No GW in this house

8/14/2019 No GW in this house

1/26

Will Malson GW is natural, yo Page 1 of 26

GW is natural, yo Index (1/2)

Defense: Sea Levels....................................................................................................................31. Rising sea levels are pretty much normal. [lookout, the card says previous 15,000 years. so.] ...............3

Defense: Antarctic Ice.................................................................................................................42. Gore was wrong: Man-Bear-Pig and drastic Antarctic melting are both false............................................4

Defense: Emissions.....................................................................................................................53. There hasnt been any warming for the past 11 years, despite increasing CO2 emissions .........................5

Defense: But97% of scientists! ............................................................................................64. Lolllll. Thats an appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, the bandwagon fallacy, argumentumad populum, argumentum ad numerum, or consensus gentium. Herere 31,000 scientists that think youre

wrong .........................................................................................................................................................................6

Def/Off: Global Temperature......................................................................................................75. Our evidence is better satellites show overall global temperature is fairly constant. This is moreaccurate when compared to localized temperature increases ...............................................................................76. There hasnt been any warming since satellite readings began 23 years ago ..............................................87. Satellites, weather balloons, tree rings, & surface temp prove no warming up in this bizniz. Ifanything, theres a cooling trend. ............................................................................................................................9

Def/Off: Ocean Temperature ....................................................................................................108. Oceans are entering into a cooling stage this could show a global temperature cycle indicative of afuture period of global cooling.............................................................................................................................. 10 9. There is growing scientific evidence that suggests global warming is not anthropogenic but checked andbalanced by nature, specifically periods of oceanic warming and cooling ....................................................... 11


2/26


GW is natural, yo Index (2/2)

Offense: The Sun (is a mass, of, incandescent gas )...........................................................12

10. Increased solar output is responsible for warming, not greenhouse gases .............................................. 1211. The sun, previously thought to have little effect, could be the source of almost all climate change ...... 1312. Changing energy output of the sun is responsible for warming, not humanity........................................ 1413. There is a direct correlation between sunspots and land temperature in the Northern Hemisphere..... 15

Offense: Clouds ........................................................................................................................1614. Global climate fluctuations are checked by the creation of clouds .......................................................... 1615. Clouds keep global warming in check by reflecting sunlight.................................................................... 17

Offense: El Nio, boiii [/bad pun].............................................................................................1816. El Nio, an anomaly, caused the major GW spike in 1998. Dont get off on it. ...................................... 18

Offense: Climate Models (are Lousy) .......................................................................................1917. Climate models are based on just that models, not historical data. On top of that, models have to beadjusted to have the proper output ................................................................................................................... 1918. The IPCC said so? Well cool. Too bad the IPCC admitted themselves that they have big errors. ........ 1919. Climate Change models are based on inaccurate computer climate modeling simulations empiricalevidence shows temperatures are actually decreasing........................................................................................ 2020. Climate models consistently leave out clouds ............................................................................................ 2021. Empirics: Climate models are horrendously exaggerated; some projected atmospheric temperature atnearly twice what it actually is; models must be viewed with great skepticism. ........................................... 21

Offense: Empirics (Past Warming)............................................................................................2222. Empirics prove: a warmer climate is natural; humanity is not a variable in climate change. ............... 2223. Theres no data supporting anthropogenic climate change; the past proves weve had warmingwithout industrial emissions. ................................................................................................................................. 2324. Climate Change models are based on inaccurate computer climate modeling simulations empiricalevidence shows temperatures are actually decreasing........................................................................................ 24

Offense: Spartaaaaaaaa! (blitzkrieg of tangible measurements).................................................2525. Temperatures determined by ancient coals, desert deposits, tropical soils, salt and glacial deposits, &the distribution of plants and animals that are sensitive to climate all show that climate change is a natural

phenomenon............................................................................................................................................................ 25

Offense: Schwartz is a nut.........................................................................................................2626. Peter Schwartz is one of the most in-credible whoops, un-credible authors to cite mang. ............. 26


3/26


Defense: Sea Levels

1. Rising sea levels are pretty much normal. [lookout, the card says previous 15,000 years. so.]Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer [Expertise: Global climate change and the greenhouse effect, depletion of thestratospheric ozone layer, acid rain, air pollution, importance and future of the U.S. space program, energy resources and

U.S. energy policy. Internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of

rocket and satellite technology, he devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was principal

investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict that

population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas. Now President of The Science &

Environmental Policy Project (a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990), Singer is also distinguished

professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government andacademic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator

for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research,

U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences,

University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center

for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62). Singer has received numerous awards for his

research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S.

Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program,

and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels,

including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He frequently

testifies before Congress. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University andholds aPh.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs,including Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984),and Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989). Singer has also published more than 400 technical papers in scientific,

economic, and public policy journals, as well as numerous editorial essays and articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York

Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and other publications. His

latest book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, was published in late 1997 through the

Independent Institute] before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change,

National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC): Climate Change Impacts on the United States,

Published at The National Center for Public Policy Research, Global Warming Information Center [A project of the John P.

McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs of The National Center for Public Policy Research],July18, 2000, http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html(HEG)

3. Sea Level Rise: Controlled by Nature not Humans The most widely feared and also mostmisunderstood consequence of a hypothetical greenhouse warming is an accelerated rise in sea levels.

