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

Download the
original attachment

Index
Index 1
***Science Debate*** 2
1NC - Science Debate 3
1NC - Science Debate 3
A2 - Gelbspan: Skeptics Paid Off 3
Warming Authors Biased 3
***Impact Turns*** 3
1NC - Warming Impact Offense 3
SO2 Screw - Yes: SO2 Now 3
A2 - SO2 Doesn't Cool 3
***A2 Scenarios*** 3
A2 - Runaway Warming 3
A2 - Sea Level Rise 3
A2 - Species 3
A2 - Ice Age 3
***Solvency*** 3
A2 - Modeling 3
***DA's Outweigh*** 3
DA Outweighs 3
 ***Science Debate***
1NC - Science Debate
Temperature trends natural, anthropogenic CO2 not to blame
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical
Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed
studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature
changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have
occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years)
have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor
told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future
forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling
efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100
years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%)
than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and
natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean.
The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than
that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an
'adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its
biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration
will decrease)," he added.

-- CO2 irrelevant - temperature records don't follow CO2 levels.

Jaworoski, 01
 (PhD & Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection,
http://fran.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/1856)

The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have
fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric con-centration of
CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years
ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million
years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations
were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming
propagandists.

For the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature of the Earth and the atmosphe-ric CO2
level have been decreasing systematically.37About 50 million years ago, the CO2 con-centration
(2,000 ppmv) was almost six-fold higher than now, but air temperature was higher by only 1.5°C. In
the Ordovician, when the CO2 content in air was 16 times higher than it is now, the air temperature in
the tropics was not increased, and in the high latitudes, there was the glaciation of Gondwanaland.36

The reason for the lack of relationship between the temperature changes and CO2 concentra-tion in
past epochs is that it is not CO2, but water, H2O, that is the main greenhouse gas. It is also the case
that increasing CO2 concentration above a certain, rather low level cannot incre-ase the air temperature
(see below). It was not CO2 that determined the permanent oscillations of Earth's climate in the past,
but rather changes of the solar constant; these are in step with clirnatic oscillations with a
periodicity of about 2,500 years. This is suggested inter alia by gla-cial deposits on the bottorn of the
North Atlantic, salt deposits in the glaciers and in the ocea-nic sediments, and the carbon-13 content of
tree rings.3

1NC - Science Debate

-- Cosmic ray patterns are the cause - not CO2.
Balling, 03
(PhD Director of the Office of Climatology - ASU, The Increase in Global Temperature, Marshall
Institute Policy Outlook, pg. 6)

An increase in solar irradiance should translate into warmer Earth temperatures. From 1900 to 1969,
solar irradiance appeared to explain more than 50 percent of the variance of global temperatures.

-- Climate has been changing for centuries - no magnitude for change.

Glassman & Baliunas, 01
(AEI & Harvard Smithsonian, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.12922/pub_detail.asp)

Climate, Richard Lindzen of MIT fondly reminds us, always changes. It must. Over centuries, responding to
stresses internal and external, the earth is either warming or coo ling, just as the temperature from day to day heats
or chills. It could stay the same, but not for very long. "Climate change," then, is not a calamity but a truism.

Evidence from ice cores, glaciers, boreholes and tree rings, deposits of microscopic animals on the sea
floor, pollen in lake beds, and mineral deposits in caves show clearly that surface temperatures in
some centuries have been very different from temperatures in others. From roughly a.d. 800 until a.d.
1200, for example--during what's called the Medieval Warm Period--the Northern Hemisphere became so hot that
the Vikings cultivated Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland. By the 1300s and 1400s, a widespread cooling had
begun that devastated Europe with shortened crop-growing seasons, and human lifespans fell by ten years. That
"Little Ice Age" persisted until the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Such major climate swings
occurred long before the industrial age. More important, the earth's cycles of warming and cooling
predate human existence--not to mention sport-utility vehicles.
-- No consensus on warming.
CSPP, 04
(Center for Science & Public Policy, http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/5-CSPP-gwconsensus.pdf)

Claim: There is a scientific consensus about catastrophic man-made global warming.

This has become a staple assertion without foundation, and is widely contradicted:

1. A petition compiled by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences has attracted the
signatures of more than 17,000 American scientists (http://www.oism.org/pproject). All agree the
science of climate change, and man's role in it, is uncertain. The Petition reads in part: "There is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse
gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal
environments of the Earth."

