Wave 3 HSS Assignments

Warming Impact Turns

CO2 Agriculture

1NC C02 Ag
CO2 is key to plant growth solves resource impacts
Carter et al. 14, Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been
the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is
the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He
earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he
lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of
Climatology. Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a Research Physicist
with the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Research Service at the
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author or
co-author of over 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon
Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth
in Transition (1989). He served as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of
Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology at Arizona State
University. He earned a Ph.D. in soil science from the University of Minnesota.
(Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf,
3/31/2014) Kerwin
Results obtained under 3,586 separate sets of experimental
conditions conducted on 549 plant species reveal nearly all plants
experience increases in dry weight or biomass in response to
atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Additional results obtained under 2,094
separate experimental conditions conducted on 472 plant species reveal
nearly all plants experience increases in their rates of
photosynthesis in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Longterm CO2 enrichment studies confirm the findings of shorter-term
experiments, demonstrating that the growth-enhancing, waterconserving, and stress-alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric
CO2 likely persist throughout plant lifetimes. Forest productivity
and growth rates throughout the world have increased gradually
since the Industrial Revolution in concert with, and in response to,
the historical increase in the airs CO2 concentration. Therefore, as
the atmospheres CO2 concentration continues to rise, forests will
likely respond by exhibiting significant increases in biomass
production and they likely will grow more robustly and significantly
expand their ranges. Modest increases in air temperature tend to
increase carbon storage in forests and their soils. Thus, old-growth forests
can be significant carbon sinks and their capacity to sequester
carbon in the future will be enhanced as the airs CO2 content
continues to rise. As the atmospheres CO2 concentration increases, the
productivity of grassland species will increase even under unfavorable
growing conditions characterized by less-than-adequate soil moisture,
inadequate soil nutrition, elevated air temperature, and physical stress
imposed by herbivory. The thawing of permafrost caused by increases
in air temperature will likely not transform peatlands from carbon

sinks to carbon sources. Instead, rapid terrestrialization likely will

act to intensify carbon-sink conditions. Rising atmospheric CO2
concentrations likely will enhance the productivity and carbon
sequestering ability of Earths wetlands. In addition, elevated CO2
may help some coastal wetlands counterbalance the negative
impacts of rising seas. Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely will
allow greater numbers of beneficial bacteria (that help sequester carbon and
nitrogen) to exist within soils and anaerobic water environments, thereby
benefitting both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The aerial fertilization
effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment likely will result in greater soil carbon
stores due to increased carbon input to soils, even in nutrient-poor soils and
in spite of predicted increases in temperature. The carbon-sequestering
capability of Earths vegetation likely will act as a significant brake
on the rate-of-rise of the airs CO2 content and thereby help to mute
the magnitude of any CO2-induced global warming. The historical
increase in the airs CO2 content has significantly reduced the erosion of
valuable topsoil over the past several decades; the continuing increase in
atmospheric CO2 can maintain this trend and perhaps even accelerate it for
the foreseeable future.

CO2 causes quick plant evolution that mitigates the

impact, and promotes increased agricultural yields
Carter et al. 14, Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been
the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is
the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He
earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU),
(Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf,
3/31/2014) Kerwin
The vigor of Earths terrestrial biosphere has been increasing with time, revealing a great postindustrial

Over the past 50 years

global carbon uptake has doubled from 2.4 0.8 billion tons in 1960 to 5.0 0.9 billion
tons in 2010. The atmospheres rising CO2 content, which IPCC considers to be the
chief culprit behind all of its reasons for concern about the future of the biosphere, is most likely
the primary cause of the observed greening trend. The observed greening of
revolution greening of the Earth that extends across the entire globe.

the Earth has occurred in spite of all the many real and imagined assaults on Earths vegetation, including

Rising levels of
atmospheric CO2 are making the biosphere more resilient to stress
even as it becomes more lush and productive. Agricultural
productivity in the United States and across the globe dramatically
increased over the last three decades of the twentieth century, a phenomenon partly due to new
cultivation techniques but also due partly to warmer temperatures and higher
CO2 levels. A future warming of the climate coupled with rising
atmospheric CO2 levels will further boost global agricultural
production and help to meet the food needs of the planets growing
population. The positive direct effects of CO2 on future crop yields
are likely to dominate any hypothetical negative effects associated
with changing weather conditions, just as they have during the twentieth and early
fires, disease, pest outbreaks, air pollution, deforestation, and climatic change.

 Plants have a demonstrated ability to adjust their

physiology to accommodate a warming of both the magnitude and
rate-of-rise typically predicted by climate models, should such a
warming actually occur. Evidence continues to accumulate for substantial heritable variation
twenty-first centuries.

of ecologically important plant traits, including root allocation, drought tolerance, and nutrient plasticity,
which suggests rapid evolution is likely to occur based on epigenetic variation alone. The ongoing rise in
the airs CO2 content will exert significant selection pressure on plants, which can be expected to improve
their performance in the face of various environmental stressors via the process of micro-evolution. As
good as things currently are for world agriculture, natural selection and bioengineering could bring about

highly CO2-responsive genotypes of a

wide variety of plants could be selected to take advantage of their
genetic ability to optimize their growth in response to projected
future increases in the airs CO2 content.
additional beneficial effects. For example,

2NC overview
Food shortages cause extinction
1) it exacerbates any current ethnic and religious tensions
2) statistically likely- most wars since the 90s have been
started over food3)Public outcry and desperation overwhelms rational
decision making thats cribb
Warming is good for plants- 3, 586 separate sets of
experimental conditions on 549 different speciesForest productivity has grown since Industrial revolution
CO2 enhances plant productivity

2NC C02 Ag
CO2 boosts plant growth accelerates natural selection
Carter et al. 14, Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been
the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is
the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He
earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he
lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of
Climatology. Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a Research Physicist
with the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Research Service at the
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona (Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf,
3/31/2014) Kerwin
Carbon dioxide is the basis of nearly all life on Earth. It is the
primary raw material utilized by most plants to produce the organic
matter from which they construct their tissues. Not surprisingly,
thousands of laboratory and field experiments conducted over the
past 200 years demonstrate that plant productivity and growth both
rise as the CO2 concentration of the air increases. As early as 1804, de

