariously close to their thermal limits. As a result, even the most isolated reefs are vulnerable to the effects of global
warming. "These increasingly warm temperatures that we've been seeing in the last couple of decades have been tipping reefs over in
terms of these fast bleaching events," she said. Graham, the study author, says that while local and regional resource managers can
mitigate some damage to coral reefs, broader action is required. "Bleaching is a global issue, and it's driven by global warming," Graham
said. "So the onus is on all of us, really." "We need to reduce greenhouse gases and take these issues seriously."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 117 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Levels
1 – Sea Level Rise leads to different salinization which hurts biodiversity
Schubert et al German Advisory Council on Global Change 2006
<Schubert, Schellnhuber, Epiney, Buchmann, Grießhammer, Kulessa, Messner, Rahmstorf, Schmid, WBGU, 7-
10-08, http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2006_en.pdf>
Changes in the tidal ranges and high-water levels caused by sea-level rise are an additional burden for
coastal ecosystems. The consequences include changes in water depths, light and temperature, and
current speeds, and a shift in the freshwater-saltwater distribution.These can lead to physiological
burdens for some animal and plant species that could then require a habitat change. Studies show
that even minor seawater intrusions into coastal seas lead to large disturbances in the structure and
diversity of zooplankton populations. Accordingly, small salinity changes can result in a decline in the
biodiversity of coastal ecosystems (Schallenberg et al., 2003). The functioning and preservation of
ecosystems are therefore not only threatened by flooding because of sea-level rise, but also by
changes in the frequency and strength of seawater intrusions.
2 - And, loss of biodiversity leads to extinction.
David Diner, Major US Army, 1993 (The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, “THE ARMY
AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:WHO' S ENDANGERING WHOM?” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA456541&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
It may be difficult to accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew,
74 could save mankind. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense.
Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpation could negatively affect
a directly useful species. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of each species affects other
species dependent upon it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the affect of each new
extinction on the remaining * species increases dramatically 76 4. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY The main
premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity.77 As the current mass
extinction progresses, there has been a general decrease in the world's biological diversity. This trend
occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the
number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 Biologically diverse
ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches.
These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems: "'The more complex the
ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress...[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to
others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of
threadswhich if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.", 79 By causing widespread extinctions
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity rises, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in
the U.S. are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse, and human extinction. Certainly, each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may
be edging closer to the abyss.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 118 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 119 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Levels – Ex.
To #1
Sea Level Rise hurts Biodiversity
Schubert et al German Advisory Council on Global Change 2006
<Schubert, Schellnhuber, Epiney, Buchmann, Grießhammer, Kulessa, Messner, Rahmstorf, Schmid, WBGU, 7-
10-08, http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2006_en.pdf>
Besides temperature increase and acidification, the expected sea-level rise is an important additional
stress factor for the often highly species-rich terrestrial coastal ecosystems or near-coast
ecosystems. Two particularly relevant ecosystem types are coral reefs (Section 2.4) and
mangrove forests, because they not only harbour great biological diversity, but at the
same time play an important role in coastal protection. This latter was illustrated by the
tsunami catastrophe in December 2004 in the Indian Ocean: on coasts with intact coral reefs and
mangrove forests the flood wave was slowed considerably so that the damage was less disastrous
(Fernando and McCulley, 2005; Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2005; Danielsen et al., 2005).
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 120 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ecosystems – Sea Levels – Ex.
To #2
Biodiversity is Vital for Human Survival
Food and Agriculture Organization February 18, 2008

<FAO, 7-10-08, http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000788/index.html>
“Biodiversity is vital for human survival and livelihoods; we need to conserve it for future generations.
At the same time, the unacceptable scale of hunger and rural poverty in our small planet calls for
urgent remedial action,” FAO Deputy Director-General James G. Butler said today. He was addressing
the opening session of the thirteenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity (18-22 February 2008). Ultimately, at
the global level, this event – which involves FAO, the Convention on Biological Diversity and their
partners – is aimed at meeting the challenges of sustainable agricultural production to ensure food
security for all peoples, “especially the rural poor – often the managers and custodians of our
biodiversity,” as Mr. Butler put it. The Rome meeting focuses on the implementation of the
programmes of work on agricultural biodiversity and forest biodiversity; the application of sustainable
use principles and guidelines to agricultural biodiversity; the linkages between agricultural biodiversity
and climate change; marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems biodiversity; invasive alien species;
and other scientific and technical issues.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 121 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Extinction
At least 1/3 of all plant and animal life will be at risk for extinction by the end of this
century due to warming
World Wildlife Foundation, 2000
“One-third of world's habitat at risk from global warming,” Climate Change. 30 Aug 2000.
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/
climate_change/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=2141. Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice
London, UK - Global warming could fundamentally alter one third of plant and animal habitats by the
end of this century, and cause the eventual extinction of certain plant and animal species, according
to a new study released today by WWF. The report, Global Warming and Terrestrial Biodiversity
Decline, says that in the northern latitudes of Canada, Russia and Scandinavia, where warming is
predicted to be most rapid, up to 70 percent of habitat could be lost. Russia, Canada, Kyrgystan,
Norway, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Uruguay, Bhutan and Mongolia are likely to loose 45 per cent or
more of current habitat while many coastal and island species will be at risk from the combined threat
of warming oceans, sea-level rise and range shifts. "As global warming accelerates, plants and animals
will come under increasing pressure to migrate to find suitable habitat. Some will just not be able to
move fast enough," said Adam Markham, Executive Director of a US NGO, Clean Air-Cool Planet, one of
the co-authors of the report. "In some places, plants would need to move ten times faster than they
did during the last ice age merely to survive. It is likely that global warming will mean extinction for
some plants and animals." Species most at risk are those that are rare or live in isolated or
fragmented habitats. They include the rare Gelada baboon in Ethiopia, the mountain pygmy possum of
Australia, the monarch butterfly at its Mexican wintering grounds, and the spoon-billed sandpiper at its
breeding sites in Russia's arctic far east. In the Untied States, most of the northern spruce and fir
forest of New England and New York State could ultimately be lost. In patches of habitat that do
survive, local species loss may be as high as 20 per cent in the most vulnerable mountain ecosystems
such as northern Alaska, Russia's Tamyr Peninsula and south-eastern Australia. The report's
predictions are based on a moderate estimate that concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
atmosphere will double from pre-industrial levels during this century. However, some projections
suggest a three-fold increase in concentrations by 2100 unless action is taken to rein in the inefficient
use of coal, oil and gas for energy production. In this case, the effects on nature could be even more
dramatic. Already, Costa Rica's golden toad has probably become extinct. Birds such as the great tit in
Scotland and the Mexican jay in Arizona are beginning to breed earlier in the year; butterflies are
shifting their ranges northwards throughout Europe; and mammals in many parts of the Arctic —
including polar bears, walrus and caribou — are beginning to feel the impacts of reduced sea ice and
warming tundra habitat. "This is a wake-up call to world leaders — if they do not act to stop global
warming, wildlife around the globe may suffer the consequences. World leaders must give top priority
to reducing levels of carbon pollution. They must not miss the chance of this November's climate
summit for stepping up action and preventing a catastrophe that could change the world as we know
it," said Jennifer Morgan, Director of WWF's Climate Change Campaign.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 122 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Fire Storms
1 – Global Warming Increases the Number of Fires
NPR National Public Radio 2006
<NPR, 7-8-08, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541423>
New research published this week in the journal Science says that global warming may be causing more
intense wildfires in the western United States. The researchers found that increases in large wildfire
activity in the western United States over the past 25 years is "strongly associated with increased
spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt."
2 - Impact: A Fire Storm Lead to the Extinction of Dinosaurs
Paine Writer Space.com 1999
<Space.com, 7-8-08,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/dinosaurs_fry_991118.html>
Dinosaurs may have met their demise in a global firestorm of methane gas triggered by an asteroid impact, a
team of scientists reports in the latest issue of Geo-Marine Letters. The methane gas was released
from the Earth by the asteroid collision and ignited by lightning, says Naval Research Laboratory
scientist Barton Hurdle. Hurdle told space.com that he and several colleagues put forth the idea -- a
fiery end to Earth's greatest land creatures -- before various teams of researchers in 1991 and 1992
theorized that a crater discovered in Mexico was the site of an asteroid impact responsible for the
mass extinctions. "It shook up the ocean, generated tsunamis that ruptured pockets of methane that
were trapped under gas hydrates, and it also created slumping -- a sliding down of the ocean bottom --
that released (the methane) too," Hurdle said. "This stuff came out, lightning set it afire, and it
burned," Hurdle explained. "There were fantastic quantities of this stuff."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 123 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Fire Storms – Extension of #1
Because of Global Warming the Northwest will become a Matchbox
New Scientist Magazine 2008
<NewScientist, 7-8-08, http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19826615.500-global-warming-to-spark-

increase-in-us-wildfires.html>
TODAY much of the north-western US wilderness is already a tinderbox, but thanks to global warming, wildfires will be scorching even
more land every year by the end of the century. Because warmer oceans encourage warmer weather, emergency planners in the US
Southwest have long monitored temperatures in the equatorial Pacific to forecast wildfire activity. But a warm Pacific can spark fires in
the north-west as well, says Yongqiang Liu of the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service in Athens, Georgia. Warmer-than-
average ocean temperatures in the North Pacific create more low-pressure weather systems than cooler waters do, pushing jet stream
circulation north into Canada. This leaves room for high-pressure systems to move in from the south, bringing drier and hotter air to the
north-west.
Global Warming makes Fires Burn more Frequently and Longer
West About.com Guide to Environmental Issues 2007
<About.com, 7-8-08, http://environment.about.com/b/2007/05/25/global-warming-linked-to-rising-number-of-us-forest-fires.htm>

Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Arizona found four times as many large wildfires occurred
in Western forests between 1987 and 2003 compared to the previous 16 years. The more recent fires burned 6.5 more land, the average
duration of the fires increased from 7.8 to 37 days, and the overall fire season during those years grew by an average of 78 days. Those
changes corresponded to an average 1.5-degree rise in temperature throughout the American West during the same time period.
According to the study, the first to link global warming to wildfires, the warmer temperatures due to climate change have led to longer,
drier seasons, creating ideal conditions for forest fires.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 124 / 189 ]
Empirically Proven- Climate Change Leads to Fire Storms
Kornell Santa Barbara Independent Staff Writer July 6, 2008
<Santa Barbara Independent, 7-7-08, http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jul/06/gap-fire-sign-global-

warming/?print>
Parked on East Camino Cielo road last Thursday evening, near La Cumbre Peak, Santa Barbara surveyor
Jacob Hecter watched stiff winds shoot spires of flame into the sky above the Goleta hills. Squinting
into the sun, he asked a question with which many Californians can doubtless identify: does the fact
that it’s early July and the state has already been besieged by 1,783 separate fires, including the Gap
Fire and the massive Big Sur conflagration have something to do with climate change? The answer is
yes and no, say climate scientists. The current onslaught of wildfire “is what we’ve been projecting to
happen, both in short-term fire forecasts and the longer term patterns that can be linked to global
climate change,” said Ron Neilson, a professor at Oregon State University and bioclimatologist with
the USDA Forest Service. Neilson, who for the last fifteen years has also worked for the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cautioned that “with any single event you can’t
say unequivocally that it’s climate change, or that it’s natural variability.” However, he said, “What I
would tell people is that what they’re experiencing is very consistent with global warming.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 125 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – General Conflict
Global Warming drives all world conflict
Norman Myers. Norman Myers is an Honorary Visiting Fellow at Oxford University, 2002 (BULLETIN OF
THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, September-October, v58 i5 p69(2) Water and more)
But as Michael Klare, director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies in
Amherst, Massachusetts, makes clear in Resource Wars, water is just one of many strategic resources
over which future conflicts may be fought. Other resources include minerals, oil, fish, and timber, all of
which are coming under increasing demand and most of which are in increasingly short supply.
Underpinning all of these resources is climate stability. As Klare points out, global warming has the
potential to drastically alter weather patterns, undermine agriculture and health, and generally disrupt
the world as we know it.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 126 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Hurricanes – More Powerful
Hurricanes become more powerful because of Global Warming
Begley Staff Writer NewsWeek July 7 2008
<NewsWeek, 7-7-08, http://www.newsweek.com/id/143787?tid=relatedcl>
Hurricanes have become more powerful due to global warming. For every rise of 1 degree Celsius (most of it
man-made) in surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, rainfall from a tropical storm increases 6
to 18 percent and wind speeds of the strongest hurricanes increase by up to 8 percent. As the new
report acknowledged, "the strongest storms are becoming even stronger." Atmospheric conditions
that bring severe thunderstorms (with hail two inches across and wind gusts of at least 70 miles an
hour) and tornadoes with a force of F2 or greater have been on the rise since the 1970s, occurring
about 8 percent more often every decade. Get used to it, and don't blame Mother Nature.
The Warmer conditions make the hurricanes stronger and larger and more deadly.
Science Daily, February 1, 2008
(Science Daily, Global Warming Equals Stronger Hurricanes, July 10, 2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0204-
global_warming_equals_stronger_hurricanes.htm)
According to new research, hurricanes in the North Atlantic are stronger and larger than ever before. Scientists now say they know what's
to blame.Winds topping over 75 miles per hour … rain slamming down … waves crashing into the coast!Some climate scientists believe
hurricanes in the North Atlantic loom more dangerous than ever. But now they say … they think know why."Since about 1970, there has
been a warming of the global oceans including the areas where the hurricanes form due to increases in carbon dioxide and greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere," Kevin Trenberth, NCAR Scientist in Boulder, Colo., told Ivanhoe.Trenberth builds his case asking the tough
questions. "Do they get more intense? Do they get bigger? Do they last longer? Are there more of them?" Trenberth asks.Over the past 35
years, the Atlantic's sea surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit. The result … a four-percent increase of atmospheric
water vapor and a six to eight-percent increase in rainfall.Conditions that contribute to larger, more forceful, hurricanes. The cause --
Trenberth says predominantly global warming. "What we think is likely to happen, they will get more intense, they will likely get a little
bigger, but maybe there may not be quite as many," Trenberth said. Other scientists aren't so convinced and believe the warming is a
natural occurrence, but either way -- a forecast for the future that impacts us all.
Global Warming Causes More Hurricanes, Flooding, Salinity Problems, and Droughts
Titus U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990
<Environmental Protection Agency, 7-8-08, http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR%5Cglobalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BNJTL/

