***Warming Good***
This file is the SOLE product of a tremendous amount of work and insight on the part of Reece Rosenthal. Thanks, Reece!
***File Notes***
*****cites for that card= Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
***Strategy Sheet***
Don't run the "AT: Tipping point" if you're running the "Past the Tipping point" argument, they contradict.
Be careful- some of the cards that you read on one portion of the flow may say something like "warming is real but it's going to kill us all anyway" which would clearly contradict "warming is fake". So make sure you read the cards first.
Also, some climate change not exist/not anthro cards can be found in the author indicts section: actually, each of them makes at least one warrant as to why global warming isn't real.
Warming
Not real – also AT Scientific Consensus
(most of the indict cards have diverse warrants on why it's not real, use those for 2NC evidence.)
The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly against climate alarmism: 31,000 scientists prove- (Also answers model bias)
Snyder, Nov 6 2011 (Neil Snyder earned a Ph.D. degree in strategic management from the University of Georgia, and he taught leadership and strategy at the University of Virginia for 25 years. He retired from UVA in 2004, and currently he is the Ralph A. Beeton Professor Emeritus at UVA, "Green Energy: Damn the Facts, Full Speed Ahead!" , )
In 2008, a group of more than 31,000 scientists signed a petition dissenting from the position of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that [hu]man-made CO2 emissions are destroying our planet. More than 9,000 of them have Ph.D. degrees in fields like atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, and environmental science. That's fifteen times more Ph.D. scientists than are involved in the IPCC campaign.¶One of the group's leaders, the late Professor Frederick Seitz, said:¶ The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. ... This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful.To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.¶Seitz was a first-rate scientist who served as president of Rockefeller University and president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Seitz was also a recipient of the National Medal of Science. The agreement to which he referred is the Kyoto Protocol.¶Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, resigned from the American Physical Society because of its position on global warming. So did University of California professor Hal Lewis. When Lewis resigned, he said that the global warming movement was a "scam" and a "pseudoscientific fraud."¶Even so, our government is imposing strict controls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of staving off global warming even though earth's atmosphere is cooling. Meanwhile, the cost to you and me is higher energy prices, higher inflation, a lower standard of living, and fewer new jobs, since every product we buy has an energy cost component. Under orders from the president, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving ahead aggressively with regulations to reduce CO2 emissions. President Obama's misguided effort to stay the course by fiat or by executive order is very expensive, and it's a price that we can ill afford to pay -- especially now, as our economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession.¶Global warming alarmists have resorted to fixing data, hiding data, and other things to keep people from learning the truth. They are motivated by blind faith in a theory that isn't supported by the facts. It's a perfect example of anti-science at work in the scientific community. To deny that our climate is cooling, you have to ignore a mountain of hard data, and the facts are mounting year by year. For example, it was comical to watch the participants at the December 2010 U.N. Global Warming Summit in Cancún, Mexico dress for winter as temperatures plunged to a 100-year record low. That kind of thing is happening all over the world, and it's not anecdotal data. It's a global trend that only die-hard global warming alarmists refuse to accept. ¶Did you know that the number of global weather tracking stations has been reduced, and disproportionately, the eliminated stations are in colder regions? Global warming alarmists have continued to report data showing global temperatures rising despite the fact that colder locations have been taken out of the data set, and they haven't bothered to divulge that fact. If you take cold readings out of the data set, average temperatures rise, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. Similarly, if you included the temperature inside my oven in the data set, average temperatures would rise...but it would be an act of fraud.¶The climate is cooling, and it's been cooling since 1998. Eventually, the truth will prevail, but in the meantime, President Obama continues to retard progress at great cost to the American people. The only people profiting from global warming hysteria are global warming alarmists who are selling a pig in a poke. President Obama is firmly in their camp. In fact, he is their champion.
Global Warming is fake: earth stopped warming in 1997
Todd Jan 24 2012 (Sam Todd is currently studying Economics at Dartmouth, he is an avid political writer and he quotes WSJ scientists, "A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real",
Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science. This has not been getting the attention it deserves because politicians (looking at you Al Gore) are frankly embarrassed to admit that they are wrong about the phenomenon known as global warming. Not only has our planet stopped warming, but we may be headed toward a vast cooling period.¶New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that the earth stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests we are headed toward a new solar cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be significantly cooler than Cycle 24 which we are in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted theory among the public that carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we are actually heading toward global cooling.¶I share the same frustration in the political and scientific community that the sixteen scientists express. Why did we all hop on board the global warming bandwagon started by politicians when the scientific community didn’t back it? Since 1998, 31,000 scientists have signed a petitionagreeing with the fact that there is no scientific evidence or consensus that man-made global warming exists while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the support of only 2,500 scientists. Yet, for some reason it is accepted that global warming is scientifically undeniable.