Saussure showed that peas exposed to high CO2 concentrations grew better than control plants in ambient
air; and work conducted in the early 1900s significantly increased the number of species in which a
growth-enhancing effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment was observed to occur (Demoussy, 1902-1904;
Cummings and Jones, 1918). By the time a group of scientists convened at Duke University in 1977 for a
workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment, an annotated bibliography
of 590 scientific studies dealing with CO2 effects on vegetation had been prepared (Strain, 1978). This

increased levels of atmospheric CO2 generally

produce increases in plant photosynthesis, decreases in plant water
loss by transpiration, increases in leaf area, and increases in plant
branch and fruit numbers, to name but a few of the most commonly reported benefits. Five
body of research demonstrated

years later, at the International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity, it

a doubling of the airs CO2 concentration likely would lead

to a 50% increase in photosynthesis in C3 plants, a doubling of water use
efficiency in both C3 and C4 plants, significant increases in biological nitrogen fixation in almost all
biological systems, and an increase in the ability of plants to adapt to a
variety of environmental stresses (Lemon, 1983). In the years since, many other studies
was concluded

have been conducted on hundreds of different plant species, repeatedly confirming the growth-enhancing,
water-saving, and stressalleviating advantages that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations bestow
upon Earths plants and soils (Idso and Singer, 2009; Idso and Idso, 2011). Chapter 1 focuses on basic
plant productivity responses to elevated CO2 and includes in two appendices tabular presentations of more
than 5,500 individual plant photosynthetic and biomass responses to CO2-enriched air, finding nearly all
plants experience increases in these two parameters at higher levels of CO2. Chapter 1 also examines the
effect of elevated CO2 on ecosystems including forests, grasslands, peatlands, wetlands, and soils. This

elevated CO2 improves the productivity of

ecosystems both in plant tissues aboveground and in the soils
beneath them. The key findings of Chapter 1 are presented in Figure 4. 2. Impact on Plant
review of the literature reveals

Characteristics There are two principal methods researchers utilize to ascertain how Earths terrestrial
plants will be affected by a continuation of the historical rise in the atmospheres CO2 concentration. One
way is to grow plants in CO2-enriched air to levels expected to be experienced in the decades and
centuries to come. In the case of long-lived trees, growth over prior decades and centuries as the CO2
concentration has risen can be derived from studying the yearly growth rings produced over those time

periods and that now comprise the living or dead trees trunks. The primary information sought in these
studies are rates of photosynthesis and biomass production and the efficiency with which the various
plants and trees utilize water. There are a host of other effects of significance, including substances
produced in the growth process that impact how well it proceeds, substances deposited in the parts of
agricultural crops that are harvested for human and animal consumption, and substances that determine
whether insect pests find the foliage or fruit of a certain crop or tree to be to their liking. Finally, there is
the question of whether forest soils will have sufficient nitrogen to sustain the long-term CO2-enhanced
growth rates of long-lived trees. Chapter 2 examines these and other effects of atmospheric CO2
enrichment on plant characteristics. Extensive research finds those effects are overwhelmingly positive.

rising CO2 levels promote plant growth by increasing the

concentrations of plant hormones that stimulate cell division, cell
elongation, and protein synthesis; by enabling plants to produce
more and larger flowers; by increasing the production of glomalin,
an important protein created by fungi living in symbiotic association
with the roots of most vascular plants; and by affecting leaf
characteristics of agricultural plants that lead to higher rates and
efficiencies of photosynthesis and growth as well as increased
resistance to herbivory and pathogen attack. The key findings of Chapter 2 are
For example,

presented in Figure 5. 3. Impact on Plants Under Stress According to IPCC, a warmer future will introduce
new sources of stress on the biological world, including increases in forest fires, droughts, and extreme
heat events. IPCC fails to ask whether the higher levels of atmospheric CO2 its models also predict will aid
or hinder the ability of plants to cope with these challenges. Had it looked, IPCC would have discovered

an extensive body of research showing how atmospheric CO2

enrichment ameliorates the negative effects of a number of
environmental plant stresses. The relative percentage growth enhancement produced by
an increase in the airs CO2 concentration is generally greater under stressful and resource-limited
conditions than when growing conditions are ideal. The impact of rising atmospheric CO2 on plants under
stress is the subject of Chapter 3, and key findings from that chapter appear in Figure 6. 4. Likely Future
Impacts on Plants Chapter 4 analyzes how atmospheric CO2 enrichment has boosted global food
production and biospheric productivity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It also reports how
rising CO2 helps plants avoid temperature-induced extinctions, which many models predict could occur if
global temperatures rise significantly in the future. Whereas IPCC projects severe food shortages in the
future resulting from CO2-induced weather-related phenomena, the preponderance of evidence suggests

many yield-enhancing benefits of rising atmospheric CO2 will

ensure enough food is grown to feed the growing population of the
planet. Chapter 4 also reports on the current health of the terrestrial biosphere, analyzing the
the

productivity of the globe as a whole followed by regional analyses on continental and sub-continental

According to IPCC, the productivity of the terrestrial biosphere

should be declining from rising temperatures and other perceived
negative climatic changes. In contrast, empirical data show it to be
increasing, in large measure due to the aerial fertilization effect of
rising atmospheric CO2. Chapter 4 concludes with an examination of topics pertaining to
scales.

biodiversity, plant extinctions, and plant evolution, which represent three important topics in assessing the
state of Earths future terrestrial biosphere. The key findings of this chapter are presented in Figure 7.