But several facts contradict this conventional view: a) Global average sea level has risen about 400 feet(120 meters) in the past 15,000 years, as a result of the end of the Ice Age. The initial rapid rise of about

200 cm (80 inches) per century gradually changed to a slower rise of 15-20 cm (6-8 in)/cy about 7500years ago, once the large ice masses covering North America and North Europe had melted away. But

the slow melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet continued and will continue, barring another ice age,until it has melted away in about 6000 years. b) This means that the world is stuck with a sea level rise

of about 18 cm (7 in)/cy, just what was observed during the past century. And there is nothing we can doabout it, any more than we can stop the ocean tides. c) Careful analysis shows that the warming of the early 1900sactually slowed this ongoing SL rise [4], likely because of increased ice accumulation in the Antarctic. The bottom line:

Currently available scientific evidence does not support any of the results of the NACC, which should therefore be viewed

merely as a "what if" exercise, similar to the one conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1993 [5]. Such

exercises deserve only a modest amount of effort and money; one should not shortchange the serious research required for

atmospheric and ocean observations, and for developing better climate models. The NACC should definitely NOT be used to

justify irrational and unscientific energy and environmental policies, including the economically damaging Kyoto Protocol.

These policy recommendations are especially appropriate during the coming presidential campaigns and debates.


4/26


Defense: Antarctic Ice

2. Gore was wrong: Man-Bear-Pig anddrastic Antarctic melting are both falseTom Harris [Canadian mechanical engineer, executive director International Climate ScienceCoalition, former executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project], Al Gore, Global

warming, Inconvenient Truth: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe: "TheInconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists, June 12, 2006,

http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm (HEG)

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in

marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glacierscollapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to

the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough toprohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If

the water is deep enough icebergs will form." Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical

Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in theAntarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in thispart of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low

pressure systems." But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow isaccumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs

as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica areassessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year -

not much of an effect," Karln concludes. The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events overmillions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future. Gore tells us in

the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness ofthe Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single

transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were inthe middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a

wholly different technology." Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaskaprofessor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly

endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For severalpublished records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karln. Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to

the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. givesthe details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years

but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, toabove average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick

recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred

again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since2001."


5/26


Defense: Emissions

3. There hasnt been any warming for the past 11 years, despite increasing CO2 emissionsPaul Hudson [Climate Correspondent, BBC News. Holds a first-class degree in Geophysics (physicsof the earth) and Planetary Physics from the University of Newcastle], "What happened to global

warming?" Published by the BBC News, October 9, 2009,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm, bold in original (HEG)

(Note about misspellings an stuff this is a British publication, so things like sceptics" etc. aretechnically correct. And he did mean to say hotting up, thats just the way they say it.)

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year

recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have

not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, eventhough man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has

continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and

consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They arguethat there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. Butwhat is the evidence for this? During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warmquickly. Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing.

After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, andpublished by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was

simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare thosetrends with the graph for global average surface temperature. And the results were clear. "Warming in

the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from LeedsUniversity, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But

one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather

forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currentlyaccepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to globaltemperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific

community at a conference in London at the end of the month. If proved correct, this could revolutionisethe whole subject.


6/26


Defense: But97% of scientists!

4. Lolllll. Thats an appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, the bandwagon fallacy,argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad numerum, or consensus gentium. Herere 31,000

scientists that thinkyoure wrong

Bob Unruh [reporter], 31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda: 'Mr. Gore's movie has claimsno informed expert endorses', Published and 2009 by WorldNetDaily, May 19, 2008,

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=64734 (HEG)

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as

atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties havesigned a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse

gases is damaging Earth's climate. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release ofcarbon 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," the petition states.

"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide producemany beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." The PetitionProject actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were

assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any specialeffort or campaign.

The article goes on to say

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in

the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND. "The very large number of petitionsigners demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the

human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted. The projectwas set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American

institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters. "In agroup of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other

signatories, or to non-signatories real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use thisstatistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are

scientists who have signed the petition who happen also to have names identical to fictional or realnon-scientists," the website said. The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others

"have claimed that the 'science is settled' that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with thehypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in

disagreement." The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medicaldoctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree. The Petition Project's

website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.


7/26


Def/Off: Global Temperature

5. Our evidence is better satellites show overall global temperature is fairly constant. This ismore accurate when compared to localizedtemperature increases

Gary Benoit[editor of The New American (John Birch Society-affiliated biweekly magazine whose mission is encapsulatedby the slogan on its cover That Freedom Shall Not Perish.). He has been associated with the magazine since its

inception in 1985 and has been editor for most of its existence. Joined The John Birch Society while still a teenager in 1968

and has been a member ever since. He joined the staff in 1977 and over the years has held a number of different positions in

the organization including eastern manager of the Societys Speakers Bureau, director of the Societys Research Department,

national director of the Societys tax reform program, and editor of The John Birch Society Bulletin. He graduated fromthe University of Lowell(now the University of Massachusetts Lowell) magna cum laude in physics in 1976 andworked one summer at a nuclear power plant while still in college. But before graduating he decided he wanted to make theJohn Birch Society his career, believing that the Society provides the organized means for preserving our freedoms.Benoit is qualified to speak on a variety of subjects including the fundamentals of Americanism, The John Birch

Society, The New American, the politics andscience of global warming, and major media bias including how to readbetween the lines], Myths and Meteorology, July 30, 2001, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435624/posts,

brackets added (HEG)

Facts, Not Fiction Scientific conclusions should be based on observable facts, not political agendas. Yet politics is driving

the global warming debate. "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon

political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens," Dr. Lindzen lamented in his Wall Street Journal article. "This is

what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to

make rational decisions." Yet rational decisions can be made. All that is necessary is to separate the politics from the science

and examine the known facts: Climate variability: The climate is constantly changing, not just season to season but year to

year, century to century, and millennium to millennium. In h is Journal article, Dr. Lindzen pointed out that "two centuries

ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the

same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling." During the global cooling

scare of the 1970s, some observers even worried that the planet was on the verge of a new ice age. The actual temperature

record: The global mean temperature is approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago. Based on surface

readings, the temperature rose prior to 1940, perhaps in response to the end of the little ice age, which lasted until the 19thcentury. From about 1940 until about 1975, the temperature dropped, sparking the above-mentioned global cooling scare.