$File/barrier_islands.pdf>
Other effects of global warming may exacerbate these impacts. Warmer temperatures could increase the frequency and severity of
hurricanes 50 percent (Emmanuel 1988), increasing both erosion and storm damage. Although there is a general consensus that average
annual rainfall will increase, many researchers expect precipitation to become more variable (e.g. Rind et al. 1989), which would imply
dryer droughts and wetter rainstorms, amplifying both salinity and flooding problems.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 127 / 189 ]
Empirically climate change causes weather disasters, food and energy shortages.
Climatically, the gradual change view of the future assumes that agriculture will continue to thrive and
growing seasons will lengthen. Northern Europe, Russia, and North America will prosper agriculturally
while southern Europe, Africa, and Central and South America will suffer from increased dryness, heat,
water shortages, and reduced production. Overall, global food production under many typical climate
scenarios increases. This view of climate change may be a dangerous act of selfdeception, as
increasingly we are facing weather related disasters -- more hurricanes, monsoons, floods, and dry-
spells – in regions around the world. Weather-related events have an enormous impact on society, as
they influence food supply, conditions in cities and communities, as well as access to clean water and
energy. For example, a recent report by the Climate Action Network of Australia projects that climate
change is likely to reduce rainfall in the rangelands, which could lead to a 15 per cent drop in grass
productivity. This, in turn, could lead to reductions in the average weight of cattle by 12 per cent,
significantly reducing beef supply. Under such conditions, dairy cows are projected to produce 30%
less milk, and new pests are likely to spread in fruit-growing areas. Additionally, such conditions are
projected to lead to 10% less water for drinking. Based on model projections of coming change
conditions such as these could occur in several food producing regions around the world at the same
time within the next 15-30years, challenging the notion that society’s ability to adapt will make
climate change manageable.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 128 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Hurricanes – Mass Death
Empirically thousands of people die from hurricanes – Katrina proves
Associated Press, 2006
(MSNBC, Katrina Death Toll Likely Higher Than 1,300, July 10, 2008,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11281267)
Nearly six months after Hurricane Katrina, more than 1,300 bodies have been found, but the real death toll is
clearly higher. How much higher, no one can say with any certainty.Hundreds of people are still
unaccounted for, and some of them — again, no one is sure how many — were probably washed into
the Gulf of Mexico, drowned when their fishing boats sank, swept into Lake Pontchartrain or alligator-
infested swamps, or buried under crushed homes, said Dr. Louis Cataldie, Louisiana medical
examiner.Cataldie noted that coffins, disgorged from the earth by the floodwaters, have been found
great distances from their graveyards, and “if we have coffins that have washed 30 miles away, I can
assure you there are people who have.”“The likelihood is there are people we will not find,” he
said.New Orleans Coroner Frank Minyard said a final sweep of homes in the devastated Ninth Ward will
be done this month with help from federal officials. After that, he said, any more bodies found will
probably be discovered in out-of-the-way places by hunters or fishermen.But neither he nor Cataldie
would venture a guess as to how many how many undiscovered victims are out there.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 129 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Middle East Conflict (1/2)
1 – Global warming collapses moderate regimes key to preserving stability between
Israel and Arab nations
Guttman, 2007
Nathan, “Congress Warned That Global Warming Is Threat to Israel and Moderate Arab States,” The Jewish
Daily Forward, June 13, 2007. http://www.forward.com/articles/congress-warned-that-global-warming-
is-threat-to-i/. Accessed on July 10, 2008//grice
Proponents of tough legislation against greenhouse gas emissions are seizing on a new argument in
their attempts to talk lawmakers into taking action: the threat that global warming will lead to
instability in the Middle East and endanger Israel’s security. In a series of briefings last week
on Capitol Hill and with Jewish organizations, a team of experts from Israel presented data indicating
that if action to stop global warming is not taken immediately, moderate regimes in the
Middle East might collapse and tensions between Israel and its neighbors might rise due to
a decrease in rainfall, loss of water sources and increase in extreme weather phenomena.
2 – The next interstate war in the Middle East will go nuclear
John Steinbach. Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG). March 3, 2002
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html accessed 08/15/07
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms
control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle
East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last
resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining
momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major)
target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite
images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in
1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms
control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and
dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar
pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening
Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 130 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Middle East Conflict (2/2)
3 – And, This is the most important war in the debate – Middle East conflict due to
warming is the most likely scenario for conflict – several reasons prove
Guttman, 2007
Nathan, “Congress Warned That Global Warming Is Threat to Israel and Moderate Arab States,” The Jewish Daily Forward, June 13,
2007. http://www.forward.com/articles/congress-warned-that-global-warming-is-threat-to-i/. Accessed on July 10, 2008//grice
“Israel is an insignificant player in contributing to global warming, but it suffers from it in a nonproportional rate,” Bar-Or said. The main
changes, the Israeli experts predicted, would be a drop in the water supply — already a scarce commodity in the Middle East — and an
expected rise in temperature that will make it even more difficult to replenish water sources. According to the information presented this
week, if action is not taken, then Israel might be facing a loss of up to 100 millimeters of rain a year — almost 20% of the country’s
annual rainfall. For Israel, water shortages could influence not only its population but also the future of its relations with neighboring
countries. Israel is already facing difficulties fulfilling its agreement — as part of its 1994 peace treaty with Jordan — to transfer water to
the Hashemite kingdom, and will face great problems when trying to work out water arrangements with Palestinians in a final status
agreement. The Jordanian monarchy, which is based on support of the agricultural communities, might be in danger. The same is true for
the Palestinian leadership, which might encounter an uprising of extremists who will feed on the poverty and despair caused by the
collapse of agriculture due to lack of water. In Egypt, the expected rise of the Mediterranean Sea level could flood rich areas in the Nile’s
Delta and lead to food shortages, which could destabilize the regime. The geopolitical aspects of climate change were recently discussed
in a study in which former generals and admirals of the American military looked at the influence of global warming on national security.
The chapter regarding the Middle East was written by Anthony Zinni, the general who once commanded American military in the region
and then acted as Middle East peace envoy for the Bush administration. “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and
instability or climate change and terrorism,” Zinni wrote. He added: “The existing situation makes [the Middle East] more susceptible
to problems. Even small changes may have a greater impact here than they may have elsewhere.”
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 131 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Mini Ice Age
The Atlantic Conveyor Belt not only exists, but it has the power to change Earth’s
climate.
Kathryn Brown, 2000
(Science News, The Motion in the Ocean, July 8, 2008, accessed on Expanded Academic ASAP)
Despite their peacefulness on postcards, oceans are in constant motion. Winds, for instance, whip surface waters into major currents.
What's more, the North Atlantic Ocean is like a wet conveyor belt, with cold water constantly sinking in the polar regions and then
traveling, deep in the ocean, back toward the tropics. Somewhere en route, scientists say, this colder, deep water must mix with warmer
surface waters--otherwise, almost all the ocean would become cold and Earth's climate would be strikingly different. What watery spoon
stirs the deep sea--and how?
The Great Conveyor Belt exists and could cause the next ice age.
Thom Hartmann, 2004
(Common Dreams.com, How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age, July 8, 2008, http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-
bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0130-11.htm)
It turns out that our warmth is the result of ocean currents that bring warm surface water up from the equator
into northern regions that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered with ice. The
current of greatest concern is often referred to as "The Great Conveyor Belt," which includes what we call the
Gulf Stream. The Great Conveyor Belt, while shaped by the Coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, is mostly
driven by the greater force created by differences in water temperatures and salinity. The North Atlantic
Ocean is saltier and colder than the Pacific, the result of it being so much smaller and locked into place by the
Northern and Southern American Hemispheres on the west and Europe and Africa on the east. As a result,
the warm water of the Great Conveyor Belt evaporates out of the North Atlantic leaving behind saltier waters,
and the cold continental winds off the northern parts of North America cool the waters. Salty, cool waters
settle to the bottom of the sea, most at a point a few hundred kilometers south of the southern tip of
Greenland, producing a whirlpool of falling water that's 5 to 10 miles across. While the whirlpool rarely breaks
the surface, during certain times of year it does produce an indentation and current in the ocean that can tilt
ships and be seen from space (and may be what we see on the maps of ancient mariners). This falling
column of cold, salt-laden water pours itself to the bottom of the Atlantic, where it forms an undersea river
forty times larger than all the rivers on land combined, flowing south down to and around the southern tip of
Africa, where it finally reaches the Pacific. Amazingly, the water is so deep and so dense (because of its cold
and salinity) that it often doesn't surface in the Pacific for as much as a thousand years after it first sank in
the North Atlantic off the coast of Greenland. The out-flowing undersea river of cold, salty water makes the
level of the Atlantic slightly lower than that of the Pacific, drawing in a strong surface current of warm, fresher
water from the Pacific to replace the outflow of the undersea river. This warmer, fresher water slides up
through the South Atlantic, loops around North America where it's known as the Gulf Stream, and ends up off
the coast of Europe. By the time it arrives near Greenland, it's cooled off and evaporated enough water to
become cold and salty and sink to the ocean floor, providing a continuous feed for that deep-sea river flowing
to the Pacific. These two flows - warm, fresher water in from the Pacific, which then grows salty and cools
and sinks to form an exiting deep sea river - are known as the Great Conveyor Belt. Amazingly, the Great
Conveyor Belt is only thing between comfortable summers and a permanent ice age for Europe and the
eastern coast of North America.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 132 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 133 / 189 ]
A shut down of the Great Conveyor Belt has been recognized as the reason for the last
ice age.
Thom Hartmann, 2004
(Common Dreams.com, How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age, July 8, 2008,
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0130-11.htm)
For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago - when the cave paintings in France were produced - the
weather would be pretty much like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a chance
to build culture to the point where they could produce art and reach across large territories. And then
a particularly hard winter would hit. The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to
really arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The next winter would be
brutally cold, and the next spring didn't happen at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being
reached for a few days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that, the summer
never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as
the continent came to be covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out. (Neanderthals,
who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles, appear to have been better adapted to cold
weather than Homo sapiens.) What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was
that the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once the Gulf Stream was no
longer flowing, it only took a year or three for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic
Ocean to dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth to moderate the
northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the north, the rains stopped around the equator: At
the same time Europe was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged by
drought and wind-driven firestorms.
Global Warming will cause the GCB to shut down, which will cause the next ice age.
Thom Hartmann, 2004
(Common Dreams.com, How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age, July 8, 2008, http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-
bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0130-11.htm)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 134 / 189 ]
If the Great Conveyor Belt, which includes the Gulf Stream, were to stop flowing today, the result would be
sudden and dramatic. Winter would set in for the eastern half of North America and all of Europe and
Siberia, and never go away. Within three years, those regions would become uninhabitable and nearly
two billion humans would starve, freeze to death, or have to relocate. Civilization as we know it
probably couldn't withstand the impact of such a crushing blow. And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor
Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best
books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human evolution & abrupt climate change"):
".the abrupt cooling in the last warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the
present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that brings tropical heat so much farther
north and limits the formation of ice sheets? Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of
annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic failures of the past. "In the Labrador
Sea, flushing failed during the 1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the
Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent. Obviously, local failures can occur
without catastrophe - it's a question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the
present state of decline is not very reassuring." Most scientists involved in research on this topic
agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and
thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold
is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years,
and maximally over 100,000 years. And when might that threshold be reached? Nobody knows - the
action of the Great Conveyor Belt in defining ice ages was discovered only in the last decade.
Preliminary computer models and scientists willing to speculate suggest the switch could flip as early
as next year, or it may be generations from now. It may be wobbling right now, producing the
extremes of weather we've seen in the past few years.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 135 / 189 ]
The Great Conveyor Belt relies on a certain balance of salt in the water. Sudden
quantities of freshwater would risk the circulation.
Patrick L. Barry, 2004
(Science @ NASA, A Chilling Possibility, July 8, 2008, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm)
Some scientists worry that melting Arctic sea ice will dump enough freshwater into the North Atlantic to interfere with sea currents.
Some freshwater would come from the ice-melt itself, but the main contributor would be increased rain and snow in the region. Retreating
ice cover exposes more of the ocean surface, allowing more moisture to evaporate into the atmosphere and leading to more precipitation.
Because saltwater is denser and heavier than freshwater, this "freshening" of the North Atlantic would make the surface layers more
buoyant. That's a problem because the surface water needs to sink to drive a primary ocean circulation pattern known as the "Great Ocean
Conveyor." Sunken water flows south along the ocean floor toward the equator, while warm surface waters from tropical latitudes flow
north to replace the water that sank, thus keeping the Conveyor slowly chugging along. An increase in freshwater could prevent this
sinking of North Atlantic surface waters, slowing or stopping this circulation.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 136 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Nuclear War
With the catastrophic effects of global warming, countries will have no other choice but
to go to nuke war.
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris, writers for guaridian.co.uk, February 22, 2004
Guaridian.co.uk, Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us, 7/10/08
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret
report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas
as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across
the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear
threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say
the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once
again, warfare would define human life.' 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely
embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it
is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush
Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 137 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Oscillation
And if you live in the Midwest, you’ll care – heating of the Earth increases moisture
momentum making every storm larger and more destructive.
Stocker 1
(T.F, Professor of Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Switzerland, IPCC Third Assessment
Report, Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 7. Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks, 2001,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar...df/TAR-07.PDF) DMZ
Because moisture convergence is likely to be proportionately enhanced as the moisture content increases, it should lead to similarly
enhanced precipitation rates. Moreover, the latent heat released feed back on the intensity of the storms. These factors suggest that, while
global precipitation exhibits a small increase with modest surface warming, it becomes increasingly concentrated in intense events, as is
observed to be happening in many parts of the world (Karl et al., 1995), including the USA (Karl and Knight, 1998), Japan (Iwashima and
Yamamoto, 1993) and Australia (Suppiah and Hennessy, 1998), thus increasing risk of flooding. However, the overall changes in
precipitation must equal evaporation changes, and this is smaller percentage-wise than the typical change in moisture content in most
model simulations (e.g., Mitchell et al, 1987: roads et al., 1996). Thus there are implications for the frequency of storms or other factors
(duration, efficiency, etc.) that must come into play to restrict the total precipitation. One possibility is that individual storms could be
more intense from the latent heat enhancement, but are fewer and farther between Itren berth, 1998, 1999).
And only a few years of such oscillation will result in the deaths of billions.
Milbrath 94
(Lester, Director of the Research Program in Environment and Society @ the State University of New York, “The Futurist”, p. xi) DMZ
Another scenario suggests that there could be an extended period, perhaps a decade or two, when there is oscillation-type chaos in the
climate system. Plants will be especially vulnerable to oscillating chaos, since they are injured or die when climate is too hot or too cold,
too dry or too wet. And since plants make food for all other creatures, plant dieback would lead to severe declines in agricultural
production. Farm animals and wildlife would die in large numbers. Many humans also would starve. Several years of climate oscillation
could kill billions of people.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 138 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Oxygen – Extinction by
Suffocation
Life will be threatened as CO2 emissions will deny the Earth’s ability to produce oxygen
– we literally suffocate to death.
The monitoring of air samples at Mauna Loa was able to reveal a trend that has continued predictably over time. Since 1955, when
monitoring began, to the present, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen somewhere between 0.5 and 2.88 parts per million per
year. Each year, the blip in the graph that indicates the change of the seasons takes the line to yet a higher level, irrespective of whether
there was a car driving up the side of the mountain or not.'' Global air contains a little more carbon dioxide every year, and the 1998
reading was the biggest increase in a single year ever recorded. The propane car at the observatory was eventually abandoned when an
increase in traffic of regular cars up the mountain made it pointless to attempt to maintain the purity of the air to the same high standard.
Yet despite the fact that the liquid propane needed to run the car wasn't readily available in 1972 (and it cost more than gasoline) and that
the expense involved in converting the engine of a single car to propane was about $600, Dr. Pueschel felt that conversion was worth the
additional expense, even for the average car owner. Dr. Pueschel knew something that virtually no one else knew: what a single
automobile could do to air quality. He personally had witnessed the impact a lone car had made on the monitoring equipment. "Someday
we will have to pay, and it won't be cheap," he predicted. Dr. Pueschel had also seen the relentless upward climb of the meedle measuring
carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere during the previous two decades. Could his warning have been any more clear? "We take for
granted our air is free, but someday we just won't have it anymore." ' The wisdom of hindsight may illuminate what he really meant when
he told the newspaper why they had bought the propane car. Gradually, incrementally, we are changing Earth's atmosphere. But are we
slowly altering our atmosphere away from something that supports human life toward something deadly like the atmosphere of Mars?
Such an atmosphere would have been very familiar to Joseph Black, who isolated the very first atmospheric gas. Unitarian minister
Joseph Priestley would have recognized the atmosphere of Mars as well. So would coal miners from the early part of the 20th century and
the canary that lay gasping at the bottom of the cage, for the atmosphere of Mars is made of fixed air. The atmosphere of Mars is made of
blackdamp. The atmosphere of Mars is made of carbonic acid gas. The atmosphere of Mars is made of a substance that has over time had
many names reflecting the toxic side of its nature. While today we call all of them "carbon dioxide" (which we think of as a benign
product of our own bodies and the harmless bubbles in soda pop), this substance has clearly not always been viewed as a harmless gas.
Nor should it be in the future, for it is time once again to inform our opinions about this substance and recognize its invisible, dark side.
As long as a stylus attached to the monitoring equipment in some lonely station on the top of an inactive volcano in Hawaii continues to
etch a line ratcheting upward-showing the increased amounts of carbon dioxide that, year after year, flood our atmosphere, threatening us-
then we too must think of it very differently. It isn't a matter of speculation. It is a matter of hard, cold scientific fact supported by
numerous studies conducted by many respected scientists. In the overwhelming majority they agree: Earth's atmosphere has far too much
of what we now must think of as carbon die-oxide. It is warming our planet to the point where life, human life, is endangered. We are
going to have to do something decisive and effective about this killer. No matter how successful or enlightened we think ourselves to be,
we are not exempt from the need to act-in the same way that we are not exempt from the need to breathe.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 139 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Ozone – Extinction
Fossil fuel reliance will eventually open up the ozone, making the Earth a giant oven,
guaranteeing extinction.
One can imagine a scenario for global catastrophe that runs similarly. If the human race adopted a mentality like the crew aboard the ship
Californian-as some urge, saying that both ozone hole and global warming will disappear if statistics are properly examined, and we need
do nothing about either-the following scenario could occur. The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuels continue to power it. Rather
than making painful or politically difficult choices, such as investing in fusion research or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the
industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Let's imagine that America and Europe are too worried about
economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more
catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations' heartlands. The seas rise, the
tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but
profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil,
the Nile dries up and the monsoons fail. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs-a major
volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not
occur have paid little attention to life or Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and
Russia . . . Suddenly the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of
dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down precipitously as oxygen replaces lost
oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump
carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the
heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the
greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving
scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, "See! I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!" Earth, as we know it, dies. After this
Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its
ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be the second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost-as is its water-
because of ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth
becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The
carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars-red, desolate, with
perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving. In what was once Egypt, near a large but dried-out river bed, a group of pyramids and an eroded
Sphinx confront the dead sky. In a distant future a passing probe from another civilization takes a picture, but most of the scientists who
see it are skeptical that it could represent anything artificial and ridicule those who think otherwise.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 140 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Poverty
1 – Effects of Climate Change uniquely affect impoverished nations ill prepared for
disaster causing migration of displaced peoples
With over 400 million people living in drier, subtropical, often over-populated and
economically poor regions today, climate change and its follow-on effects pose a severe
risk to political, economic, and social stability. In less prosperous regions, where countries
lack the resources and capabilities required to adapt quickly to more severe conditions, the problem
is very likely to be exacerbated. For some countries, climate change could become such a
challenge that mass emigration results as the desperate peoples seek better lives in
regions such as the United States that have the resources to adaptation.
2 – Poverty is the deadliest form of violence it outweighs your disads
Mumia Abu-Jamal, former Reporter and Death Row inmate, 1998
[“A QUIET AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,” 9/19/98, http://www.mumia.nl/TCCDMAJ/quietdv.htm]