CO2 is key to plant growth, counteracts potent methane

emissions, reduces pestulence, and acts as a negative
feedback against catastrophic warming.
Carter et al. 14, Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center

for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been
the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is
the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He
earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he
lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of

Climatology. Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a Research Physicist
with the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Research Service at the
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona (Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf,
3/31/2014) Kerwin
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment (henceforth referred to as rising CO2)
enhances plant growth, development, and ultimate yield (in the case
of agricultural crops) by increasing the concentrations of plant
hormones that stimulate cell division, cell elongation, and protein
synthesis. Rising CO2 enables plants to produce more and larger
flowers, as well as other flower-related changes having significant
implications for plant productivity and survival, almost all of which are
positive. Rising CO2 increases the production of glomalin, a protein
created by fungi living in symbiotic association with the roots of 80
percent of the planets vascular plants, where it is having a huge
positive impact on the biosphere. Rising CO2 likely will affect many
leaf characteristics of agricultural plants, with the majority of the changes
leading to higher rates and efficiencies of photosynthesis and growth
as well as increased resistance to herbivory and pathogen attack.
Rising CO2 stimulates photosynthesis in nearly all plants, enabling
them to produce more nonstructural carbohydrates that can be used to
create important carbon-based secondary compounds, one of which is lignin.
Rising CO2 leads to enhanced plant fitness, flower pollination, and nectar
production, leading to increases in fruit, grain, and vegetable yields of
agricultural crops as well as productivity increases in natural vegetation. As
rising CO2 causes many plants to increase biomass, the larger plants
likely will develop more extensive root systems enabling them to
extract greater amounts of mineral nutrients from the soil. Rising
CO2 causes plants to sequentially reduce the openness of their stomata, thus
restricting unnecessary water loss via excessive transpiration, while some
plants also reduce the density (number per area) of stomates on their leaves.
Rising CO2 significantly enhances the condensed tannin
concentrations of most trees and grasses, providing them with
stronger defenses against various herbivores both above and below
ground. This in turn reduces the amount of methane, a potent
greenhouse gas, released to the atmosphere by ruminants browsing on tree
leaves and grass. As the airs CO2 content rises, many plant species may
not experience photosynthetic acclimation even under conditions of low soil
nitrogen. In the event that a plant cannot balance its carbohydrate sources
and sinks, CO2-induced acclimation provides a way of achieving that
balance by shifting resources away from the site of photosynthesis to
enhance sink development or other important plant processes.

CO2 emissions provide plants with optimal conditions for

growth
Carter et al. 14, Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been

the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is
the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He
earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he
lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of
Climatology. Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a Research Physicist
with the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Research Service at the
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona (Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf,
3/31/2014) Kerwin
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment (henceforth referred to as rising CO2)
exerts a greater positive influence on diseased as opposed to
healthy plants because it significantly ameliorates the negative
effects of stresses imposed on plants by pathogenic invaders.
Rising CO2 helps many plants use water more efficiently, helping
them overcome stressful conditions imposed by drought or other
less-than-optimum soil moisture conditions. Enhanced rates of plant
photosynthesis and biomass production from rising CO2 will not be
diminished by any global warming that might accompany it in the future. In
fact, if ambient air temperatures rise concurrently, the growth-promoting
effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will likely rise even more. Although
rising CO2 increases the growth of many weeds, the fraction helped is not as
large as that experienced by non-weeds. Thus, CO2 enrichment of the air
may provide non-weeds with greater protection against weed-induced
decreases in productivity. Rising CO2 improves plants abilities to
withstand the deleterious effects of heavy metals where they are
present in soils at otherwise-toxic levels. Rising CO2 reduces the
frequency and severity of herbivory against crops and trees by increasing
production of natural substances that repel insects, leading to the production
of more symmetrical leaves that are less susceptible to attacks by herbivores,
and making trees more capable of surviving severe defoliation. Rising CO2
increases net photosynthesis and biomass production by many
agricultural crops, grasses, and grassland species even when soil
nitrogen concentrations tend to limit their growth. Additional CO2induced carbon input to the soil stimulates microbial decomposition
and thus leads to more available soil nitrogen, thereby conclusively
disproving the progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis. Rising CO2
typically reduces and can completely override the negative effects of
ozone pollution on the photosynthesis, growth, and yield of nearly
all agricultural crops and trees that have been experimentally evaluated.
Rising CO2 can help plants overcome stresses imposed by the buildup of
soil salinity from repeated irrigation. The ongoing rise in the airs CO2
content is a powerful antidote for the deleterious biological impacts
that might be caused by an increase in the flux of UV-B radiation at
the surface of Earth due to depletion of the planets stratospheric
ozone layer.

CO2 causes quick plant evolution that mitigates the

impact, and promotes increased agricultural yields
Carter et al. 14, Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center
for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been
the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is
the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2
Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He
earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he
lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of
Climatology. Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a Research Physicist
with the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Research Service at the
U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona (Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts,
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf,
3/31/2014) Kerwin
The vigor of Earths terrestrial biosphere has been increasing with time,
revealing a great postindustrial revolution greening of the Earth that extends
across the entire globe. Over the past 50 years global carbon uptake
has doubled from 2.4 0.8 billion tons in 1960 to 5.0 0.9 billion tons in
2010. The atmospheres rising CO2 content, which IPCC considers to be
the chief culprit behind all of its reasons for concern about the future of the
biosphere, is most likely the primary cause of the observed greening
trend. The observed greening of the Earth has occurred in spite of all the
many real and imagined assaults on Earths vegetation, including fires,
disease, pest outbreaks, air pollution, deforestation, and climatic change.
Rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are making the biosphere more
resilient to stress even as it becomes more lush and productive.
Agricultural productivity in the United States and across the globe
dramatically increased over the last three decades of the twentieth
century, a phenomenon partly due to new cultivation techniques but also
due partly to warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels. A future
warming of the climate coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels
will further boost global agricultural production and help to meet the
food needs of the planets growing population. The positive direct
effects of CO2 on future crop yields are likely to dominate any
hypothetical negative effects associated with changing weather
conditions, just as they have during the twentieth and early twenty-first
centuries. Plants have a demonstrated ability to adjust their
physiology to accommodate a warming of both the magnitude and
rate-of-rise typically predicted by climate models, should such a
warming actually occur. Evidence continues to accumulate for
substantial heritable variation of ecologically important plant traits, including
root allocation, drought tolerance, and nutrient plasticity, which suggests
rapid evolution is likely to occur based on epigenetic variation alone. The
ongoing rise in the airs CO2 content will exert significant selection pressure
on plants, which can be expected to improve their performance in the face of
various environmental stressors via the process of micro-evolution. As good
as things currently are for world agriculture, natural selection and
bioengineering could bring about additional beneficial effects. For example,

highly CO2-responsive genotypes of a wide variety of plants could be

selected to take advantage of their genetic ability to optimize their
growth in response to projected future increases in the airs CO2
content.