More recently the temperature has been rising again, sparking concerns about global warming. The accuracy of the surface

temperature record must be kept in mind when evaluating trends measured in fractions of a degree. One significant problem

is the extent to which the data may be skewed as a result of urbanization. Atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singerwrote in a letter that appeared in the May issue of Science: "The post-1940 global warming claimed by

the IPCC comes mainly from distant surface stations and from tropical sea surface readings, with bothdata sets poorly controlled (in both quality and location)." On the other hand, "surface data from well-

controlled U.S. stations (after removing the urban heat-island effects) show the warmest years as beingaround 1940." In his testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee on July 18th of last year, Singer

bluntly stated: "The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible." Dr.Singer, who established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served as its first director, is just one of

many scientists who believe that temperature data collected by weather satellites provides a far bettermeasuring stick than the surface readings. After all, the satellite data is truly global, and it is not skewed

by the urban heat effect. The satellite data from January 1979 (when this data first became available)through May 2001 shows a warming trend of 0.038 degrees Celsius per decade or less than four-

tenths of one degree per century. This minuscule rate of increase, which could change, is far less thanthe dramatic increases in temperature the forecasters of doom have been warning against.


8/26



6. There hasnt been any warming since satellite readings began 23 years agoJoseph L. Bast [President and CEO of The Heartland Institute (a nonprofit, nonpartisan center forpublic policy research), Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee, State

Policy Network, 1991-1997. Board of Advisors, Advocates for Self-Government, 2003 - current. Boardof Advisors, Illinois Policy Institute, 2004 - current. Board of Advisors, Center for Medicine in the

Public Interest, 2005 - current. Board of Directors, American Conservative Union, 2007 - current.Honors: 1996 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide

to Environmentalism (with coauthors), Elected to the Board of Directors of American ConservativeUnion in 2007], Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam, Published by The Heartland

Institute, February 1, 2003,http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecws/news/global_warming_is_a_scam.pdf (HEG)

2. 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 globalwarming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within0.01*C, 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 heatgenerated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.


9/26



7. Satellites, weather balloons, tree rings, & surface temp prove no warming up in this bizniz. Ifanything, theres a cooling trend.

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer [Expertise: Global climate change and the greenhouse effect, depletion of thestratospheric ozone layer, acid rain, air pollution, importance and future of the U.S. space program, energy resources and

U.S. energy policy. Internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of

rocket and satellite technology, he devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was principal

investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict that

population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas. Now President of The Science &Environmental Policy Project (a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990), Singer is also distinguished

professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government andacademic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator

for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research,

U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences,

University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center

for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62). Singer has received numerous awards for his

research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S.

Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program,

and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels,

including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He frequently

testifies before Congress. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University andholds a

Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs,including Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984),

and Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989). Singer has also published more than 400 technical papers in scientific,

economic, and public policy journals, as well as numerous editorial essays and articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York

Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and other publications. His

latest book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, was published in late 1997 through the

Independent Institute] before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change,

National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC): Climate Change Impacts on the United States,Published at The National Center for Public Policy Research, Global Warming Information Center [A project of the John P.

McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs of The National Center for Public Policy Research], July

18, 2000, http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html(HEG)

1. There is no Appreciable Climate Warming Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the

predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades,and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming: a) Satellite data show no appreciable

warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998,one sees a cooling trend. b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm

the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the NationalResearch Council/National Academy of Sciences [1]. c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer

record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming sinceabout 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the

GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia andsubpolar Alaska and Canada. d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core

records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absenceof such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past

100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years.


10/26


Def/Off: Ocean Temperature

8. Oceans are entering into a cooling stage this could show a global temperature cycle indicativeof a future period of global cooling

Paul Hudson [Climate Correspondent, BBC News. Holds a first-class degree in Geophysics (physics

of the earth) and Planetary Physics from the University of Newcastle], "What happened to globalwarming?" Published by the BBC News, October 9, 2009,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm (HEG)

(Note about misspellings an stuff this is a British publication, so things like sceptics" etc. are

technically correct. And he did mean to say hotting up, thats just the way they say it.)

Ocean cycles What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the

Earth's great heat stores. According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from WesternWashington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans,

he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific

decadal oscillation (PDO). For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that meanswarmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But inthe last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in thepast have lasted for nearly 30 years. So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945

to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO coolmode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global

cooling." So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they havebeen right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even

if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. But those scientists who areequally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid. The UK

Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar

variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre saysthey are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which areaccounted for by its models. In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in

a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What iscrucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office

data, is clearly up. To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling

worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Professor Latif is based at the LeibnizInstitute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate

modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will betemporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself. So what can we

expect in the next few years? Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warmingis set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be

hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998). Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely thattemperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that

because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely. One thing is for sure. Itseems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is

hotting up.


11/26


Def/Off: Ocean Temperature

9. There is growing scientific evidence that suggests global warming is not anthropogenic butchecked and balanced by nature, specifically periods of oceanic warming and cooling

Patrick J. Michaels [Ph.D. Climatology, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a retired Research Professor ofEnvironmental Sciences from the University of Virginia. Former state climatologist for Virginia (1980-2007). He is the

author of several books including: Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming, 1992, Satanic Gases, as

coauthor 2002, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media, published

by the Cato Institute, 2004, and Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming as editor and coauthor, 2005],

"Global-warming myth", Published by The Washington Times, May 16, 2008,http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/16/global-warming-myth/print/(HEG)

On May Day, Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science, published a paper in

Nature forecasting no additional global warming "over the next decade." Al Gore and his minions continue tochant that "the science is settled" on global warming, but the only thing settled is that there has not been any since 1998.