2. Forty-six leading climate experts wrote an open letter to Canada's National Post June 4, 2003)
claiming that the Kyoto Protocol "lacks credible science." In the letter, they wrote: "Many climate
science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental
protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord
(http://www.reveal.ca/friendsofscience/Martin_letter.pdf).

3. Fully 89 percent of respondents to a survey of state climatologists agreed that "current science is
unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors."

4. An independent organization, The European Science and Environmental Forum, has published two
monographs, in which a few dozens of scientists present studies contradicting the conclusions of the
IPCC.

5. Nearly one hundred scientists signed the 1996 Leipzig Declaration, protesting the alleged IPCC
consensus and the implementation of the Rio de Janeiro treaty. The Leipzig Declaration termed the
provisions of this treaty "drastic policies lacking credible support from the underlying science...ill-
advised, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."
(http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html)

6. MIT professor Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., one of 11 scientists who prepared the National Academy of
Sciences 2001 report on global warming has stated repeatedly that there were a wide variety of
scientific views presented in that report, and that the full report made clear that there is no consensus,
unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

A2 - Gelbspan: Skeptics Paid Off

-- Our authors are not paid off - its science, dummy.
World Climate Report, '96 4--15
Gelbspan's article insinuated that a small number of university scientists who have done research or
consulted for energy interests have derailed any substantive policy to fight global warming. In fact, the
vast percentage of research support for most of these scientists is from public, tax-supported
institutions such as the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
 Warming Authors Biased
Climate reporting is bad
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

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

Media promotes climate hype

Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao
Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an
unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very
important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global
warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. "I believe we have the duty to inform people about the
true facts of global warming. It is interesting that is this global warming era of hysteria we just lived a
very cold week with snow in the higher elevation of Southern Brazil and that the next week could be
even colder with low temperatures not seen in this part of the globe during the month of May in the last
20 to 30 years. It is not only South Africa that is freezing. South America is under a sequence of cold
blasts not seen since the very cold climatic winter of 2000 (La Niña)," Hackbart concluded. In a June
5, 2007 article, Hackbart noted that the "historical cold events in Southern Brazil (in 1957, 1965, 1975,
1984, 1996 and 2006) have another aspect in common. They all took place around the 11-year sun
cycle solar minimum.
 ***Impact Turns***
1NC - Warming Impact Offense
-- Turn -- Burning fossil fuels releases aerosols which cause cooling -- plan removes
them causing rapid warming.
Wiener, '95
(Princeton Research Fellow, Risk Versus Risk, John Graham & Jonathon Wiender, p. 212)

Reducing CO2 by switching from coal to other fuels could also pose a second risk offset, not reflected
in Figure 10.1, because sulfur particulates emitted in coal combustion exert a cooling influence on the
earth by reflecting solar radiation. Burning natural gas emits a much smaller quantity of these
particulates than burning coal, and of course nuclear power, hydropower, and solar/wind power emit
no sulfur particulates. Thus, wholly apart from the tradeoff between reduced CO2 and increased CH4
from natural gas, switching from coal use to other fuels could yield a net increase in relative warming
influence in the short term because of the declining emissions of reflective sulfur particulates. Indeed,
recent analysis under the central emissions scenario used by the IPCC indicates that the sulfur effect
alone is so important that replacing coal with no-sulfur energy technologies would actually cause a net
increase in average global temperature through the year 2050 (though a net decrease after 2050, when
long-lasting CO2 begins to outweigh the more transient effects of sulfur).

SO2 Screw - Yes: SO2 Now

Particulate emissions will increase. The states and industries will fight any new
regulations with everything they've got
Pyne writer in NYC 2k2
( Solana, Science Vol 295 Issue 5562 March 15)
 In 1997, EPA established standards for fine particles under the Clean Air Act. It set the annual average
at a maximum of 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air, with a 24-hour maximum of 65 micrograms
per cubic meter. Several industry groups and three states challenged the standards, which were upheld
last year by the Supreme Court after a lengthy legal fight. Meanwhile, EPA has collected 3 years of
data on fine particles and hopes by the end of the year to designate which cities are not meeting the
standards. Even then, however, it could be a decade or more before states implement plans to clear the
air.