Warming is good increases plant productivity and shows

no effect on species.
James Delingpole 4-4-14, experienced journalist for The Daily Telegraph,
The Times, and The Spectator, Breitbart, 'WORLD DOING JUST FINE; GLOBAL
WARMING IS GOOD; CO2 IS OUR FRIEND' SAY SCIENTISTS,
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/04/World-doing-just-fineGlobal-Warming-is-Good-CO2-is-our-friend-say-Scientists
The latest verdict is in on 'climate change' - and the news is good. The
planet is greening, the oceans are blooming, food production is up,
animals are thriving and humans are doing better than ever: and all
thanks to CO2 and global warming. So say the authors of the latest
Climate Change Reconsidered report by the NIPCC - that's the NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, an
independent research body funded by the Heartland Institute. The
scientific team, led by atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, geographer and
agronomist Craig Idso, research physicist Sherwood B. Idso and marine
geologist Bob Carter, has assessed the peer-reviewed evidence and reached
a conclusion somewhat different from the scaremongering narrative which
has been promoted in the last week by the IPCC and its amen corner in the
mainstream media: reports of the planet's imminent demise have been
somewhat exaggerated; in fact we're doing just fine. Here are their latest
report's key findings. Biological Impacts Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant
and is greening the planet. Far from damaging food production it is
helping to increase it, as are rising temperatures. Ecosystems are
thriving and rising CO2 levels and temperatures pose no significant
threat to aquatic life. Global warming will have a negligible effect on
human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases but will, on
balance, be beneficial because cold is a deadlier threat to the human species
than warmth. CO2, Plants And Soil Numerous studies show that CO2 is
good for plants, increasing their growth-rate, reducing their reliance
on water and making them less vulnerable to stress. Increased CO2
has resulted in reduced topsoil erosion, has encouraged beneficial
bacteria, and improved aerial fertilization - creating more plantlife
which will help sequester the carbon apparently of so much concern to
environmentalists. Plant Characteristics Rising CO2 will improve plant
growth, development and yield. It enables plants to produce more and larger - flowers, thus increasing productivity. It also helps plants
grow more disease-resistant. Earth's Vegetative Future Rising CO2 has
led to a greening of the planet. Agricultural production has increased
dramatically across the globe in the last three decades, partly because of
new technologies but partly also because of the beneficial warmth and
increased CO2. Terrestrial Animals There is little if any evidence to
support the IPCC's predictions of species extinction which are based
mainly on computer models rather than hard data. Amphibian populations
will suffer little, if any, harm. Bird populations may have been affected

by habitat loss - but not by "climate change" to which they are more
than capable of adapting. Polar bears have survived periods climatic
change considerably more extreme than the ones currently being
experienced. Butterflies, insects, reptiles and mammals tend on
balance to proliferate rather than be harmed by "climate change."
Aquatic Life Multiple studies from multiple oceanic regions confirm that
productivity - from phytoplankton and microalgae to corals, crustaceans
and fish - tends to increase with temperature. Some experts predict
coral calcification will increase by about 35 per cent beyond pre-industrial
levels by 2100, with no extinction of coral reefs. Laboratory studies
predicting lower PH levels - "ocean acidification" - fail to capture the
complexities of the real world and often contradict observations in
nature. Human Health Warmer temperatures result in fewer deaths
associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and strokes. In the
US a person who dies of cold loses on average in excess of ten years of life,
whereas someone who dies from heat loses likely no more than a few days or
weeks of life. Between 3 and 7 per cent of the gains in longevity in the US in
the last three decades are the result of people moving to warmer states.
There is a large body of evidence to suggest that the spread of malaria will
NOT increase as a result of global warming. Rising CO2 is increasing
the nutritional value of food with consequent health benefits for
humans.

Warming is good several reasons

Matt Ridley 10-19-13, experienced British journalist for The Spectator,

member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, The Spectator, Why
climate change is good for the world,
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths;
lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer
droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter
deaths exceed summer deaths not just in countries like Britain but also
those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece
see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters
cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during
heatwaves. Cold, not the heat, is the biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits
have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths
each winter. Compare this to the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed
15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there
has been no summer death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor
harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it
is not just those at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming
has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes
after its current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes
improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost
of heating probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates. The greatest
benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change
but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material
from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats.

As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air less than 0.04 per cent of the
air on average plants struggle to absorb enough of it. On a windless,
sunny day, a field of corn can suck half the carbon dioxide out of the air.
Commercial greenhouse operators therefore pump carbon dioxide into their
greenhouses to raise plant growth rates. The increase in average carbon
dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent
of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is
responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the
planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using
three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area
of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become
less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity
of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types. Dr
Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in
Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly
attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening
is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where
satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s. It is often
argued that global warming will hurt the worlds poorest hardest. What is
seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is
partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly
due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means
more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have
benefited. Even polar bears are thriving so far, though this is mainly
because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, its worth noting that the
three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson
Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for
ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice. Well
yes, you may argue, but what about all the weather disasters caused
by climate change? Entirely mythical so far. The latest IPCC report
is admirably frank about this, reporting no significant observed trends
in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century lack of
evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the
magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale low
confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather
phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms. In fact, the death rate
from droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the
1920s, according to a careful study by the independent scholar Indur
Goklany. Not because weather has become less dangerous but because
people have gained better protection as they got richer: witness the
remarkable success of cyclone warnings in India last week. Thats the thing
about climate change we will probably pocket the benefits and
mitigate at least some of the harm by adapting. For example, experts
now agree that malaria will continue its rapid worldwide decline
whatever the climate does. Yet cherry-picking the bad news remains rife.
A remarkable example of this was the IPCCs last report in 2007, which said
that global warming would cause hundreds of millions of people [to be]
exposed to increased water stress under four different scenarios of future
warming. It cited a study, which had also counted numbers of people at
reduced risk of water stress and in each case that number was higher. The