Critics of this view (rightfully) argue that 1998 was the warmest year in modern record, due to a huge El Nino event in the

Pacific Ocean, and that it is unfair to start any analysis at a high (or a low) point in a longer history. But starting in 2001 or

1998 yields the same result: no warming. The Keenlyside team found that natural variability in the Earth's

oceans will "temporarily offset" global warming from carbon dioxide. Seventy percent of the Earth'ssurface is oceanic; hence, what happens there greatly influences global temperature. It is now known

that both Atlantic and Pacific temperatures can get "stuck," for a decade or longer, in relatively warm orcool patterns. The North Atlantic is now forecast to be in a cold stage for a decade, which will help put

the damper on global warming. Another Pacific temperature pattern is forecast not to push warming,either. Science no longer provides justification for any rush to pass drastic global warming legislation.The Climate Security Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, would cut emissions of carbon dioxide the main "global

warming" gas by 66 percent over the next 42 years. With expected population growth, this means about a 90 percent drop in emissions

per capita, to 19th-century levels. Other regulatory dictates are similarly unjustified. The Justice Department has ruled that the Interior

Department has until May 15 to decide whether or not to list the polar bear as an endangered species. Pressure to pass impossible-to-

achieve legislation, like Lieberman-Warner, or grandstanding political stunts, like calling polar bears an "endangered species" even when

they are at near record-high population levels, are based upon projections of rapid and persistent global warming. Proponents of wildlegislation like to point to the 2007 science compendium from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, deemed so

authoritative it was awarded half of last year's Nobel Peace Prize. (The other half went to Al Gore.) In it there are dozens of computer-

driven projections for 21st-century warming. Not one of them projects that the earth's natural climate variability will shut down global

warming from carbon dioxide for two decades. Yet, that is just what has happened. If you think about it, all we possess to project the future

of complex systems are computer models. Therefore, if the models that serve as the basis for policy do not work and that must be the

conclusion if indeed we are at the midpoint of a two-decade hiatus in global warming then there is no verifiable science behind the

current legislative hysteria. What does this mean for the future? If warming is "temporarily offset" for two

decades, does all the "offset" warming suddenly appear with a vengeance, or is it delayed? Computermodels, like the one used by Keenlyside, et al., rely on "positive feedbacks" to generate much of theirwarming. First, atmospheric carbon dioxide warms things up a bit. Then the ocean follows, raising the amount ofatmospheric water vapor, which is a greater source of global warming than carbon dioxide. When the ocean does not warm

up, it seems that the additional warming is also delayed. All of this may mean that we have simply overestimated

the amount of warming that results from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That final point has been asubject of debate for a long time. Several recent publications in the peer-reviewed literature argue that observed changes in

temperature show the "sensitivity" of temperature to increasing carbon dioxide is lower than earlier estimates. All of this

suggests a 21st-century warming trend that will be lower than the average value calculated by the climate models in the IPCC

compendium. But who really knows? Before Keenlyside dropped his bombshell, few scientists would have said publicly that

global warming could stop for two decades. Anyone raising that possibility would doubtlessly have been treated to the smug

reply that "the science is settled," and that only the most bumptious ignoramus could raise such a question. One final

prediction: The teeming polar bear population will be listed as "endangered," and in the next year or two, Congress will pass

a bill mandating large and impossible cuts in carbon dioxide. What is "settled" is the politics, not the science.


12/26


Offense: The Sun (is a mass, of, incandescent gas)

10.Increased solar output is responsible for warming, not greenhouse gasesKenneth Green [studies climate change policy and directs the Environmental Program at Reason PublicPolicy Institute (a nonprofit policy-research organization headquartered in Los Angeles)], Heated

Debate Over a Hot Theory, Copyright 2009 The World & I Online. All rights reserved.WorldandIJournal.com [comprehensive academic resource that encompasses a broad range of articles

by scholars and experts in the areas of Global Studies, Liberal Arts, Fine & Applied Arts, GeneralScience, and Spanish], January 2001,

http://www.worldandijournal.com/subscribers/searchdetail.asp?num=21297 (HEG)

Humanity's guilt: evidence or assumption? While the greenhouse effect is relatively

undisputed, there is much controversy about the theory that global climate change is driven strongly byhuman activities. Studies jockey back and forth about key elements of man-made climate change nearly

every month on the pages of leading science journals such as Nature and Science. When it comes to

attributing observed warming to human activities, the 1995 IPCC report leaves the question unanswered:"Some scientists maintain that these uncertainties currently preclude any answer to the question posedabove. Other scientists would and have claimed ... that confident detection of a significant [human-

induced] climate change has already occurred." Further complications have arisen as additionalclimate-modifying factors have been identified. Some scientists, such as Harvard astrophysicist Sallie

Baliunas, look upward for the source of observed warming. According to a reconstruction of solaroutput levels from 1600 to the present, the Sun has clearly been running hotter, increasing the

earthbound energy that constitutes the main input for Earth's surface temperature. Some studies suggestthat increased solar output could be responsible for half the 1*F rise in temperature from 1900 through

1970 and for a third of the warming seen since 1970. Other scientists look downward for thecause of climate change. It has been discovered that continental shelves contain an unusual form of

methane, called methane hydrate, trapped by high pressure and low temperatures. Some researchers,such as James Kennett at the University of California--Santa Barbara, theorize that the release of

methane from these deep ocean reservoirs might constitute the main regulator of climate, with carbondioxide merely going along for the ride. Additionally, as discussed earlier, aerosols play a

murky role in regulating climate. Some models suggest that, on a global basis, the cooling effect ofaerosols offsets 20 percent or more of the predicted warming from the combined greenhouse gases.