A2 - SO2 Doesn't Cool

New satellite measuring information confirms SO2 cooling will occur and solve
warming
Breon, '2
(Francois-Marie Et. Al. Laboratory of Sciences and Environment at Commissariat Gif Sur Yvette
France Science Vol 295 Issue 556 February 1)

Aerosols may reduce the degree of Earth global warming resulting from the increase of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere (1, 2). They directly impact the radiative balance of Earth through a net
increase of its albedo, particularly over the oceans (3, 4). Aerosols can also act as cloud condensation
nuclei (CCN), increasing the number of droplets in clouds, which tends to decrease the mean droplet
size and may increase the cloud albedo (5), depending on the aerosol absorption and cloud optical
thickness (6). This process, referred to as the "Twomey effect" or the "first indirect" aerosol radiative
forcing, has a net cooling effect on climate. A direct demonstration of the aerosol effect on cloud
albedo was provided by the observation of lines of larger reflectance in cloud fields identified as tracks
of ship exhaust (7). Indirect observations of this effect can also be made by comparing cloud droplet
size and aerosol concentration. Cloud droplet effective radii were derived by using global scale
AVHRR (advanced very high resolution radiometer) measurements (8). The results of a global
application (9) indicate a contrast in cloud droplet size of about 2 µm over land and ocean surfaces, as
well as a hemispheric contrast of 1 µm, both of which support the Twomey hypothesis. Similar
patterns of the aerosol optical thickness and the cloud droplet effective radius, derived from AVHRR
measurements, have been observed over the oceans (10). Cases of reduced droplet radii and
suppression of rain--the second indirect aerosol effect--in areas of high aerosol load were identified on
satellite imagery (11, 12). Furthermore, several in situ measurements have shown a relationship
between the aerosol concentration and the cloud droplet size distribution (13-15).

The polarization and directionality of the earth reflectances (POLDER) instrument (16) is well suited
for assessing the Twomey hypothesis globally, because its measurements provide a unique opportunity
to measure cloud droplet effective radius (hereafter referred to as CDR) (17), as well as aerosol loading
(18), over both land and ocean surfaces. The POLDER radiometer was launched aboard the Advanced
Earth-Observing Satellite (ADEOS) in August 1996. Continuous monitoring of the solar radiation
reflected by the earth, including its polarization and directional signatures, started on 30 October 1996,
and ended on 30 June 1997, with the unexpected failure of the satellite solar panel. Monthly maps were
generated of an "aerosol index" that quantifies the atmospheric load by small particles (19). Under
some assumptions, the aerosol index is expected to be proportional to the aerosol column number when
the widely used optical thickness is proportionally more sensitive to the large particle fraction (20).
Spatial and temporal distribution of the index indicate that it is mostly sensitive to aerosols generated
by biomass burning and human-generated pollution (21). Similarly, the polarization signature of liquid
water clouds was used to derive monthly mean estimates of CDR (22).
 ***A2 Scenarios***
A2 - Runaway Warming
Small, long-term risk of abrupt climate change
Joshua Busby, University of Texas, May 2008
Global Climate Change National Security Implications
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf

Abrupt climate change speaks to the threats of the slow-down in the Gulf Stream and other changes
that might occur in a matter of a few decades, as we heard this morning from Dr. Corell. Scientists are
worried about that possibility, but they don't really have a good handle on how likely these
threats are. Their best guess is that they are of low probability or are, at the very least, not likely
to happen during this century.5 So, based on this reading of what the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) says about abrupt climate change, I conclude that it is not currently a
national security risk for the United States around which policymakers would likely mobilize
concern.

A2 - Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise impacts at least 1,000 years off
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Institute of Geography and member of the Russian Academy
of Sciences dismissed alarmist climate fears of all of the world's ice melting in a March 27, 2007
article. "The planet may rest assured," Osokin wrote. "This hypothetical catastrophe could not
take place anytime within the next thousand years," he explained. "Today, scientists say that the
 melting of the permafrost has stalled, which has been proved by data obtained by meteorological
stations along Russia's Arctic coast," Olokin added. "The (recent) period of warming was tangible,
but now it may be drawing to a close. Most natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having a
shorter or longer rhythm. Yet no matter how these sinusoids look, a temperature rise is inevitably
followed by a decline, and vice versa."