IPCC simply omitted the positive numbers. Why does this matter? Even
if climate change does produce slightly more welfare for the next 70
years, why take the risk that it will do great harm thereafter? There
is one obvious reason: climate policy is already doing harm. Building
wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in
power stations all policies designed explicitly to fight climate
change have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions.
But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries
uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of
forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. To name
just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000
people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of
the worlds grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes
people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a day are
dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to
Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to
double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030. As Bjorn Lomborg has
pointed out, the European Union will pay 165 billion for its current climate
policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britains climate policies
subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles
and all the rest is due to cost us 1.8 trillion over the course of this
century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to lower the air
temperature by about 0.005C which will be undetectable by normal
thermometers. The accepted consensus among economists is that
every 100 spent fighting climate change brings 3 of benefit. So we
are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net
benefits for 70 years. Thats like having radiotherapy because you are
feeling too well. I just dont share the certainty of so many in the green
establishment that its worth it. It may be, but it may not.

Warming increases crop yields

James Taylor 3-23-11, senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland
Institute, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, Forbes, Global
Warming Is Creating Perfect Crop Conditions,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/03/23/global-warming-iscreating-perfect-crop-conditions/
Without a doubt, global warming is affecting global crop production. The
tremendous improvement in global crop production and worldwide
growing conditions during recent decades is one of the most
important yet least reported news events of our time. As the earth
continues to recover from the abnormally cold conditions of the centurieslong Little Ice Age, warmer temperatures, improving soil moisture, and
more abundant atmospheric carbon dioxide have helped bring about
a golden age for global agricultural production. During the past
decade, which alarmists claim is the warmest in recent history,
record per-acre yields have been recorded for nearly every
important U.S. crop. During the past five years alone, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, record per-acre yields have been registered for
barley, beans, canola, corn, cotton, flaxseed, oats, peanuts, potatoes, rice,

sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets, sunflowers, and wheat. Global crop yields

have also registered spectacular growth as global temperatures
have warmed. Global grain harvests have nearly tripled since 1961. As is
the case in the U.S., nearly every important global crop has attained
record productivity during the past five years, including the Big Three
corn, rice, and wheat crops. Indeed, while the media claim global warming is
threatening our morning coffee, farmers are preparing to harvest a record
global coffee crop. While the media claim global warming is jeopardizing our
beer bellies by harming barley production, U.S. farmers in 2009 netted their
highest ever barley yield per acre. Claims that global warming is harming
African corn production are the most ridiculous of all. During the past decade,
African nations have registered record harvests in a variety of crops,
including corn and rice. Moreover, the modestly warming climate is
stimulating more frequent and abundant rainfall which, together
with more atmospheric carbon dioxide, is greening the African
continent. A March 2009 study in the peer-reviewed Biogeosciences
reported the Sahel region of the southern Sahara Desert was growing
greener, sending the Sahara desert into retreat. According to the study,
satellite sensors have recently shown that much of the region has
experienced significant increases in photosynthetic activity since the
early 1980s. According to the study, more abundant rainfall was the
most likely cause, more than compensating for higher evaporation
rates due to modestly rising temperatures. A July 2009 National
Geographic News article confirmed the Biogeosciences study. Emerging
evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising
temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of
the continent, National Geographic News reported. Scientists are now
seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening
due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize
drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities,
National Geographic News explained. This desert-shrinking trend is
supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions
that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago,
the article noted. A January 2007 study in the peer-reviewed science journal
Geology explained the greening of Africa in a longer-term context. According
to the study, much of Africa is currently experiencing an unusually prolonged
period of stable, wet conditions in comparison to previous centuries of the
past millennium. The patterns and variability of 20th century rainfall in
central Africa have been unusually conducive to human welfare in the context
of the past 1400 years. While alarmists cry about global warming and
crop devastation, consumers in the real world have never had such
an abundance of plenty.

Warming prevents drought and famine

Ben Gaul 12-14-13, experienced journalist on climate issues, Liberty Voice,

Global Warming Will Benefit Mankind, http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/globalwarming-will-benefit-mankind-if-it-happens/

If the Earths average temperatures increase, atmospheric moisture
content would make it rain more, not less. Farmland would become

more productive, Greenland would become green again, growing

seasons would last longer and available irrigation would increase. All,
while the beaches around the world remained pretty much where they are.
Conversely, if global average temperatures were to decrease
significantly, there would be far less of all those wonderful benefits.
Almost every major drought and famine in history has been
accompanied by severe winters, not summers. Prolonged cold is
what destroys agriculture, induces famine and halts societal
evolution. In recorded history, every time mankind experience global
warming it has spurred exploration, population growth, larger more
productive communities and in some cases, allowed great Cathedrals and
Megalithic Monuments to be built. The better crop yields and additional
harvests freed up manpower. Artisans and craftsmen cannot produce if
they are too busy trying to feed themselves. When global warming has
happened, the benefits to mankind can still be seen standing at places like
Notre Dame and the Giza plateau.