Other models dispute the significance of this masking effect. In a curious turn of events, thepotential cooling effects of aerosols have brought the debate full circle. In a recent publication, Hansen

suggested that the warming potential of carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning may becanceled out by aerosols released in the burning process, and he now suspects that other pollutants--such

as dark particulates, ozone, and methane--might have caused the warming seen in the latter years of the

twentieth century.


13/26



11.The sun, previously thought to have little effect, could be the source of almost all climatechange

Paul Hudson [Climate Correspondent, BBC News. Holds a first-class degree in Geophysics (physics

of the earth) and Planetary Physics from the University of Newcastle], "What happened to globalwarming?" Published by the BBC News, October 9, 2009,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm (HEG)

(Note about misspellings an stuff this is a British publication, so things like sceptics" etc. are

technically correct. And he did mean to say hotting up, thats just the way they say it.)

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recordedglobally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed

any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-madecarbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what

on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man'sinfluence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles,

over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly. Sceptics argue that the

warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth'swarmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society,

seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output andcosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global

average surface temperature. And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't havebeen caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this

year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn fromWeatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar

charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almostentirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered

that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of themonth. If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.


14/26



12.Changing energy output of the sun is responsible for warming, not humanity.Sallie Baliunas [astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputydirectory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from

Harvard University. Senior scientist and chair of the Science Advisory Board at the George C. MarshallInstitute, and past contributing editor to World Climate Report. Her awards include the Newton-Lacy-

Pierce Prize of the American Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckmann Awards for Scientific Freedom,and the Bok Prize from Harvard University. The author of over 200 scientific articles, Dr. Baliunas

served as technical consultant for a science-fiction television series, Gene Roddenberry's Earth FinalConflict. Her research interests include solar variability, magnetohydrodynamics of the sun and sun-like

stars, expoplanets, and the use of laser electro-optics for the correction of turbulence due to the earth'satmosphere in astronomical images], the following is abridged from a speech delivered at Hillsdale

College on February 5, 2002, at a seminar co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives

and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series, The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming, March 2002,http://www.calvinwlew.com/hillsdale/newimprimis/2002/march/default.htm (HEG)

Finally, it should be mentioned that in looking for natural factors influencing the climate, a new area of

research centers on the effects of the sun. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strongcorrelation with the sun's changing energy output. Although the causes of the sun's changing particle,

magnetic and energy outputs are uncertain -- as are the responses of the climate to solar changes -- thecorrelation is pronounced. It explains especially well the early twentieth century temperature increase,

which, as we have seen, could not have had much human contribution. [See Chart 5, illustrating thechange over four centuries of the Sunspot Number, which is representative of the surface area coverage

of the sun by strong magnetic fields. The low magnetism of the seventeenth century, a period called theMaunder Minimum, coincides with the coldest century of the last millennium, and there is sustained

high magnetism in the latter twentieth century. See also Chart 6, showing that changes in the sun'smagnetism -- as evidenced by the changing length of the 22-year or Hale Polarity Cycle (dotted line) --

closely correlates with changes in Northern Hemisphere land temperature (solid line). The sun's shortermagnetic cycles are more intense, suggesting a brighter sun during longer cycles. Lags or leads between

the two curves that are shorter than 20 years are not significant, owing to the 22-year time frame of theproxy of brightness change. In this chart, the record of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere land

temperature substitutes for global temperature, which is unavailable back to 1700.]


15/26



13.There is a direct correlation between sunspots and land temperature in the NorthernHemisphere

Gary Benoit [editor of The New American (John Birch Society-affiliated biweekly magazine whose

mission is encapsulated by the slogan on its cover That Freedom Shall Not Perish.). He has beenassociated with the magazine since its inception in 1985 and has been editor for most of its existence.

Joined The John Birch Society while still a teenager in 1968 and has been a member ever since. Hejoined the staff in 1977 and over the years has held a number of different positions in the organization

including eastern manager of the Societys Speakers Bureau, director of the Societys ResearchDepartment, national director of the Societys tax reform program, and editor of The John Birch Society

Bulletin. He graduated from the University of Lowell (now the University of Massachusetts Lowell)magna cum laude in physics in 1976 and worked one summer at a nuclear power plant while still in

college. But before graduating he decided he wanted to make the John Birch Society his career,

believing that the Society provides the organized means for preserving our freedoms. Benoit is qualifiedto speak on a variety of subjects including the fundamentals of Americanism, The John Birch Society,The New American, the politics and science of global warming, and major media bias including how to

read between the lines], Myths and Meteorology, July 30, 2001, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435624/posts, brackets added (HEG)

Man's effect on the climate: In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, Dr. Lindzen acknowledged in h is May 2nd Senate

testimony that "man, like the butterfly, has some impact on climate." Obviously this was true when the Vikings were able to

cultivate Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland. But it is true even today. In the April 3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal,

George Melloan noted that, according to "serious scientists," "the greenhouse gases are a fundamental part of the biosphere,

necessary to all life, and industrial activity generates less than 5% of them, if that." Carbon dioxide's effect on climate:

According to the global warming theory, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has been established, is

causing the global temperature to rise. Most of the increase in the surface temperature during the past century occurred before

most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. The temperature in 1940, recall, was not much different than it is now. Yet, asastrophysicist Sallie Baliunas pointed out in a letter published in the August 5, 1999 Wall Street Journal, "more than 80% of

the manmade carbon dioxide has entered the air since the 40s." One reason why the global warming theory may be flawed is

that the amount of atmospheric CO2 is not the only variable determining the earths temperature. It is not even the main