It has often been observed that America is a truly violent nation, as shown by the thousands of cases of social and communal violence that
occurs daily in the nation. Every year, some 20,000 people are killed by others, and additional 20,000 folks kill themselves. Add to this
the nonlethal violence that Americans daily inflict on each other, and we begin to see the tracings of a nation immersed in a fever of
violence. But, as remarkable, and harrowing as this level and degree of violence is, it is, by far, not the most violent feature of living in the
midst of the American empire. We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging
"structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer,
Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the
bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of
them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to
distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I
mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the
deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." -- (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections
On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate,
ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really? Gilligan
notes: "[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that
caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed
by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,
thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world." [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse still, in
a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized, turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the
priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of
the social order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifested in familial violence as when the husband
beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by
the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who suffer in its grips, feeds on
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 141 / 189 ]
the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes damn sure -- that we can recognize and must react to it. This
fatal and systematic violence may be called The War on the Poor.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 142 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Poverty – Extension to #1
Climate change impacts are greatest in less-resilient developing nations
Each of these local disasters caused by severe weather impacts surrounding areas whose
natural, human, and economic resources are tapped to aid in recovery. The positive feedback
loops and acceleration of the warming pattern begin to trigger responses that weren’t previously
imagined, as natural disasters and stormy weather occur in both developed and lesser-
developed nations. Their impacts are greatest in less-resilient developing nations, which
do not have the capacity built into their social, economic, and agricultural systems to
absorb change.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 143 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Poverty – Extension to #2
These higher standards of living need to be uphold—we have a moral obligation to fight
poverty and uphold human rights
Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, UN general assembly president. General Assembly, GA/SM/380, HR/4910,
OBV/602, Department of Public Information. 8 December 2006
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gasm380.doc.htm accessed May 24, 2007
This year, we commemorate Human Rights Day with the theme “Fighting Poverty: a matter of obligation not
charity”. When poverty is so immediate and the suffering so intense, the world has a moral and
strategic obligation to fight poverty and to address the human rights concerns of the most vulnerable.
The poorest are more likely to experience human rights violations, discrimination or other forms of
persecution. Being poor makes it harder to find a job and get access to basic services, such as health
care, education and housing. Poverty is above all about having no power and no voice. History is
littered with well-meaning, but failed solutions. If we are to eradicate poverty and promote human
rights, we need to take action to empower the poor and address the root causes of poverty, such as
discrimination and social exclusion. It is because human rights, poverty reduction and the
empowerment of the poor go hand in hand that we all have a moral duty to take action.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 144 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Reefs – Disease
Disease is the most dangerous harm for coral, with an increase in climate, comes an
increase in disease among coral.
Rhett Butler, tropical biologist (background is in math and economics), been involved with tropical rainforests since 1995. May 7, 2007.
Monbay.com, Global warming is killing coral reefs, http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0507-coral.html Accessed on July 7, 2008//DH
A new study provides further evidence that climate change is adversely affecting coral reefs. While previous studies have linked higher
ocean temperatures to coral bleaching events, the new research, published in PLoS Biology, found that climate change may increasing the
incidence of disease in Great Barrier Reef corals. Omniously, the research also shows that healthy reefs, with the highest density of corals,
are hit the hardest by disease. "More diseases are infecting more coral species every year, leading to the global loss of reef-building corals
and the decline of other important species dependent on reefs," said Bruno. "We've long suspected climate change is driving disease
outbreaks. Our results suggest that warmer temperatures are increasing the severity of disease in the ocean."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 145 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Resource Wars
Climate change spurs resource wars causing global instability
“October 2003: Pentagon Report Predicts Global Warming Will Result in Resource Wars, Chaos,”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=doug_randall_1. Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice

A Pentagon-commissioned analysis on the potential impact of rapid global climate change warns
that such an event would likely cause global instability on a massive scale as governments
try by any means to defend and secure diminishing food, water, and energy supplies.
“Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,” the report suggests. “Once again,
warfare would define human life.” Wealthier nations “may build virtual fortresses around their
countries”in order to keep out millions of starving and displaced refugees. The report’s authors, Peter
Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of
the California-based Global Business Network, believe the threat is serious and possibly imminent.
Randall tells the London Observer that it may already be too late to avert a disaster. “We don’t know
exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for
another five years,” he says. In their analysis, the authors say the issue “should be elevated
beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern.” It is “plausible and would
challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.” The report
recommends additional research on the issue and preparing a contingency plan to deal with the
potential impacts of a catastrophic change in the climate. “No-regrets strategies should be identified
and implemented to ensure reliable access to food supply and water, and to ensure national security.”
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 146 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Runaway Greenhouse Effect
Global Warming turns the planet into a fiery Mars – all life will end
Dr. Brandenberg, Physicist (Ph.D.) and Paxson a science writer ’99 – John and Monica, Dead Mars Dying Earth p. 232-3
The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere,
but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no
longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in
bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fail.
Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs—a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift
in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not occur have paid little attention to life or Mars),
or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and Russia . . . Suddenly the gradual climb in global
temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths
into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down precipitously as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then
double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which
further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which
release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a
runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See!
I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!” Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen
disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the
Sun for it to be the second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost—as is its water—because of ultraviolet bombardment breaking
up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while
temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a
thin veneer with a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars—red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes
surviving.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 147 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Storms
Global Warming Has Lead to an Increase in Severe Storms
It's almost a point of pride with climatologists. Whenever someplace is hit with a heat wave, drought, killer
storm or other extreme weather, scientists trip over themselves to absolve global warming. No
particular weather event, goes the mantra, can be blamed on something so general. Extreme weather
occurred before humans began loading up the atmosphere with heat-trapping greenhouse gases such
as carbon dioxide. So this storm or that heat wave could be the result of the same natural forces that
prevailed 100 years ago—random movements of air masses, unlucky confluences of high- and low-
pressure systems—rather than global warming. This pretense has worn thin. The frequency of
downpours and heat waves, as well as the power of hurricanes, has increased so
dramatically that "100-year storms" are striking some areas once every 15 years, and other
once rare events keep returning like a bad penny. As a result, some climatologists now say
global warming is to blame. Rising temperatures boost the probability of extreme weather,
says Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center and lead author of a new report
from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program; that can "lead to the type
of events we are seeing in the Midwest." There, three weeks of downpours have caused
rivers to treat their banks as no more than mild suggestions. Think of it this way: if once we
experienced one Noachian downpour every 20 years, and now we suffer five, four are likely
man-made.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 148 / 189 ]
Human Activity is the cause of Severe Storms

It's been easier to connect global warming to rising temperatures than to extreme weather events—
and even the former hasn't been easy. Only in this decade have "attribution" studies managed to
finger greenhouse gases as the chief cause of the rising mercury, rather than a hotter sun or cyclical
changes. (The last two produce a different pattern of climate change than man-made warming does.)
Now the same "whatdunit?" techniques are being applied to droughts, downpours, heat waves and
powerful hurricanes. "We can look at climate-model simulations and likely attribute [specific extreme
weather] to human activity," says Gerry Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Global Warming alters weather patterns
Easterling et al Science Magazine 2000
<Science Magazine, 7-7-08, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;289/5487/2068.pdf>
One of the major concerns with a potential change in climate is that an increase in extreme events will occur. Results of
observational studies suggest that in many areas that have been analyzed, changes in total precipitation are ampliÞed at
the tails, and changes in some temperature extremes have been observed. Model output has been analyzed that shows
changes in extreme events for future climates, such as increases in extreme high temperatures, decreases in extreme
low temperatures, and increases in intense precipitation events. In addition, the societal infrastructure is becoming more
sensitive to weather and climate extremes, which would be exacerbated by climate change. In wild plants and animals,
climate-induced extinctions, distributional and phenological changes, and speciesÕ range shifts are being documented at
an increasing rate. Several apparently gradual biological changes are linked to responses to extreme weather and climate
events.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 149 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Storms – Floods
Global Warming Causes Floods