The prospect of food insecurity alone causes conflict

Michael T. Klare 4-22-13, Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security

Studies, Hampshire College, Huffington Post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/resource-scarcity-climatechange_b_3132268.html
Start with one simple given: the prospect of future scarcities of vital
natural resources, including energy, water, land, food, and critical
minerals. This in itself would guarantee social unrest, geopolitical
friction, and war. It is important to note that absolute scarcity doesnt
have to be on the horizon in any given resource category for this
scenario to kick in. A lack of adequate supplies to meet the needs of
a growing, ever more urbanized and industrialized global population
is enough. Given the wave of extinctions that scientists are recording, some
resources -- particular species of fish, animals, and trees, for example -- will
become less abundant in the decades to come, and may even disappear
altogether. But key materials for modern civilization like oil, uranium,
and copper will simply prove harder and more costly to acquire,
leading to supply bottlenecks and periodic shortages. Oil -- the single most
important commodity in the international economy -- provides an apt
example. Although global oil supplies may actually grow in the coming
decades, many experts doubt that they can be expanded sufficiently to meet
the needs of a rising global middle class that is, for instance, expected to buy
millions of new cars in the near future. In its 2011 World Energy Outlook, the
International Energy Agency claimed that an anticipated global oil demand of
104 million barrels per day in 2035 will be satisfied. This, the report
suggested, would be thanks in large part to additional supplies of
unconventional oil (Canadian tar sands, shale oil, and so on), as well as 55
million barrels of new oil from fields yet to be found and yet to be
developed. However, many analysts scoff at this optimistic assessment,
arguing that rising production costs (for energy that will be ever more difficult
and costly to extract), environmental opposition, warfare, corruption, and
other impediments will make it extremely difficult to achieve increases of this

magnitude. In other words, even if production manages for a time to top the
2010 level of 87 million barrels per day, the goal of 104 million barrels will
never be reached and the worlds major consumers will face virtual, if not
absolute, scarcity. Water provides another potent example. On an annual
basis, the supply of drinking water provided by natural precipitation remains
more or less constant: about 40,000 cubic kilometers. But much of this
precipitation lands on Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia, and inner Amazonia
where there are very few people, so the supply available to major
concentrations of humanity is often surprisingly limited. In many regions with
high population levels, water supplies are already relatively sparse. This is
especially true of North Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East, where the
demand for water continues to grow as a result of rising populations,
urbanization, and the emergence of new water-intensive industries. The
result, even when the supply remains constant, is an environment of
increasing scarcity. Wherever you look, the picture is roughly the
same: supplies of critical resources may be rising or falling, but
rarely do they appear to be outpacing demand, producing a sense of
widespread and systemic scarcity. However generated, a perception
of scarcity -- or imminent scarcity -- regularly leads to anxiety,
resentment, hostility, and contentiousness. This pattern is very well
understood, and has been evident throughout human history. In his
book Constant Battles, for example, Steven LeBlanc, director of collections for
Harvards Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, notes that many
ancient civilizations experienced higher levels of warfare when faced
with resource shortages brought about by population growth, crop
failures, or persistent drought. Jared Diamond, author of the bestseller
Collapse, has detected a similar pattern in Mayan civilization and the Anasazi
culture of New Mexicos Chaco Canyon. More recently, concern over adequate
food for the home population was a significant factor in Japans invasion of
Manchuria in 1931 and Germanys invasions of Poland in 1939 and the Soviet
Union in 1941, according to Lizzie Collingham, author of The Taste of War.
Although the global supply of most basic commodities has grown
enormously since the end of World War II, analysts see the
persistence of resource-related conflict in areas where materials
remain scarce or there is anxiety about the future reliability of
supplies. Many experts believe, for example, that the fighting in Darfur and
other war-ravaged areas of North Africa has been driven, at least in part, by
competition among desert tribes for access to scarce water supplies,
exacerbated in some cases by rising population levels.

AT: Indicts
Carter is plenty qualified private funding doesnt mean
he should be rejected
Sydney Morning Herald, 12 (Letters; Climate Change, Sydney
Morning Herald (Australia), 2/17/12,

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T14997476999&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=
29_T14997478603&cisb=22_T14997478602&treeMax=true&treeWidth =

0&csi=314237&docNo=2, //JPL)
Private funding of research need not equal bias So Professor Bob
Carter receives some private funding from people who like his work
and this is supposed to completely compromise his scientific
objectivity ("Scientist denies he is mouthpiece of US climate-sceptic think
tank", February 16)? This argument seems to imply that we should only
listen to academics that are 100 per cent government funded. It also
implies that government funding never has any ideological strings
attached. It is a very convenient argument for mediocre academics
that struggle to attract private funding of any kind. I call it Source Watch
disease, it is a particularly modern ailment. Professor Bob Carter's analogy
that his monthly retainer from a wealthy US-based climate sceptic think-tank
is akin to the fees paid to architects for their services is a good one.
Architects usually receive a brief from their client and produce something the
client wants. Guy Thomson West Ryde As to whether Professor Bob Carter is
indeed influenced in his views on global warming by the money he receives
from the Heartland Institute, I will not comment. I will leave that up to the
many fearless crusaders for truth to pursue this matter with all the vigour
they did the climategate emails in 2009. I will say, however, that if I were
Professor Carter, a trained geologist, I would be rather miffed that
Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman and blogger, was paid more
by a mutual patron than I was, and would demand a raise forthwith.
Hugh Sturgess Balmain I was shocked to learn that the climate change
contrarian Professor Bob Carter was not being paid by the taxpayer. Most
scientists working on climate-change-related matters in this country are
employed by universities, the CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology. Most
contrarian scientists have to provide their own funding. One scientist
stated that to get funding for projects which did not appear to
support the "conventional" position on global warming was like
trying to get funding from the Chinese government to defend
oneself against charges brought by the government. Evan Professor
Carter is described as a geologist and marine researcher. This does not make
him a climatologist any more than Lord Whatsisname who took a short class
in climate while doing a Bertie Wooster-type classics degree. Can we ignore
these tinklers and remember that all qualified climatologists agree that
climate change is a major problem?