Not anthro
IBT, September 1 2011 (International Business Times citing quotes from leaders of CERNs CLOUD project,"Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Chane: CERN", )
Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.¶ CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere.In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.¶ "Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.¶ Theories which said that sun and cosmic rays are primarily responsible for climate changes were proposed, as early as 1996, by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a scientific conference in the UK.¶ Follow us ¶ Within a day, chairman of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible."¶ Henrik Svensmark, physicist, whose research has suggested a possible link between the interaction of the solar wind and cosmic rays, and downplays the significance of CO2 emissions, in global warming, welcomed the new results, saying that they confirm research carried out by his own group.¶ "CERN's CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don't understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a "significant" one according to CERN,"David Whitehouse, of The Observatory said.¶ CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.
Warming is fake and not anthropogenic: studies prove
Soloman 2007 (Lawrence Soloman was an adviser to President Jimmy Carter's task force on the environmentServed as executive director of the Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe, "Limited role for CO2",
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that [hu]man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, [hu]man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what [hu]man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.¶All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhousegases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.¶ "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
Past tipping point
Global warming inevitable: carbon stays in the atmosphere for prolonged periods of time
CIS, Jul 3 2012(Carnegie Institution for Science Department of Global Ecology was established in 2002 to help build the scientific foundations for a sustainable future. The department is part of the campus of Stanford University, "Counting Carbon: pre-industrial emissions make a difference", )
When evaluating the historic contributions made by different countries to the greenhouse gasses found in Earth's atmosphere, calculations generally go back no further than the year 1840. Newresearch from Carnegie's Julia Pongratz and Ken Caldeira shows that carbon dioxide contributions from the pre-industrial era still have an impact on our climate today. Their work is published in Environmental ¶ The burning of fossil fuels that came with industrialization released massive amounts of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, which has caused global warming. But clearing forests and other wild areas for agricultural purposes also contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that has been happening since before industrialization.¶ When unmanaged land is cleared for farming, part of the carbon is released immediately into the atmosphere as a result of burning. The rest of the carbon, including that from roots and wood products, releases carbon as the wood decays over years and centuries, meaning that carbon from pre-industrial activities is still being emitted into the atmosphere. Furthermore, a part of carbon dioxide emissions remain in the atmosphere for many centuries, because the oceanandvegetationonlandabsorbcarbondioxideonlyslowlyovertime. As a result, there is a warming effect long after the initial clearing of land.¶ "The relatively small amounts of carbon dioxide emitted many centuries ago continue to affect atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and our climate today, though only to a relatively small extent," Pongratz, who is now at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, said. "But looking into the past illustrates that the relatively large amount of carbon dioxide that we are emitting today will continue to have relatively large impacts on the atmosphere and climate for many centuries into the future."
Past tipping point – CO2
Can't solve warming: CO2 stays in the atmosphere
Ramanathan and Ramanthan, Dec 2011 (Prof. Veerabhadran Ramanathan is a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of California at San Diego Dr Nithya Ramanathan is a Fellow at the Centre of Embedded Networked Sensing at the University of California at Los Angeles and Presiden Nexleaf Analytics, "An Unprecedented Opportunity", )
Rapid and meaningful progress on slowing global warming is achievable if world leaders and policy makers are willing to rethink and broaden their strategy, in view of recent findings. It turns out that global warming is caused by two different types of pollutants. The first is the long-lived gases, which we have known about for decades. and which, stay in the atmosphere for a century or longer — most notoriously carbon dioxide (CO2) released by fossil fuel combustion. Most climate policies have focused on CO2, but it will take decades and trillions of dollars to reduce emissions significantly. The world cannot afford to lose such decades. The planet has already warmed by more than 0.8°C and the resulting symptoms are being perceived in rising sea levels, melting mountain glaciers, including in the Himalayas and the Alps, large scale retreat of the Arctic sea ice and warming of the ocean waters penetrating to a depth of 1000 meters or more, and such extreme weather as droughts, floods and heat waves. Worse, humans have already dumped enough greenhouse gases (almost 1000 billion tons of CO2 alone) in the atmosphere to warm the planet by more than 20°C . So, even if we were to replace half of all fossil fuel use with renewables, the warming will continue to increase for decades, because CO2 molecules live for a century or more once released.