The Midwest, for instance, suffered three weeks of intense rain in May and June, with more than five
inches falling on some days. That brought a reprise of the area's 1993 flooding, which was thought to
be a once-in-500-years event. The proximate cause was the western part of the jet stream dipping
toward the Gulf of Mexico, then rising toward Iowa—funneling moisture from the gulf to the Midwest,
says meteorologist Bill Gallus of (the very soggy) Iowa State University. The puzzle, he says, is why the
trough kept reforming in the west, creating a rain-carrying conveyor belt that, like a nightmarish
version of a Charlie Chaplin movie, wouldn't turn off. One clue is that global warming has caused the
jet stream to shift north. That has brought, and will continue to bring, more tropical storms to the
nation's north, and may push around the jet stream in other ways as well.
Global Warming Causes both Floods and Droughts
Global warming has left its clearest fingerprint on heat waves. Since the record scorcher of 1998, the average
annual temperatures in the United States in six of the past 10 years have been among the hottest 10
percent on record. Climatologists predict that days so hot they now arrive only once every 20 years
will, by midcentury, hit the continental United States once every three years. Scientists also discern a
greenhouse fingerprint in downpours, which in the continental United States have increased 20
percent over the past century. In a warmer world, air holds more water vapor, so when cloud
conditions are right for that vapor to form droplets, more precipitation falls. Man-made climate change
is also causing more droughts on top of those that occur naturally: attribution studies trace droughts
such as that gripping the Southwest to higher sea-surface temperatures, especially in the Pacific.
Those can fluctuate naturally, as they did when they caused the severe droughts of the 1930s and
1950s. But they are also rising due to global warming, causing a complicated cascade of changes in air
circulation that shuts down rainfall.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 150 / 189 ]
Global Warming Bad – Terrorism
1 – US Terrorism will increase because of Global Warming.
(MSNBC, Report: Global Warming May be Security Factor, July 9, 2008,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18123962/)
Global warming poses a “serious threat to America’s national security” with terrorism
worsening and the U.S. will likely be dragged into fights over water and other shortages,
top retired military leaders warn in a new report. Joining calls already made by scientists and
environmental activists, the retired U.S. military leaders, including the former Army chief of staff and
President Bush’s former chief Middle East peace negotiator, called on the U.S. government to make
major cuts in emissions of gases that cause global warming. The report warned that in the next 30 to
40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising
sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. “The chaos that results can be an incubator of
civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism,” the 35-page report predicted. “Climate
change exacerbates already unstable situations,” former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan
told Associated Press Radio. “Everybody needs to start paying attention to what’s going on. I don’t
think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We’re paying attention to what those security
implications are.” Gen. Anthony “Tony” Zinni, Bush’s former Middle East envoy, said in the report:
“It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate
change and terrorism.” The report was issued by the Alexandria, Va.-based, national security think-
tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They
warned of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make
already dicey areas — such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa — even worse. “Weakened
and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for
internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical
ideologies,” the report said. “The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these
situations.”
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 151 / 189 ]
2 – And, The impact is extinction
Yonah Alexander; Senior Fellow and Director of the International Center for Terrorism Studies, 2/28/2002
(The University of Wisconsin Press; Terrorism in the 21st Century;
http://www.wisc.edu/wisconsinpress/terrorism.html)
The September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States have demonstrated that terrorism has unfortunately
become a permanent feature of contemporary life. The safety and welfare of ordinary people, the
stability of state systems, the health and pace of economic development, the expansion of democracy,
and even survival of civilization itself are all threatened by this phenomenon. Today's terrorists are
better organized, more professional, and better equipped than their historical counterparts.
Technological developments offer new targets-and their possible use of chemical, biological, and
nuclear violence to achieve mass disruption or political turmoil is a real possibility. The advent of
information warfare and cyber-terrorism is a new feature of this potential challenge to the very
survival of civilization.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 152 / 189 ]
Global warming affected areas could be the breeding ground for terrorism.
CNN, June 25, 2008
CNN, Global warming could increase terrorism, official says; 7/10/08,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/
Global warming could destabilize "struggling and poor" countries around the world, prompting mass migrations and creating breeding
grounds for terrorists, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday. Climate change "will aggravate
existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions,"
Thomas Fingar said. "All of this threatens the domestic stability of a number of African, Asian, Central American and Central Asian
countries." People are likely to flee destabilized countries, and some may turn to terrorism, he said. "Economic refugees will perceive
additional reasons to flee their homes because of harsher climates," Fingar predicted. That will put pressure on countries receiving
refugees, many of which "will have neither the resources nor interest to host these climate migrants," he said in testimony to the House
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
The impact of fighting the problems of global warming will outweigh global warming
itself.
CNN, June 25, 2008
CNN, Global warming could increase terrorism, official says; 7/10/08,

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/
The impact of fighting and preparing for climate change may be greater than the effect of global warming itself, Fingar said.
"Government, business and public efforts to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to deal with climate change -- from policies to
reduce greenhouse gases to plans to reduce exposure to climate change or capitalize on potential impacts -- may affect U.S. national
security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate change itself," he said. The report, the "National Intelligence Assessment
on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030," relied on U.S. government, military, academic and United
Nations studies of climate change.
Because of the adverse effects of global warming, the increase of stress on countries
will lead to terrorism.
Larry West, is a professional writer and editor who has written many articles about environmental issues for leading newspapers,
magazines and online publications. He has been a guide at About.com since 2004, June 12, 2007. About.com, Terrorism Linked to
Global Warming, 7/10/08, http://environment.about.com/b/2007/06/12/terrorism-linked-to-global-warming.htm
It turns out that finding solutions to global warming may be more than a global environmental priority; it could also be a matter of
national security. According to a report by the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired general officers from all branches of the U.S.
military, there is a clear link between climate change and terrorism. Global warming will lead to droughts, more frequent and severe
hurricanes and storms, and rising sea levels that are predicted to destabilize many nations and to create as many as 50 million
environmental refugees by 2010. People left homeless or plunged into poverty, hunger and disease by rising temperatures and other
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 153 / 189 ]
effects of global warming are likely to be susceptible to extremist ideologies. Amy Zalman, Guide to Terrorism Issues for About.com, has
more details.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 154 / 189 ]
If we do not solve the root problem of the droughts then there will continue to be more
war
Ban Ki Moon, United Nations Secretary-General, 16 June 2007

Washington Post, “A Climate Culprit In Darfur”, 07/10/08, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061501857.html
The stakes go well beyond Darfur. Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist and one of my senior
advisers, notes that the violence in Somalia grows from a similarly volatile mix of food and water
insecurity. So do the troubles in Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso. There are many other parts of the
world where such problems will arise, for which any solutions we find in Darfur will be relevant. We
have made slow but steady progress in recent weeks. The people of Darfur have suffered too much,
for too long. Now the real work begins.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 155 / 189 ]
Scientist starting to believe there’s nothing we can do.
MARK LYNUS author of High Tide: News from a Warming World 2004 . News Statesman, Global Warming: Is it Already too Late?
7/8/08 Expanded Academic ASAP
But what if this is wrong? What if global warming is already unstoppable and is now accelerating uncontrollably? What if we have
reached the point of no return and there is nothing we can do except wait for the end? Scientists are naturally cautious people, but a
growing number fear that this may be the case. One ominous indicator comes from a US atmospheric sampling station 3,000 metres up on
the northern flank of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. Since the 1950s, this station--and dozens of others dotted around the globe from
Alaska to the South Pole--have recorded a steady increase in carbon-dioxide concentrations. The average year-on-year rise is 1.5ppm.
Over the past two years, the rate of accumulation has doubled--to nearly 3ppm. This could mean that the rate of fossil-fuel burning has
doubled--but it hasn't. The alternative explanation is that the biosphere "sinks", which used to absorb carbon, have suddenly shut down.
To understand the implications of this second possibility, we need to look at how global warming works. Every year, humans burn enough
coal, oil and gas to add roughly six billion tonnes of carbon to the global atmosphere. This carbon was formerly trapped underground, laid
down between rock deposits from much earlier (and warmer) phases in the earth's history. About half of this extra annual dose of carbon--
three billion tonnes--is soaked up by oceans and plants. It is the other half that steadily accumulates in the atmosphere and causes all the
trouble. The fear is that, as temperatures rise, global warming, in a process that scientists call "positive feedback", will itself increase the
amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, regardless of what humans do: in other words, the oceans and plants will stop soaking up
those three billion tonnes. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Centre, which specialises in climate-change research, published an
alarming paper in Nature in 2000 which gave the results of a computer simulation of the future global carbon cycle. It showed that if
greenhouse-gas emissions continued, the Amazon rainforest ecosystem would begin to collapse, releasing vast quantities of stored carbon
into the atmosphere in addition to the man-made carbon emissions. After about 2050, even more carbon would pour into the air from
warming soils around the world. The combined effect would be enough to increase C[O.sub.2] in the atmosphere by another 250ppm-
equivalent to a temperature rise of an extra 1.5[degrees] Celsius above previous predictions
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 156 / 189 ]
Once the tower tips, Ice Age impacts reach extreme in just a few days
Burns, 2008
John, “Climate change, Global Warming and our Earth,” Australia’s National Website. July 7, 2008.
http://www.australia.to/story/0,25197,23040467-445,00,00.html. Accessed on July 7, 2008//grice
NEWCASTLE, Australia - My understanding is that during the last great climate upheaval, the outer
atmosphere was so disrupted by massive external forces, along with the fact that as a result of far
warmer convectional currents streaming from the lower latitudes, which were laced with massive
amounts of moisture, they were now able to travel to vastly higher latitudes, than otherwise was
previously the case, at the time. This development allowed far, far, higher altitudes to be obtained by
these moisture laden clouds. The outcome, once a certain tipping point occurred, caused a cascade of
events to unfold in a very short time. Maybe, over only a few hours or days, were the most extreme
events experienced, at different intensities, at thousands of locations, all over the Earth
simultaneously and then in alternating periods.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 157 / 189 ]
***Global Warming Bad***
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 158 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Agriculture (AT: Warming Kill
Plants)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 159 / 189 ]
The conditions that these climate changes are providing are ideal for all plants.
Jerry Taylor, Under his direction, the Cato Institute has become an influential critic of federal and state environmental policy. Taylor is
active on the lecture circuit and one of the most frequently cited experts in energy and environmental policy in the nation, January 16,
1998. Cato Institute, Global Warming: The Anatomy of the Debate, 7/8/08 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6843
If warming takes place primarily at night, the negative vision of future climate change is wrong. Evaporation rate increases, which are a
primary cause of projected increases in drought frequency, are minimized with nighttime, as opposed to daytime, warming. The growing
season is also longer because that period is primarily determined by night low temperatures. Further, many plants, including some
agriculturally important species, will show enhanced growth with increased moisture efficiency because of the well-known "fertilizer"
effect of CO2. Finally, terrestrial environments with small daily temperature ranges, such as tropical forests, tend to have more biomass
than those with large ones (i.e., deserts and high latitude communities) so we should expect a greener planet.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 160 / 189 ]
Empirically proved in past research, higher Co2 levels are good for plants.
Carlisle, 2001
John.“Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment,” National Policy Analysis, April 2001.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html. Accessed on July 8, 2008//DH
Indeed, far from being a poisonous gas that will wreak havoc on the planet's ecosystem, carbon
dioxide is arguably the Earth's best friend in that trees, wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous
other plants significantly benefit from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Dr. Craig Idso of
the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, one of the nation's leading carbon
dioxide research centers, examined records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and air
temperature over the last 250,000 years. There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that
occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those
warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon
dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Concludes
Dr. Idso, "Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at
the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will necessarily lead to any
global warming."1 On the other hand, scientists have lots of evidence demonstrating that increased
carbon dioxide levels leads to healthier plants. A team of scientists in Nevada conducted a five-year
experiment in which they grew one group of ponderosa pine trees at the current carbon dioxide
atmospheric level of about 360 parts per million (ppm) and another group of pines at 700 ppm. The
doubled carbon dioxide level increased tree height by 43 percent and diameter by 24 percent.
Similarly, a team of scientists from Virginia Tech University reported that growing loblolly pine trees in
a greenhouse with a carbon dioxide concentration of 700 ppm increased average tree height 9
percent, diameter by 7 percent, needle biomass by 16 percent and root biomass by 33 percent.2
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 161 / 189 ]
Extra Co2 for plants makes them stronger, and allows them to survive in harsher
environments.
John Carlisle, published op/eds in more than 250 newspapers and authored numerous policy papers covering the environment, education,
welfare, crime, legal reform and health care. His work has appeared or been cited in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago
Sun-Times, Houston Chronicle, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, US News and World Report, Sun-Sentinel, St. Paul Pioneer
Press and CNS News. He has also appeared on Fox News Channel and BBC television. He earned a bachelors degree in political science
at North Carolina State University and a masters in political science at Boston College, April, 2001
The more CO2 in the environment, the bigger and stronger plants get.
Tom Kuennen, 2004
(Primer on Climate Change, Global Warming: Plants CO2, July 9, 2008,