Idso is definitely qualified and peer-reviewed

Hackney, 9 - Law Clerk to United States District Judge Sim Lake for the
Southern District of Texas. J.D., University of Texas School of Law, 2009; A.B.
and A.M., Harvard University, 1997 (Ryan, Flipping Daubert: Putting Climate
Change Defendants in the Hot Seat, Lewis & Clark Law Schools
Environmental Law Online, 2009,
http://www.elawreview.org/elaw/401/flipping_daubert_putting_clima.html , //JPL)
Sherwood Idso would make a good test case of such an expert. Idso, who
has served as a research physicist with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and as an adjunct professor in Geology and Botany at
Arizona State University, is the president of the Center for the Study
of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an organization that promotes
the view that heightened CO2 levels are a good thing because of
their beneficial effects on plant growth.[143] Idso has energy industry
connections: The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
has been reported to have received funding from ExxonMobil,[144] and in
1991 Idso produced a video extolling the agricultural benefits of heightened
CO2 for the Western Fuels Association, a coal industry association.[145]
While Idsos connections to energy interests have led some to
question his work as biased,[146] his research on the effects of CO2
on plant growth has been published several times in peer-reviewed
journals. His research on the effects of heightened CO2 in boosting
growth in eldarica pine trees (Pinus eldarica), for example, was
published in the Journal of Experimental Botany, an Oxford
University Press publication.[147] He published peer-reviewed
papers in 2001 and 2004 on the long-term effects of CO2 on growth
of sour orange trees.[148] Since Idso is a published scientist who has
publicly promoted the benefits of CO2 and has shown a willingness to accept
money from energy companies, it is not unthinkable that climate
change defendants could turn to him for expert testimony about his
research. But would he be allowed to testify? It is likely that Idso would
pass a Daubert reliability challenge. First, there is little question that
Idso would qualify as an expert in some aspects of climate change:
He is a published scientist who has worked specifically with the
biological effects of heightened CO2.[149] Idsos acceptance of
energy company money is irrelevant to this question, as no part of
Rule 702 or Daubert suggests that corporate funding diminishes an experts
qualifications or the reliability of his or her work.[150] While some might
argue that this is a blind spot in Daubert,[151] it would probably be
unreasonable to institute a rule that prohibits scientists from testifying on
behalf of their employees or sponsors. The Committee Notes to the Rule 702
amendments do allow judges to consider whether an expert is proposing to
testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have
conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed
their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying.[152] This analysis would
likely weigh in favor of admitting Idsos testimony, since he began
researching the effects of CO2 on plants years prior to any climate
change litigation. And even if Idso is a paid shill of the energy
industry in some aspects of his career, he has also published several
papers in independent, peer-reviewed journals. To the extent that

Idsos testimony is based on the results of his peer-reviewed studies and

other similar publications, it would be difficult to challenge his testimony on
the Daubert five-factor reliability test. Testability can be established because
the publications describe the tests that Idso conducted to advance
his theories.[153] The fact that the papers were accepted for
publication in respected journals suggests that the methodologies of
the tests involvedincluding error rate and control standardswere
sufficiently rigorous that other scientists would accept them as
reliable for publication. While all of Idsos conclusions may not be
widespread in the scientific community, it is generally accepted
among ecologists that heightened CO2 can promote plant growth.
[154] If Idsos testimony sticks to the information contained in his peerreviewed publications, a Daubert challenge to his reliability would probably
fail.

Singer is Qualified
Milloy, 8 - Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns
Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctor from
the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown
University Law Center (Stephen, Junk Science: Global Smearing, Fox News,
3/27/8, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342276,00.html, //JPL)
By any standard, atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer is a
remarkably accomplished scientist. But his outspoken questioning of
global warming alarmism has just earned him one of the most outrageous
mainstream media smear pieces Ive ever seen. ABC News reporter Dan
Harris interviewed Singer for more than an hour at the recent International
Climate Conference. From that interview, Harris produced a three-minute TV
broadcast and Web site article that was about as fair and objective toward
Singer as I might expect Greenpeace to be. In fact, considering the activist
groups dominant role in Harris "report," it seems that ABC News was merely
the production company for a Greenpeace propaganda hit. Harris piece
starts out, "His fellow scientists call him a fraud, a charlatan and a
showman, but Fred Singer calls himself a realist." And just who are
these "fellow scientists"? Harris didnt identify them. But I doubt
anyone who knows anything about Singer could slander him like that
in good conscience. Armed with a doctorate from Princeton
University, Singer played a key role in the U.S. Navys development
of countermeasures for mine warfare during World War II. From there,
Singer achieved fame in space science. Some of his major
accomplishments include using rockets to make the first
measurements of cosmic radiation in space along with James A. Van
Allen (1947-50); designing the first instrument for measuring
stratospheric ozone (1956); developing the capture theory for the
origin of the Moon and Martian satellites (1966); calculating the
increase in methane emissions due to population growth that is not
key to global warming and ozone depletion theories (1971); and
discovering orbital debris clouds with satellite instruments (1990).
Singer is exceedingly modest about his career. Although I have known
him for more than a decade, I only inadvertently learned of his earlier

achievements last year while reading "Sputnik: The Shock of the Century"
(Walker & Company, 2007), which chronicles the development of the U.S.
Space Program. The book described Singer, along with Van Allen, as a
"pioneer of space science." The author also wrote, "Americas journey into
space can arguably be traced to a gathering at James Van Allens house in
Silver Spring, Maryland on April 5, 1950. The guest of honor was the eminent
British geophysicist Sydney Chapman The other guests were S. Fred
Singer" Among his many prominent positions, Singer was the first
director of the National Weather Satellite Center and the first dean
of the University of Miamis School of Environmental and Planetary
Sciences. Hes also held many senior administrative positions at
federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Transportation and Department of Interior. Despite this
illustrious bio, ABC News Harris apparently was too busy swallowing the
Greenpeace caricature of Singer to do any research on the actual man. In a
letter to ABC News, Singer complained that "Dan Harris also referred to
unnamed scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced
what I do as fraudulent nonsense They are easily identified as the wellknown global warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer and Steve
Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their
mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. I suspect theyll chicken out.
They surely know that the facts support my position so they resort to
anonymous slurs." Perhaps the most comical part of Harris hit piece is the
Greenpeace contribution. In the eco-activist tradition of willful ignorance and
ad hominem attack, Greenpeaces Kert Davies said of Singer, "Hes kind of a
career skeptic. He believes that environmental problems are all overblown
and hes made a career on being that voice." Right, Kert. Singer is just now
making his career. And just who is Kert Davies, described by Harris as a
"global warming specialist," and what exactly qualifies him to pass any sort of
judgment on Singer? I e-mailed Kert a request for his resume in order to learn
precisely what a "global warming specialist" is. I received no response as of
the writing of this column. Singers eminent qualifications and lifetime
of accomplishment are readily available on the Internet for all to
see. What about Davies qualifications and accomplishments? I couldnt find
them on the Greenpeace Web site; I couldnt find them through a Nexis
search. Is it possible that their Internet absence is indicative of their general
nature? All that I could find out about Davies is that the media often has used
quotes from him in the role of a spokesman for various eco-activist groups
since the mid-1990s. Worse than Davies is ABC News Harris. Although he
didnt need any particular qualifications or expertise to fairly report the
interview with Singer other than perhaps some basic journalistic objectivity,
he couldnt even manage that as he allowed the distinguished Singer to be
smeared by a rather undistinguished blowhard. This column recently reported
on another recent mainstream media effort to marginalize those who
question global warming alarmism. Its a fascinating phenomenon given
that available scientific evidence on the all-important relationship
between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global climate indisputably
supports Singers point of view rather than the alarmists.
Apparently the activists have decided that since they cant destroy