Sea level rise projections have been revised downward

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

A2 - Species
CO2 increases biodiversity
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, "Biodiversity and CO2,"
Volume 3, Number 8, April 15, 2000, http://www.co2science.org/edit/v3_edit/v3n8edit.htm, accessed
11/30/01

Viewed in this light, the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is seen to be a blessing in disguise. It's aerial
fertilization effect provides a much-needed boost to the vitality of the vegetation that serves as the energetic
basis of all ecosystems; and the elevated levels of primary production that elevated levels of CO2 induce in
earth's plants - and especially in its trees (Idso, 1999) - provides the basis for greater populations of
herbivores and carnivores at all higher levels of the planet's many food chains. And those greater numbers
of individual plants and animals are what help to maintain the viability of their respective species.

GLOBAL WATER SHORTAGES ARE INEVITABLE IRRELEVANT OF

GLOBAL WARMING
Vorosmarty, Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, 7/14/00 (Science, Pg.
284)

The major increases in relative water demand documented here reveal that much of the world will face
substantial challenges to water infrastructure and associated water services. Potentially large economic
costs are likely to be associated with the implementation of response strategies (e.g., expansion of facilities, new
water-pricing policies, innovative technology, and mismanagement) or the consequences of inaction (e.g.,
deterioration of water quality and reduction in irrigated crop yields). Where sustainable water supplies are at a
premium, the challenges also include curtailment of economic activities, abandonment of existing water
facilities, mass migration, and conflict in international river basins. Many parts of the developing
world will experience large increases in relative water demand. In water-rich areas such as the wet tropics,
the challenge will not be in providing adequate quantities of water, but in providing clean supplies that
minimize public health problems. Arid and semiarid regions face the additional challenge of absolute
 water scarcity. Projected increases in scarcity will be focused on rapidly expanding cities. Much of the
world's population growth over the next few decades will occur in urban areas, which are projected to double in
size to near 5 billion between 1995 and 2025 (29) and face major challenges in coping with increased water
pollution and incidence of waterborne disease . We conclude that impending global-scale changes in
population and economic development over the next 25 years will dictate the future relation between
water supply and demand to a much greater degree than will changes in mean climate.

Warming doesn't hurt the environment. CO2 benefits biodiversity

Arthur Robinson, et al., Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Environmental Effects of
Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," January 1998, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm,
accessed 11/26/01

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or
weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric
temperatures have decreased. We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current
long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years
without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the
habitability of colder regions. ''Global warming,'' an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human
production of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29). Figure 22: Summary data from 279
published experiments in which plants of all types were grown under paired stressed (open circles) and unstressed
(closed circles) conditions (66). There were 208, 50, and 21 sets at 300, 600, and an average of about 1350 ppm CO2,
respectively. The plant mixture in the 279 studies was slightly biased toward plant types that respond less to CO2
fertilization than does the actual global mixture and therefore underestimates the expected global response. CO2
enrichment also allows plants to grow in drier regions, further increasing the expected global response.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation
of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however,
release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions.
Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and
lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.
This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is
moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it
is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants
and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and
animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the
Industrial Revolution.

A2 - Ice Age
EVEN IPCC REPORTS DON'T PREDICT AN ICE AGE FROM WARMING
Weaver, Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at University of Victoria, 4/16/04 (Science, Pg. 400)

The observed rate of global sea level rise during the 20th century is estimated to be in the range 1.0 to
2.2 mm/year (3). If one makes the clearly incorrect assumption that the entire maximum rate of observed sea level
rise is a consequence of fresh water being added to the North Atlantic between 50º and 70ºN, then this equates to a
rate of freshwater forcing of 0.022 Sv (2.2 x 104 m3 s-1). This rate in itself is certainly too small to cause a
major shutdown of the AMO, although it may be large enough to cause cessation of convection in the Labrador
Sea [for example, (6)].