http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/greening_earth.html)
What once was a commonplace high school biology teaching has become a news item from coast to coast: From endangered rain forests
in the Amazon Basin to the prairies of the Great Plains, elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will help plants grow more
vigorously, resist disease better, and even better utilize water. An avalanche of scientific literature buttresses what we know about how
enhanced concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) boost plant yields. Enriched CO2 levels in the air greatly enhance growth and water use
efficiency in almost all the world's vegetation. What's exciting is how these enhanced CO2 levels -- the result of the
combustion of fossil fuels for low-cost electricity and transportation -- will accelerate plant science and farm productivity, mitigate
hunger, increase personal incomes and enhance the greening of America. The facts are irrefutable: o In The Netherlands, researchers at
the Glasshouse Climate & Technology Research Station for Floriculture & Glasshouse Vegetables grow vegetables such as cucumbers,
tomatoes, eggplant, squash, lettuce and radishes at two to four times the atmospheric CO2 level, that is, between 700 to 1,400 parts per
million (ppm). "The results of growing at elevated CO2 levels are more rapid growth, earlier maturity, larger fruit size, greater weight,
and a greater total yield of about 25 percent," said the station's chief, Gustaaf Anton van den Berg. o At the University of Florida,
elevated CO2 levels are stimulating rice growth and grain yield by factors of 30 to 40 percent. "We get increased carbon uptake through
photosynthesis," said Dr. Jeffrey Baker, of the UF Agronomy Department. "We also get a decline in total water use, and all this translates
into an increase in grain yield." o Higher CO2 levels have greatly increased the growth of cotton crops, reports Dr. Bruce Kimball, Water
Conservation Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture. "We found that in enriching the crop to about 550 parts per million -- which is
200 parts per million above our control plots -- that the growth is increased by about 40 percent more."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 162 / 189 ]
Scientific Consensus on the fact that plants will grow stronger with more CO2
Salynn Boyles, 06
(CBS News, Global Warming May Compound Allergies, Researchers Say Rising, July 9, 2008,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/health/webmd/main1690993.shtml)
Center for Health and the Global Environment co-director Paul Epstein, M.D., tells WebMD that while the political debate over global
warming continues, it is clear that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising, caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "There is no
question about this within the scientific community," he says. "It is a fact." Plants grow larger and use water more efficiently when
exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide. Because of this, Epstein says, some people believe increasing levels may be a good thing,
resulting in better crops and a greener planet.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 163 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Saves Rainforests
In rainforest conditions where green house gasses are worse, trees thrive and
flourish on all this Co2.
John Carlisle, published op/eds in more than 250 newspapers and authored numerous policy papers covering the environment, education,
welfare, crime, legal reform and health care. His work has appeared or been cited in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago
Sun-Times, Houston Chronicle, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, US News and World Report, Sun-Sentinel, St. Paul Pioneer
Press and CNS News. He has also appeared on Fox News Channel and BBC television. He earned a bachelors degree in political science
at North Carolina State University and a masters in political science at Boston College, April, 2001
National Policy Analysis, Carbon Dioxide is Good for the Environment, 7/9/08 http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html
Another benefit of enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide is that it helps the tropical rainforests. Scientists from Venezuela and the United
Kingdom grew several species of tropical trees and other plants in greenhouse conditions at carbon dioxide concentrations double the
current level. The plants responded favorably, showing an increase in photosynthetic activity. The scientists concluded that, "In a future
atmosphere with a higher carbon dioxide concentration, these species should be able to show a higher productivity than today."5 Another
team of British and New Zealand researchers grew tropical trees for 119 days at elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. They
found that the enriched carbon dioxide environment stimulated the trees' root growth by 23 percent. Expanded root systems help tropical
trees by increasing their ability to absorb water and nutrients.6 Bigger trees, increased resistance to bad weather, improved agricultural
productivity and a boon to rainforests are just some of the many benefits that carbon dioxide bestows on the environment. With little
evidence that carbon dioxide triggers dangerous global warming but lots of evidence showing how carbon dioxide helps the environment,
environmentalists should be extolling the virtues of this benign greenhouse gas.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 164 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Health and Welfare
Global Warming increases the health and welfare of civilization
A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human
civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed
the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario
reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was
even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James
Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a
warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced
and adaptable civilization today.”
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 165 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Prevents Next Ice Age
1 - The Use of fossil fuels will prevent the next ices age.
Shirley Gregory, 2007
(Associated Content, Rising carbon Dioxide Could Prevent Ice Age Cycle, July 9, 2008,
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/364413/rising_carbon_dioxide_could_prevent.html?cat=47)
Humans have put so much extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that the normal pattern of recurring ice ages is probably going to be
disrupted for the next 100,000 to 500,000 years, according to new research from the University of Southampton in the U.K. Toby Tyrrell
of the university's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton used a mathematical model
to determine how rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide would affect the world's oceans. He found that, as the oceans absorb more
carbon dioxide from the air and the water becomes more acidic, the calcium carbonate in shelled creatures dissolves, which adds even
more carbon to the oceans. The result is that higher levels of carbon dioxide are likely to persist even if humans drastically reduce their
burning of fossil fuels. "Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil
fuels," Tyrrell said. "It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be
the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."
From the start of the Industrial Age through the present, humans have burned about 300 gigatons (a gigaton is 1 billion tons) of fossil
fuels. Tyrrell's research suggests that, if people eventually burn a total of 1,000 gigatons of fossil fuels, the next regular ice age cycle will
not occur. If humans burn all the fossil fuel reserves left, believed to total about 4,000 gigatons, the Earth could skip the next five ice ages.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 166 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Costly to Prevent Nationally
(Spending Link)
Efforts to stop Global Warming would be expensive
<Heartland Institute, 7-7-08, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548 Accessed on July

7,2008//TW>
Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not
stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent
below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher
energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in
annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax
revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower
property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce
global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 167 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Costly to Prevent by States
(Spending Link)
Efforts by State Governments are even more expensive

Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and
threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s,
states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states
nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New
Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction
programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is
destroy jobs and waste money.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 168 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Decreases Hurricanes
1 – Global Warming Lowers the Number of Severe Storms
Burdeau AP Writer January 24, 2008
<USA TODAY, 7-7-08, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-24-1717934600_x.htm>