"greenhouse" gas. In a chapter appearing in the compendium Earth Report 2000, Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate

studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, noted: "It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the

earths natural greenhouse effect, whereas carbon dioxide contributes most of the remaining 5 percent. Global warming

projections assume that water vapor will increase along with any warming resulting from the increases in carbon dioxide

concentrations." The projected "positive feedback" to the initial CO2-induced warming may not occur to the extent that

global warming theorists are predicting, however. As Dr. Spencer points out, " there remain substantial uncertainties in our

understanding of how the climate system will respond to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse

gases." Moreover, the natural greenhouse effect that heats the earth is moderated by natural cooling processes. "In other

words," concluded Dr. Spencer, "the natural greenhouse effect cannot be considered in isolation as a process warming the

earth, without at the same time accounting for cooling processes that actually keep the greenhouse effect from scorching us

all." The sun's effect on climate: One factor global warming theorists ignore is the effect that the sunschanging activity may have on the global temperature. A brighter sun may cause the global temperature

to rise, and vice versa. Dr. Baliunas [an astrophysicist], in the Wall Street Journal letter referencedabove, explained how the suns activity can be measured by the length of the sunspot cycle (the shorter

the cycle, the more active the sun). Dr. Baliunas letter included a chart showing a close correlationbetween changes in the length of the sunspot cycle and Northern Hemisphere land temperature for 1750-

1978.


16/26


Offense: Clouds

14.Global climate fluctuations are checked by the creation of cloudsStephen Goode quoting Fred Singer [Expertise: Global climate change and the greenhouse effect,depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, acid rain, air pollution, importance and future of the U.S.

space program, energy resources and U.S. energy policy. Internationally known for his work on energyand environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he devised

the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was principal investigator on a satelliteexperiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict that population

growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas. Now President of TheScience & Environmental Policy Project (a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990),

Singer is also distinguished professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of

Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the

Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Universityof Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of

the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62). Singer has receivednumerous awards for his research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for

achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for thedevelopment and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science Medal from

the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including fiveyears as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He frequently

testifies before Congress. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio StateUniversity and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more

than a dozen books and monographs, including Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-

Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), and Global Climate Change (Paragon House,1989). Singer has also published more than 400 technical papers in scientific, economic, and publicpolicy journals, as well as numerous editorial essays and articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York

Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and otherpublications. His latest book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, was

published in late 1997 through the Independent Institute], "Singer Cool on Global Warming; Renownedscientist Fred Singer heats up the debate on a controversial topic by showing why the popular theory on

global warming is not backed by scientific evidence", Page 1, April 27, 2004,http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_April_27/ai_n6006574/ (HEG)

Q: What are some of the weak points about the global-warming argument? A: The fact that they don't

properly take into account the effects of clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds will cool the climate ratherthan warm the climate. When you try to warm the ocean, I argued and the argument is still sound youevaporate more water and create more clouds and this reduces the amount of solar radiation. What you

have is a kind of negative feedback which keeps the temperature from rising very much.


17/26


Offense: Clouds

15.Clouds keep global warming in check by reflecting sunlightLee Bowman [Scripps Howard News Service], "Light reflected from earth may be tied to globalwarming", June 1, 2004,

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2004/jun/01/ndn_light_reflected_from_earth_may_be_tied_to_glob/(HEG)

The ebb and flow of Earth's cloud cover, measured by the planet's reflection on the moon, indicates that

clouds had been diminishing for much of the past two decades, but suddenly increased during the pastthree years, perhaps from global warming. "Using a phenomenon first explained by Leonardo da Vinci,

we can precisely measure global climate change and find a surprising story of clouds and a recentbrightening of the Earth," said Philip Goode, a professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of

Technology and a pioneer in earthshine measurements. Goode is director of the Big Bear SolarObservatory in California that has been tracking Earth's reflection on the moon for the past eight years, a

sort of scientific moonlighting job for an instrument that's devoted to watching the sun during the

daylight hours. About 30 percent of the sun's radiation that strikes Earth is reflected back into space.This reflectivity can be seen and measured by the level of dim light on the darkened portion of acrescent moon. While scientists have been using satellites to measure cloud cover on the planet for

several decades, the earthshine measurements, taken through a small telescope, offer a relativelyinexpensive and low-tech way to monitor the climate. A team that includes Goode and Steven Koonin, a

professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology, reported the results of those observations,coupled with satellite readings going back 20 years, Friday in the journal Science. "The cloudier the

Earth, the brighter the earthshine, and changing cloud cover is an important element of changingclimate," Koonin said. Researchers are still trying to figure out how much of the cloud cover change is

natural variation or part of some natural cycle and how much the changes represent shifts brought aboutby a global warm-up induced largely by human activity. Earthshine has some limitations, particularly

that it primarily reflects cloud cover around the Equator and the tropics rather than in the higherlatitudes, where effects of global warming are thought to be more drastic. On the other hand, clouds and

winds around the middle of the Earth drive most of the world's weather. After several years of sharpdecline, light reflected from earth back into space from 2001 to 2003 returned to pre-1995 levels,

perhaps because of increased cloud cover and thickness. If this reversal continues, it could play animportant role in future climate change if more solar energy is bounced back into space, the surface

would be cooler. What's already clear from the data is that the variability in cloud cover being seendoesn't match what is predicted by most computer climate models.