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

GLOBAL WARMING WILL NOT LEAD TO A NEW ICE AGE

Weaver, Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at University of Victoria, 4/16/04 (Science, Pg. 400)

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

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

GLOBAL WARMING WILL NOT CAUSE AN ICE AGE

Weaver, Prof of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, 4/16/04 (Science, Pg. 400)
In light of the paleoclimate record and our understanding of the contemporary climate system, it is safe
to say that global warming will not lead to the onset of a new ice age. These same records suggest that
it is highly unlikely that global warming will lead to a widespread collapse of the AMO--despite the
appealing possibility raised in two recent studies (18, 19)--although it is possible that deep convection in the
Labrador Sea will cease. Such an event would have much more minor consequences on the climate
downstream over Europe.
 ***Solvency***
A2 - Modeling
Unilateral regulations will have no effect on the rest of the world who will continue
to consume fossil fuels
Guruswamy, Professor of Law at Colorado, Summer 2000 (Journal of Land Use and Environmental
Law)

Those advocating unilateral developed country emission reductions emphasize the symbolic value of
cuts by developed countries which, according to them, will motivate and encourage developing
countries to follow suit.This is an unfounded premise. Kyoto proponents mystifyingly claim that even
though defiant developing nations have obdurately refused to undertake any reductions of carbon
dioxide emissions, the United States nevertheless must set a moral example by accepting the costs of
the Kyoto Protocol. By such selfless action the United States will shame other misguided nations into
becoming responsible members of the community of nations by accepting carbon dioxide reductions.
While this might be a good script for a morality play, the international community of nations functions
within a hard world of Realpolitik. All nations are fully aware of their statuses as co-equal sovereign
entities and behave as rational entities who pursue their own national interests, expecting others to do
the same. And that, as we have seen, is precisely what nations have done. It makes no sense to require
one segment of the community of nations to forebear or desist from conduct which other members are
free to carry out. Even more poignantly, it is nonsense to allow one section of the community of
nations to flood mine shafts that are simultaneously being drained by others.
 ***DA's Outweigh***
DA Outweighs
Nuc war outweighs --
Turns the case -- Limited nuclear war would cause massive warming
Mason, former foreign correspondent, SEATO adviser to Thai Government, and
Deputy Senate Leader in Australian Federal Parliament 2k3 - Colin, The 2030 Spike p. 4

There is considerable evidence for the 2030 spike -- the combined effect of at least six adverse drivers.
The most reliable estimates set readily available oil resources at a little under a trillion barrels, and
world consumption at 28 billion barrels a year, indicating exhaustion in, at most, 34 years. Predicted
increases in oil use would reduce this time substantially. This will have major and unexpected
consequences, not least a significant cut in world food supplies for a population that will grow to 8
billion by that time.

Continued nuclear proliferation, policy changes in the use of atomic weapons in the United States and
Russia, confrontation in the Middle East and South Asia, and political pressures from the drivers, make
a nuclear war of unpredictable intensity only too possible within 20 years. The consequences of this
would seriously aggravate greenhouse effects, due to become significant by 2030. The 'war against
terror', the growing tension between Islam and 'the West', the doctrine that nuclear weapons can safely
be used in a 'limited' way -- all these will tend to aggravate the effect of the drivers.

The magnitude is greater.

Bryner, 06
(LiveScience Staff Writer, Dec 11,
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/061211_nuclear_climate.html)
 A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with
environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded.

The scientists said about 40 countries possess enough plutonium or uranium to construct substantial
nuclear arsenals. Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of
World War II.

"Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large,"
said one of the researchers, Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles. "The potential
devastation would be catastrophic and long term."

The lingering effects could re-shape the environment in ways never conceived. In terms of climate, a
nuclear blast could plunge temperatures across large swaths of the globe. "It would be the largest
climate change in recorded human history," Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for
Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College and another member of the research team.

Continues

Will the conclusions result in worldly changes? "We certainly hope there will be a political response
because nuclear weapons are the most dangerous potential environmental danger to the planet.
They're much more dangerous than global warming," Robock said.

DA's outweigh on probability - their impacts are pure hysteria and empirically
denied.
Economist, '97
(http://mscserver.cox.miami.edu/msc491/Readings/PlentyofGloom.htm, DECEMBER 18)

This article argues that predictions of ecological doom, including recent ones, have such a terrible
track record that people should take them with pinches of salt instead of lapping them up with relish.
For reasons of their own, pressure groups, journalists and fame-seekers will no doubt continue to
peddle ecological catastrophes at an undiminishing speed. These people, oddly, appear to think that
having been invariably wrong in the past makes them more likely to be right in the future. The rest of
us might do better to recall, when warned of the next doomsday, what ever became of the last one.