A study released Wednesday by government scientists was the latest point of contention. The study
by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Miami Lab and the University
of Miami postulated that global warming may actually decrease the number of hurricanes that
strike the United States. Warming waters may increase vertical wind speed, or wind shear,
cutting into a hurricane's strength.
2 – Empirically, thousands of people die from hurricanes – Katrina proves
(MSNBC, Katrina Death Toll Likely Higher Than 1,300, July 10, 2008,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11281267)
Nearly six months after Hurricane Katrina, more than 1,300 bodies have been found, but the real
death toll is clearly higher. How much higher, no one can say with any certainty.Hundreds of
people are still unaccounted for, and some of them — again, no one is sure how many — were
probably washed into the Gulf of Mexico, drowned when their fishing boats sank, swept into Lake
Pontchartrain or alligator-infested swamps, or buried under crushed homes, said Dr. Louis Cataldie,
Louisiana medical examiner.Cataldie noted that coffins, disgorged from the earth by the floodwaters,
have been found great distances from their graveyards, and “if we have coffins that have washed 30
miles away, I can assure you there are people who have.”“The likelihood is there are people we will
not find,” he said.New Orleans Coroner Frank Minyard said a final sweep of homes in the devastated
Ninth Ward will be done this month with help from federal officials. After that, he said, any more
bodies found will probably be discovered in out-of-the-way places by hunters or
fishermen.But neither he nor Cataldie would venture a guess as to how many how many
undiscovered victims are out there.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 169 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Decreases Hurricanes –
Extension of #1
Increases in Hurricanes have Nothing to do with Climate Change
Landsea Et Al. NOAA Climate and Global Change Fellowship, 1998
<Monthly Weather Review, 7-8-08>
Some have asked (e.g., Begley 1996) whether the increase in hurricanes during 1995 is related to the global
surface temperature increases that have been observed over the last century, some contribution of
which is often ascribed to increases in anthropogenic ‘‘greenhouse’’gases (Houghton et al. 1996). We
conclude that such an interpretation is not warranted, particularly in light of the large-scale patterns of
oceanic and atmospheric conditions that can be linked coherently and tangibly to the observed
interannual variability of hurricane activity. Additionally, Atlantic hurricane activity has actually
decreased significantly in both frequency of intense hurricanes and mean intensity of all named
storms over the past few decades (Landsea et al. 1996).This holds true even with the inclusion of
1995’s Atlantic hurricane season. It is likely that this multidecadalvariability (Landsea et al. 1992; Gray
et al. 1997) is primarily of natural origin, and is partly related to the sometimes large interdecadal
variability of the Sahel rainfall (Nicholson 1989), Southern Oscillation (Quinnet al. 1987), and to known
atmospheric circulation patterns that control the distribution of vertical shear over the tropical North
Atlantic.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 170 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Economy (1/2)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 171 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Economy (2/2)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 172 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – AT: Increases Storms
Some Believe Global Warming Increases Storms, No Evidence
Mahlman Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1997
<Science Magazine, 7-7-08, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/278/5342/1416>
There are a number of statements in informal writings that are not supported by climate science or
projections with high-quality climate models. Some of these statements may appear to be physically
plausible, but the evidence for their validity is weak, and some are just wrong. There are assertions
that the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, and typhoons per year will increase. That is possible,
but there appears to be no credible evidence to substantiate such assertions. Assertions that winds in
midlatitude (versus tropical) cyclones will become more intense do not appear to have credible
scientific support. It is theoretically plausible that smaller-scale storms such as thunderstorms or
squall lines could become stronger under locally favorable conditions, but the direct evidence remains
weak.
There is no way to accurately Record an Increase in Storms due to Global Warming
Pielke et al Center for Science and Technology Policy Research University of Colorado 2006
<Reply to “Hurricanes and Global Warming- Potential Linkages and Consequences”, 7-8-08,
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/
admin/publication_files/resource-2458-2006.06.pdf>
Such conclusions were mirrored in the theoretical work by Emanuel (2004): Can one detect an actual
increase in global tropical cyclone intensity? . . . Since 1950 . . . one would expect to have observed an
average increase in intensity of around 0.5 m/s or 1 knot. Because tropical cyclone maximum wind
speeds are only reported at 5-knot intervals and are not believed to be accurate to better than 5 to 10
knots, and given the large interannual variability of tropical cyclone activity, such an increase would
not be detectable. Thus any increase in hurricane intensity that may have already occurred as a result
of global warming is inconsequential compared to natural variability.
No Proof of a Link between Global Warming and Storms
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 173 / 189 ]
Pielke et al Center for Science and Technology Policy Research University of Colorado 2006
<Reply to “Hurricanes and Global Warming- Potential Linkages and Consequences”, 7-8-08,
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/
admin/publication_files/resource-2458-2006.06.pdf>
In a second criticism, Anthes et al. (2006) point out (quite accurately) that Pielke et al. (2005) failed to
discuss the relationship between global warming and rainfall, sea level, and storm surge as related to
tropical cyclones. The explanation for this neglect is simple—there is no documented relationship
between global warming and the observed behavior of tropical cyclones (or TC impacts) related to
rainfall, sea level, or storm surge. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does expect
in the future an intensification of the hydrological cycle, including increased precipitation (IPCC 2001).
With respect to rainfall observations to date, a global study has yet to be conducted; however,
Groisman et al. (2004) showed no trends in U.S. tropical storm and hurricane precipitation, though
substantial multidecadal variations have been analyzed. This is consistent with expectations for a
minor increase in tropical cyclone rainfall several decades from now. Like tropical cyclone intensity
change, definitive linkages between greenhouse gases and tropical cyclone precipitation may be
difficult to conclusively attribute because of the relative size of the expected signal as compared to
documented variability. Indeed, International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group (2005) was
unable to attribute historical trends and variations in precipitation to greenhouse gases, so there is no
observational basis presently for claiming a linkage between greenhouse gases and TC-related rainfall.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 174 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – AT: Fire Storms
Global Warming has and will continue to Reduce the number of Fires
Flannigan et al 1995
Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown in many field
studies from North America and Europe. We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency
in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency. Simulations of present and future fire
regimes, using daily outputs from the General Circulation Model (GCM), were in good agreement with recent trends observed in fire
history studies. Daily data, rather than monthly data, were used be-cause the weather and, consequently, fire behavior can change
dramatically over time periods much shorter than a month. The simulation and fire history results suggest that the impact of global
warming on northern forests through forest fires may not be disastrous and that, contrary to the expectation of an overall
increase in forest fires, there may be large regions of the Northern Hemisphere with a reduced fire frequency.
Those fires just occur in fire-prone areas
Huck Writer for the New Zealand Herald 2007
<New Zealand Herald, 7-8-08, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10472570>
"I don't believe this week's fires are so much a global change result, as just a product of a severe Santa Ana, lots of dry fuel and fires
starting pretty close to development," said Dan Cayan, a scientist who participated in a report by the California Climate Change Centre
last year on the impact of global warming. His house had just burned down. And Tom Wordell, a National Interagency Fire Centre
analyst, noted California is a "fire-prone environment, regardless of whether we are in a climate change scenario".
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 175 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – AT: Reefs
Coral reefs can easily be restored
Pacific, December 5, 2005. Open Democracy, Global warming and coral reefs, 7/7/08, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-
climate_change_debate/2558.jsp
Large-scale application of Biorock reef restoration technology may offer one of the only long-term hopes for coral reefs, since global
warming, pollution, and new diseases are now beyond control. This method allows corals to grow three to five times faster and have a
survival rate of high temperatures sixteen to fifty times higher than background. Biorock reefs not only keep corals alive where they
would die, they allow us to grow reefs where natural recovery is impossible (for more on this, see our article on work in the Maldives).
Fishermen can use them to grow whole reefs supporting huge school s of fish and harvest fish sustainably, becoming reef farmers instead
of hunters killing the last big game.
Climate changes happen with or without humans, and coral always survives.
Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, August 2, 2006. Cato.org,
Okay Coral, 7/8/08, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6563
Fewer than 100 million years ago, or 400 million years after corals first arose, the carbon dioxide concentration was a bit less than 3,000
ppm. Around 175 million years ago it was pushing 6,000. If there was that much more carbon dioxide around, the oceans would have
been that much more acidic, which would have killed the corals. And yet they lived. Then there's the problem of identifying a definite
decline in corals. The report says that it is "difficult" to find this effect, and that "on average" it does not exist, because the rates of coral
growth are controlled by many other factors that are apparently obscuring their decline.
Coral can recover faster than what you think, nature could survive a nuclear bomb.
Cato Institute, April 17, 2008
Cato@Library, The Remarkable Reliance on Nature, 7/8/08, http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/17/the-remarkable-resilience-of-

nature-nuked-and-fried-but-fragile-coral-reefs-come-back/
It was blasted by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States but half a century on, Bikini Atoll supports a stunning
array of tropical coral, scientists have found. In 1954 the South Pacific atoll was rocked by a 15 megaton hydrogen bomb 1,000 times
more powerful than the explosives dropped on Hiroshima. The explosion shook islands more than 100 miles away, generated a wave of
heat measuring 99,000ºF and spread mist-like radioactive fallout as far as Japan and Australia. But, much to the surprise of a team of
research divers who explored the area, the mile-wide crater left by the detonation has made a remarkable recovery and is now home to a
thriving underwater ecosystem. 99,000 degrees Fahrenheit! By comparison the upper-bound estimate for global warming is a puny global
temperature increase of 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (less in the ocean). So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming
catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself. Some, convinced that humanity is the problem, may
even welcome such an outcome — no humans, but plenty of nature (over time). [Fifty-four years later at Bikini Atoll, recovery is not
complete. Perhaps 28 percent of coral species may still be absent.]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 176 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Health and Welfare (1/2)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 177 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Health and Welfare (2/2)
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 178 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Ice Age
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 179 / 189 ]
Global Warming Good – Timeframe for Ice Age
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 180 / 189 ]
AT: Coral Reefs
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 181 / 189 ]
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 182 / 189 ]
AT: Biodiversity Extinction Impacts
1 – Life goes on – extinct species are replaced
Thomas Palmer, The Atlantic, January, 1992, p. 83

Students of evolution have shown that species death, or extinction, is going on all the time, and that it
is an essential feature of life history. Species are adapted to their environments; as environments
change, some species find themselves in the position of islanders whose islands are washing away,
and they go under. Similarly, new islands (or environments) are appearing all the time, and they
almost invariably produce new species.
2 –Redundancy prevents ecosystem collapse-keystone theory is wrong
Chris Maser, internationally recognized expert in forest ecology and governmental consultant, 1992,
Global Imperative: Harmonizing Culture and Nature, p. 40
Redundancy means that more than one species can perform similar functions. It’s a type of ecological
insurance policy, which strengthens the ability of the system to retain the integrity of its basic
relationships. The insurance of redundancy means that the loss of a species or two is not likely to
result in such severe functional disruptions of the ecosystem so as to cause its collapse because other
species can make up for the functional loss.
3 – And, Biodiversity isn’t key to survival
Calgary Herald, August 30, 1997

Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of nature's greatest strengths, but new research
suggests that diversity alone does not guarantee strong ecosystems. In findings that could intensify
the debate over endangered species and habitat conservation, three new studies suggest a greater
abundance of plant and animal varieties doesn't always translate to better ecological health. At least
equally important, the research found, are the types of species and how they function together.
"Having a long list of Latin names isn't always better than a shorter list of Latin names," said Stanford
University biologist Peter Vitousek, co-author of one of the studies published in the journal Science.
Separate experiments in California, Minnesota and Sweden, found that diversity often had little
bearing on the performance of ecosystems -- at least as measured by the growth and health of native
plants. In fact, the communities with the greatest biological richness were often the poorest when it
came to productivity and the cycling of nutrients. One study compared plant life on 50 remote islands
in northern Sweden that are prone to frequent wildfires from lightning strikes. Scientist David Wardle
of Landcare Research in Lincoln, New Zealand, and colleagues at the Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, found that islands dominated by a few species of plants recovered more quickly
than nearby islands with greater biological diversity. Similar findings were reported by University of
Minnesota researchers who studied savannah grasses, and by Stanford's Vitousek and colleague David
Hooper, who concluded that functional characteristics of plant species were more important than the
number of varieties in determining how ecosystems performed. British plant ecologist J.P. Grime, in a
commentary summarizing the research, said there is as yet no "convincing evidence that species
diversity and ecosystem function are consistently and causally related." "It could be argued," he
added, "that the tide is turning against the notion of high biodiversity as a controller of ecosystem
function and insurance against ecological collapse."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 183 / 189 ]
AT: Polar Bears Key
1 – The Numbers of Polar Bears are increasing, not decreasing.
Nina Sanandaji, president of Swedish think tank and editor of Captus Journal, and Fred Goldberg, associate professor at the
Royal School of Technology, 2006(LewRockwell.com, The Global Warming Scam, July 8, 2008, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/
sanandaji9.html)
As for polar bears, much points to that their numbers are increasing rather than diminishing. Mitch Taylor, a Canadian expert on animal
populations, estimates that the number of polar bears in Canada has increased from 12 000 to 15 000 the past decade. Steven C Amstrup
and his college have studied a population of polar bears in Alaska and reported that the number of females had increased from 600 to 900
between 1976 and 1992. Even a report from the WWF which is entitled "Polar bears at risk" and warns that the populations of the polar
bears might become extinct due to global warming, supports that the number of polar bears is increasing. In the report the polar bears in
the world are divided into 20 populations. It shows out that only 2 of these populations are decreasing, while 10 are stable, 5 are growing
and 3 are not possible to comment about.
2 - President Bush is allowing oil to be sought after in one of the most heavily
populated grounds for polar bears.
Dina Cappiello, covers EPA, Interior, energy and environment out of Washington, DC for The Associated Press. Previously, she reported
for ClimateWire and covered energy policy and climate change for Congressional Quarterly in DC. Prior to joining CQ, Cappiello was the
environment writer for the Houston Chronicle, June 15, 2008
The Seattle Times, Oil companies get OK to annoy polar bears, 7/9/08
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004477335_appolarbearsoil.html?syndication=rss
Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is giving oil
companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas. The Fish and Wildlife Service issued
regulations this week providing legal protection to seven oil companies planning to search for oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea off the
northwestern coast of Alaska if "small numbers" of polar bears or Pacific walruses are incidentally harmed by their activities over the next
five years. Environmentalists said the new regulations give oil companies a blank check to harass the polar bear. About 2,000 of the
25,000 polar bears in the Arctic live in and around the Chukchi Sea, where the government in February auctioned off oil leases to
ConocoPhillips Co., Shell Oil Co. and five other companies for $2.6 billion. Over objections from environmentalists and members of
Congress, the sale occurred before the bear was classified as threatened in May.
3 – Oil explorations are harmful to polar bears; they start without the right
knowledge and end up harming polar bears.
Dina Cappiello, covers EPA, Interior, energy and environment out of Washington, DC for The Associated Press. Previously, she reported
for ClimateWire and covered energy policy and climate change for Congressional Quarterly in DC. Prior to joining CQ, Cappiello was the
environment writer for the Houston Chronicle, June 15, 2008
The Seattle Times, Oil companies get OK to annoy polar bears, 7/9/08
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004477335_appolarbearsoil.html?syndication=rss
Exploring in the Chukchi Sea's 29.7 million acres will require as many as five drill ships, one or two icebreakers, a barge, a tug and two
helicopter flights per day, according to the government. Oil companies will also be making hundred of miles of ice roads and trails along
the coastline. "We are poorly equipped to address those risks and challenges," said Steven Amstrup, one of the foremost experts on polar
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 184 / 189 ]
bears and a scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Alaska Science Center. "To assess what the impacts are going to be, we should know
more about the bears." Last year, the Marine Mammal Oversight Commission, an independent government oversight agency, told the Fish
and Wildlife Service it lacked the information to conclude that exploration will not affect the bear population.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 185 / 189 ]
AT: Polar Bears Key – Extension to #1
Polar bears are increasing, for two reasons: polar bears are resilient, and
conservationists.
Fred Langan and Tom Leonard, written articles published in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, September 3, 2007
Telegraph.co.uk, Polar Bears ‘thriving as the Arctic warms up’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-

bears-'thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up'.html
A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's
interference in the environment. In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850
in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today. "There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear
biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals. His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they
were seeing more bears. "Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right," said Mr Taylor. While fellow scientists
have accepted Mr Taylor's findings, critics point out that his study was commissioned by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit.
Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 186 / 189 ]
AT: Global Warming = Terrorism
Global Warming doesn’t cause terrorism, neither do the side effects.
Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr. and Sara Fitzgerald, writers for CATO, February 11, 2003.
CATO, Trade Brings Security, 7/10/08, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3006
The document represents new thinking in the government that U.S. security depends on economic success in other countries, that
economic and political repression breed poverty, frustration and resentment, and that open markets -- as well as open governments and
open societies -- can alleviate the causes of the terrorist threat against the West. It is not that poverty causes terrorism. The 19 hijackers of
Sept. 11 were chiefly middle class in origin, with 15 coming from oil-rich Saudi Arabia. But the conditions that produce poverty -- lack of
economic freedom -- also produce the sense of hopelessness and despair that breeds resentment. Terrorist organizations exploit the
situation to recruit new members. Meanwhile, the leaders of these countries blame the United States rather than accept responsibility for
the policies impoverishing their own people.
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 187 / 189 ]
Sources Debate
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 188 / 189 ]
Al Gore is Full of “It”
There is No Consensus on Global Warming
Lindzen PhD atmospheric physicist 2006
<Wall Street Journal, 7-8-08, http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597>
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice
sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other
cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now. Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's
gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and
we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore
assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over." That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an
interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this
debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then
somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate"
actually is in the first place.
Al Gore Admitted that the Scientists aren’t even sure
Lindzen PhD atmospheric physicist 2006
<Wall Street Journal, 7-8-08, http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597>
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed.
Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even
Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr.
Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his
movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way
or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
WDW 2008
White Lab
Global Warming File
And the white!- [ 189 / 189 ]

WDW Global Warming File 2008

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

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

WDW Global Warming File 2008

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WDW 2008

Global Warming Exists – Science Proves.........................................................................................................................................................6

Global Warming Exists – Man Made – CO2 Emissions...................................................................................................................................8

Global Warming Exists – Fossil Records........................................................................................................................................................12

Global Warming Exists – Not Man Made – Natural ......................................................................................................................................13

Global Warming Exists – Satellites.................................................................................................................................................................17

Global Warming Exists – Computer Models .................................................................................................................................................18

Global Warming Exists – Consensus .............................................................................................................................................................19

Global Warming Exists – Coral Reefs............................................................................................................................................................20

Global Warming Exists – Even if it doesn’t, still worth a try.........................................................................................................................21

Global Warming Exists – Temperatures.........................................................................................................................................................22

Global Warming Exists – Sea Levels Rise......................................................................................................................................................23

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Satellites Prove...................................................................................................................................24

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Consensus Poor...................................................................................................................................25

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Poor Science.......................................................................................................................................27

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Scientific Fallacy................................................................................................................................28

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Not Man Made....................................................................................................................................29

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Not a Global Trend.............................................................................................................................30

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Ice IS NOT Melting............................................................................................................................31

Global Warming DOES NOT Exist – Scientist Deny.....................................................................................................................................32

Warming Inevitable – Natural.........................................................................................................................................................................35

Warming Inevitable – Greenhouse Gases.......................................................................................................................................................36

Sun Does Not Cause Warming........................................................................................................................................................................38

Sun Causes Warming......................................................................................................................................................................................39

CO2 Causes Warming – Ice Records..............................................................................................................................................................40

Methane Causes Warming ..............................................................................................................................................................................41

Deforestation Causes Warming ......................................................................................................................................................................42

Fossil Fuel Dependence Causes Warming......................................................................................................................................................43

AT: CO2 Causes Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................45

CO2 DOES NOT Cause Warming – Other Natural Gases.............................................................................................................................46

CO2 DOES NOT Cause Warming – Ice Records...........................................................................................................................................47

CO2 Is An After Effect to Warming...............................................................................................................................................................48

Development Causes Warming.......................................................................................................................................................................49

Foreign Emissions Cause Warming................................................................................................................................................................50

AT: Foreign Emissions Cause Warming........................................................................................................................................................52

Foreign Emissions – Global Warming NOT Inevitable..................................................................................................................................52

AT: Natural Checks – Cosmic Rays and Clouds............................................................................................................................................53

AT: Natural Checks – Phytoplankton Solve Warming..................................................................................................................................55

Natural Checks – Global Warming NOT Inevitable – Extension to #2..........................................................................................................57

Natural Checks – Global Warming NOT Inevitable – Phytoplankton ...........................................................................................................58

Natural Checks – Jellyfish...............................................................................................................................................................................60

Natural Checks – Atmosphere.........................................................................................................................................................................61

Computer Models Accurate.............................................................................................................................................................................62

AT: Computer Models Accurate....................................................................................................................................................................63

Alternative Energies Solve ............................................................................................................................................................................67

Technology Crucial to Solve Warming...........................................................................................................................................................68

Ice Caps Are Melting.......................................................................................................................................................................................72

Ice Caps Growing............................................................................................................................................................................................78

***Global Warming Bad – Impacts***..........................................................................................................................................................82

Global Warming Bad – Probability (1/2)........................................................................................................................................................83

Global Warming Bad – Probability (2/2)........................................................................................................................................................84

Global Warming Bad – Timeframe.................................................................................................................................................................85

Global Warming Bad –Timeframe – Extension to #2.....................................................................................................................................86

Global Warming Bad – Brink..........................................................................................................................................................................88

Global Warming Bad – Magnitude ................................................................................................................................................................89

Global Warming Bad – Biodiversity – Jellyfish (1/2).....................................................................................................................................90

Global Warming Bad – Biodiversity - Jellyfish (2/2).....................................................................................................................................91

Global Warming Bad – Magnitude – Outweighs Nuclear War......................................................................................................................92

Global Warming Bad – Carbon Emissions (Biodiversity)..............................................................................................................................94

Global Warming Bad – Death of Humans......................................................................................................................................................95

Global Warming Bad – Disease .....................................................................................................................................................................96

Global Warming Bad – Droughts (Genocide).................................................................................................................................................99

Global Warming Bad – Impacts..........................................................................................................................................................82

Global Warming Bad.........................................................................................................................................................................157