18/26


Offense: El Nio, boiii [/bad pun]

16.El Nio, an anomaly, caused the major GW spike in 1998. Dont get off on it.Patrick J. Michaels [Ph.D. Climatology, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a retired ResearchProfessor of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia. Former state climatologist for

Virginia (1980-2007). He is the author of several books including: Sound and Fury: The Science andPolitics of Global Warming, 1992, Satanic Gases, as coauthor 2002, Meltdown: The Predictable

Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media, published by the Cato Institute,2004, and Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming as editor and coauthor, 2005],

"LONG HOT YEAR: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria", Policy Analysis [a regularseries evaluating government policies and offering proposals for reform], No. 329, Page 9, December

31, 1998, Published by the CATO Institute (HEG)

The Summer of 1998 Recent reports indicate that temperatures in the first half of 1998 averaged above

previously recorded record-high mean temperatures. Those record-high global temperatures are found

both in satellite data (see Figure 3, for example) and in a new temperature history compiled by federalclimatologists. Curiously, however, this new temperature history has not yet been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is riddled with serious problems, most of which suggest that the

warming has been overstated.26 Regardless, 1998 is clearly much warmer than normal on a globalscale. But is this warming a product of industrial emissions of greenhouse gases? As shown in the

adjusted satellite date, the warmth of 1998 is an anomalous spike rather than a continuation of awarming trend. That is clear testimony to its El Nio relation. At the same time, surface temperatures

(see Figure 2) have warmed slightly (0.11C in the last decade). Imposing an El Nio upon an alreadywarm decade creates the illusion of rapid global warming that I forecast would occur when a strong El

Nio occurred in the 1990s.27


19/26


Offense: Climate Models (are Lousy)

17.Climate models are based on just that models, not historical data. On top of that, modelshave to be adjusted to have the proper output

Joseph L. Bast [President and CEO of The Heartland Institute (a nonprofit, nonpartisan center for

public policy research), Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee, StatePolicy Network, 1991-1997. Board of Advisors, Advocates for Self-Government, 2003 - current. Board

of Advisors, Illinois Policy Institute, 2004 - current. Board of Advisors, Center for Medicine in thePublic Interest, 2005 - current. Board of Directors, American Conservative Union, 2007 - current.

Honors: 1996 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guideto Environmentalism (with coauthors), Elected to the Board of Directors of American Conservative

Union in 2007], Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam, Published by The HeartlandInstitute, February 1, 2003,

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecws/news/global_warming_is_a_scam.pdf (HEG)

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions ofglobal warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models toproduce 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 supposedtrigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says "climate modelers have been

'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable."

18.The IPCC said so? Well cool. Too bad the IPCC admitted themselves that they have big errors.Joseph L. Bast [President and CEO of The Heartland Institute (a nonprofit, nonpartisan center for

public policy research), Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee, State

Policy Network, 1991-1997. Board of Advisors, Advocates for Self-Government, 2003 - current. Boardof Advisors, Illinois Policy Institute, 2004 - current. Board of Advisors, Center for Medicine in thePublic Interest, 2005 - current. Board of Directors, American Conservative Union, 2007 - current.

Honors: 1996 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guideto Environmentalism (with coauthors), Elected to the Board of Directors of American Conservative

Union in 2007], Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam, Published by The HeartlandInstitute, February 1, 2003,

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecws/news/global_warming_is_a_scam.pdf (HEG)

4. 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), aUnited 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-oceandynamics 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 thestarting 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 representaccurately the significant climate processes."


20/26



19.Climate Change models are based on inaccurate computer climate modeling simulations empirical evidence shows temperatures are actually decreasing

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, [Educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California at SanDiego, UCSD, Dr. Robinson served as a faculty member of UCSD until co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute of Science

and Medicine],NOAH E. ROBINSON, [Educated at Southern Oregon University and the California Institute ofTechnology, Dr. Noah Robinson is principle author of numerous research papers on the deamidation of peptides and

proteins], &ANDWILLIE SOON[astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-SmithsonianCenter for Astrophysics, science director and contributor at Tech Central Station, and a fellow with the George C. Marshall

Institute] [all from Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine], Environmental Effects of Increased AtmosphericCarbon Dioxide, Copyright 1998-2008 OISM, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [a non-profit research

institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality,quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute's laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine,

nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency

preparedness. The Institute isentirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundationsand by the independent earnings and resources of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds.The Institute has a modest endowment, no debts, and a policy of incurring none. It is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 public foundation.

The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on

occasional projects. Most of the Institute's work is carried out in a modern 7,000 square foot research laboratory, which includes a full

complement of equipment for work in biochemistry and molecular biology and some specialized equipment including a Bruker ion

cyclotron resonance Fourier transform mass spectrometer for work on protein deamidation. Several members of the Institute's staff are

also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 31,000 American

scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-

wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds.

It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project

comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently

published],2007, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (HEG)

Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead?There are no experimental data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical

evidence of such an amplification. Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computerclimate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements

of Earth's temperature and climate shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of theseven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were

actually decreasing. While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doingso and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been

benign.

20.Climate models consistently leave out cloudsLee Bowman [Scripps Howard News Service], "Light reflected from earth may be tied to globalwarming", June 1, 2004,http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2004/jun/01/ndn_light_reflected_from_earth_may_be_tied_to_glob/(HEG)

Enric Palle, another researcher at Big Bear and lead author of the new report, said Earth's surfacetemperature is determined by a number of factors, including the amount and makeup of greenhouse

gases in the atmosphere. "But these new data emphasize that clouds must be properly accounted for (inthe computer models) and illustrate that we still lack the detailed understanding of our climate system

necessary to model future changes with confidence," he said.


21/26



21.Empirics: Climate models are horrendously exaggerated; some projected atmospherictemperature at nearly twice what it actually is; models must be viewed with great skepticism.