the facts, theyll instead try to destroy anyone who dares mention
them.

Heartland Institute receives substantially less funding

than warming alarmists and the reverse Climategate
issue was fabricated by warming alarmists
Ferrara, 12 - M.A. in law from Harvard University, former professor at
George Mason University School of Law, published work in National Review,
The Washington Times, The American Spectator (Peter, Fakegate: The
Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming, Forbes, 3/1/12,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-

warming/ //JPL)
About every four years, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces a
voluminous Assessment Report (AR) on the state of global warming science, such as it is. Two years after
each AR, the IPCC produces an updating Interim Report. In 2008, The Heartland Institute, headquartered in
Chicago, began organizing international conferences of scientists from across the globe who want to raise
and discuss intellectually troubling questions and doubts regarding the theory that human activity is
causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. Six conferences have taken place to date, attracting more
than 3,000 scientists, journalists, and interested citizens from all over the world. (Full disclosure: As
indicated by my nearby bio, I am a Heartland Senior Fellow, one of several affiliations I have with freemarket think tanks and advocacy groups.) In 2009, Heartland published Climate Change Reconsidered: The
Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That 860-page careful,
dispassionate, thoroughly scientific volume, produced in conjunction with the Science and Environmental
Policy Project (SEPP) and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, explored the full
range of alternative views to the UNs IPCC. Two years later, Heartland published the 418 page Climate
Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report of the NIPCC, which updated the research regarding global
warming and climate change since the 2009 volume. Through these activities and more like them,
Heartland has become the international headquarters of the scientific alternative to the UNs IPCC, now
providing full scale rebuttals to the UNs own massive reports. Any speaker, any authority, any journalist or
bureaucrat asserting the catastrophic danger of supposed man-caused global warming needs to be asked
for their response to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, then they are not qualified to
address the subject. This is the essential background to understanding Fakegate, the strange and still
being written story of the decline and fall of political activist Peter Gleick, who had successfully engineered
a long career posing as an objective climate scientist. Gleick, who has announced he is taking a
temporary, short-term leave of absence as president of the Pacific Institute, also served until recently as
chairman of the science integrity task force of the American Geophysical Union. Gleick has publicly
confessed that he contacted The Heartland Institute fraudulently pretending to be a member of the Board
of Directors. Emails released by The Heartland Institute show that he created an email address similar to
that of a board member and used it to convince a staff member to send him confidential board materials.
Gleick then forwarded the documents to 15 global warming alarmist advocacy organizations and
sympathetic journalists, who immediately posted them online and blogged and wrote about them. Their
expectation apparently was that the documents would be as embarrassing and damaging to the global
warming skeptics as were the emails revealed in the Climategate scandal to the alarmist side. The
Climategate revelations showed scientific leaders of the UNs IPCC and global warming alarmist movement
plotting to falsify climate data and exclude those raising doubts about their theories from scientific

the
stolen Heartland documents exonerated, rather than embarrassed,
the skeptic movement. They demonstrate only an interest at
Heartland in getting the truth out on the actual objective science.
They revealed little funding from oil companies and other self
interested commercial enterprises, who actually contribute heavily
to global warming alarmists as protection money instead. The
documents also show how poorly funded the global warming
skeptics at Heartland are, managing on a shoestring to raise a
shockingly successful global challenge to the heavily overfunded UN
and politicized government science. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Feb. 21,
while Heartlands budget for the NIPCC this year totals $388,000,
that compares to $6.5 million for the UNs IPCC, and $2.5 billion that
publications, while coordinating their message with supposedly objective mainstream journalists. But

President Obamas budget commits for research into the global

changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence
on fossil fuels. That demonstrates how an ounce of truth can
overcome a tidal wave of falsehood. Maybe that is why Gleick or one of his
coconspirators felt compelled to go farther and composed a fake memo titled Confidential Memo: 2012
Heartland Climate Strategy. Whoever did it understood that a document composed on his computer and
distributed online would contain markings demonstrating its source and confirming the forgery, so they
printed it out and scanned it to hide its digital trail. The scanned document itself, however, contained
evidence that allowed even amateur sleuths to trace it back to the Pacific Institutes offices, as explained
in an article by Megan McCardle, a senior editor for The Atlantic. (McCardle, incidentally, is highly

The forged cover memo, not the actual stolen

discussed fabricated projects
that are not activities of Heartland, and references a $200,000 Koch
Foundation contribution for climate change activities that doesnt
exist. The Koch Foundation confirms that it gave Heartland only
$25,000 in 2011, earmarked for health care policy projects and not
climate change, an amount equal to only 0.5% of Heartlands 2011 budget. By contrast, as the
Journal also observed, the budget last year for the Natural Resources
Defense Council was $95.4 million, and for the World Wildlife Fund
$238.5 million.
sympathetic to global warming alarmism.)

document, contains language mirroring Climategate. It