John R. Christy [Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at

the University of Alabama in Huntsville or UAH. Also Alabama's State Climatologist and recentlyserved as a Lead Author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], Written testimony

to the U.S. House Committee on Resources, Kyoto Global Warming Treaty's Impact on Ohio's CoalDependent Communities, Published by The Lavoisier Group [publishes material on climate change

and understanding of how the climate is controlled], May 13, 2003,http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/weather/christy2003-s1.php (HEG)

Climate Models Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changesoccurring now? Climate models suggest the answer is yes, real data suggests otherwise. Climate models

attempt to describe the ocean/atmospheric system with equations which approximate the processes of

nature. No model is perfect because the natural system is incredibly complex. One modest goal of modelsimulations is to describe and predict the evolution of the ocean/atmospheric system in a way that is useful to discover possibleenvironmental hazards which lie ahead. The goal is not to achieve a perfect forecast for every type of weather in every unique geographic

region, but to provide information on changes in large-scale features. If in testing models one finds conflict with even the observed large

scale features, this would suggest that at least some fundamental processes, for example heat transfer, are not adequately described in the

models. A common feature of climate model projections with CO2 increases is a rise in the global surface temperature as well as an even

more rapid rise in the layer up to 30,000 feet called the troposphere. Over the past 24+ years various calculations of

surface temperature indeed show a rise of about 0.7 F. This is roughly half of the total rise observedsince the 19th century. In the lower troposphere, however, various estimates which include the satellite

data Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and I produce, show much less warming, about 0.3 F---an amount lessthan half that observed at the surface. The real world shows less warming in the atmosphere, not more as

models predict. Are these data reliable? A new version of the microwave satellite data has been produced, but not yet published, byRemote Sensing Systems or RSS of California. Two weeks ago a paper was published in Science magazine's electronic edition which used

a curious means of testing our UAH version against RSS.[1] The paper cited climate model results which agreed more with RSS, becauseRSS data showed about 0.4F more warming than UAH's data for this same layer called the mid-troposphere. UAH's total warming for this

layer was about 0.05F. (This layer is higher in the atmosphere than the lower troposphere mentioned earlier with its 0.7F warming.) The

strong implication of the paper was that since RSS was more consistent with the model output, it was likely a more accurate dataset than

ours. That same week, with much less fanfare, my latest paper appeared in the Journal of Atmospheric and OceanicTechnology.[2] Unlike the paper in Science magazine, I performed several rigorous tests to estimate the

potential error of our UAH satellite data. I used real observations from balloon datasets created byindependent organizations, some with data from as many as 400 different balloon stations. Our UAH

satellite data and the balloon data corroborated each other with remarkable consistency, showing only aslow warming of the bulk of the atmosphere. This evidence indicates that the projected warming of the

climate model had little consistency with the real world. This is important because the quantityexamined here, lower tropospheric temperature, is not a minor aspect of the climate system. This

represents most of the bulk mass of the atmosphere, and hence the climate system. The inability ofclimate models to achieve consistency on this scale is a serious shortcoming and suggests projections

from such models be viewed with great skepticism. Changes in surface temperature have also been a topic of controversy.The conclusion in IPCC 2001 that human induced global warming was clearly evident was partly based on a depiction of the Northern

Hemisphere temperature since 1000 A.D. This depiction showed little change until about 1850, then contains a sharp upward rise,

suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.[3] Since IPCC 2001, two important papers have shown

something else.[4] Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies now indicate large temperature swings have been

common in the past 1000 years and that temperatures warmer than today's were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago. These

studies suggest that the climate we see today is not unusual at all.


22/26


Offense: Empirics (Past Warming)

22.Empirics prove: a warmer climate is natural; humanity is not a variable in climate change.Joseph L. Bast [President and CEO of The Heartland Institute (a nonprofit, nonpartisan center forpublic policy research), Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee, State

Policy Network, 1991-1997. Board of Advisors, Advocates for Self-Government, 2003 - current. Boardof Advisors, Illinois Policy Institute, 2004 - current. Board of Advisors, Center for Medicine in the

Public Interest, 2005 - current. Board of Directors, American Conservative Union, 2007 - current.Honors: 1996 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide

to Environmentalism (with coauthors), Elected to the Board of Directors of American ConservativeUnion in 2007], Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam, Published by The Heartland

Institute, February 1, 2003,http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecws/news/global_warming_is_a_scam.pdf (HEG)

5. 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), whichallowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-casescenario 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," observeJames 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 moreadvanced and adaptable civilization today."


23/26


Offense: Empirics (Past Warming)

23.Theres no data supporting anthropogenic climate change; the past proves weve hadwarming without industrial emissions.

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, [Educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of

California at San Diego, UCSD, Dr. Robinson served as a faculty member of UCSD until co-foundingthe Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine], NOAH E. ROBINSON, [Educated at Southern

Oregon University and the California Institute of Technology, Dr. Noah Robinson is principle author ofnumerous research papers on the deamidation of peptides and proteins], & ANDWILLIE SOON

[astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center forAstrophysics, science director and contributor at Tech Central Station, and a fellow with the George C.

Marshall Institute] [all from Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine], Environmental Effects ofIncreased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Copyright 1998-2008 OISM, The Oregon Institute of

Science and Medicine [a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research insubjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute's

laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. TheInstitute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness. The Institute is entirely

supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and by the independent earningsand resources of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds. The Institute has a

modest endowment, no debts, and a policy of incurring none. It is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 public foundation. The

Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on

occasional projects. Most of the Institute's work is carried out in a modern 7,000 square foot research laboratory, which

includes a full complement of equipment for work in biochemistry and molecular biology and some specialized equipment

including a Bruker ion cyclotron resonance Fourier transform mass spectrometer for work on protein deamidation. Several

members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained

the signatures of more than 31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-causedglobal warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not

utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds. It also has no funding from energy industries or

other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from privatedonations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published],

2007, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (HEG)

CONCLUSIONS There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in humanhydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be

expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reasonto limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed

(82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current naturalwarming 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 habitabilityof colder regions. 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. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The

most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human

use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will

not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits

plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal

life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in

coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, w

Documents

No GW in this house