No Gw In This House

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 1 of 26

GW is natural, yo – Index (1/2)

Defense: Sea Levels....................................................................................................................3 1.

Rising sea levels are pretty much normal. [lookout, the card says previous “15,000 years. so.] ...............3

Defense: Antarctic Ice.................................................................................................................4 2.

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

Defense: Emissions.....................................................................................................................5 3.

There hasn’t been any warming for the past 11 years, despite increasing CO2 emissions .........................5

Defense: “But…97% of scientists!” ............................................................................................6 4. Lolllll. That’s an appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, the bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad numerum, or consensus gentium. Here’re 31,000 scientists that think you’re wrong .........................................................................................................................................................................6

Def/Off: Global Temperature......................................................................................................7 5. Our evidence is better – satellites show overall global temperature is fairly constant. This is more accurate when compared to localized temperature increases ...............................................................................7 6. There hasn’t been any warming since satellite readings began 23 years ago ..............................................8 7. Satellites, weather balloons, tree rings, & surface temp prove – no warming up in this bizniz. If anything, there’s a cooling trend. ............................................................................................................................9

Def/Off: Ocean Temperature ....................................................................................................10 8. Oceans are entering into a cooling stage – this could show a global temperature cycle indicative of a future period of global cooling.............................................................................................................................. 10 9. There is growing scientific evidence that suggests global warming is not anthropogenic but checked and balanced by nature, specifically periods of oceanic warming and cooling ....................................................... 11

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 2 of 26

GW is natural, yo – Index (2/2)

Offense: The Sun (is a mass, of, incandescent gas… ♬)...........................................................12 10. 11. 12. 13.

Increased solar output is responsible for warming, not greenhouse gases.............................................. 12 The sun, previously thought to have little effect, could be the source of almost all climate change ...... 13 Changing energy output of the sun is responsible for warming, not humanity........................................ 14 There is a direct correlation between sunspots and land temperature in the Northern Hemisphere ..... 15

Offense: Clouds ........................................................................................................................16 14. 15.

Global climate fluctuations are checked by the creation of clouds .......................................................... 16 Clouds keep global warming in check by reflecting sunlight.................................................................... 17

Offense: El Niño, boiii [/bad pun].............................................................................................18 16.

El Niño, an anomaly, caused the major GW spike in 1998. Don’t get off on it. ...................................... 18

Offense: Climate Models (are Lousy) .......................................................................................19 17. Climate models are based on just that – models, not historical data. On top of that, models have to be “adjusted” to have the proper output................................................................................................................... 19 18. The IPCC said so? Well cool. Too bad the IPCC admitted themselves that they have big errors. ........ 19 19. Climate Change models are based on inaccurate computer climate modeling simulations – empirical evidence shows temperatures are actually decreasing........................................................................................ 20 20. Climate models consistently leave out clouds ............................................................................................ 20 21. Empirics: Climate models are horrendously exaggerated; some projected atmospheric temperature at nearly twice what it actually is; models must be “viewed with great skepticism.”........................................... 21

Offense: Empirics (Past Warming)............................................................................................22 22. Empirics prove: a warmer climate is natural; humanity is not a variable in climate change................ 22 23. There’s no data supporting anthropogenic climate change; the past proves – we’ve had warming without industrial emissions.................................................................................................................................. 23 24. Climate Change models are based on inaccurate computer climate modeling simulations – empirical evidence shows temperatures are actually decreasing........................................................................................ 24

Offense: Spartaaaaaaaa! (blitzkrieg of tangible measurements).................................................25 25. 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.........................................................................................................26 26.

Peter Schwartz is one of the most in-credible… whoops, un-credible… authors to cite mang. ............. 26

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 3 of 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 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 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 and academic 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 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 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)

3. Sea Level Rise: Controlled by Nature not Humans The most widely feared and also most misunderstood 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 7500 years 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 do about it, any more than we can stop the ocean tides. c) Careful analysis shows that the warming of the early 1900s actually 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.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 4 of 26

Defense: Antarctic Ice 2. Gore was wrong: Man-Bear-Pig and drastic Antarctic melting are both false Tom Harris [Canadian mechanical engineer, executive director International Climate Science Coalition, former executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project], “Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe: "The Inconvenient 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 glaciers collapsing 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 to prohibit 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 the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part 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 is accumulating 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 are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year not much of an effect," Karl»n concludes. The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions 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 of the 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 in the 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 Alaska professor 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 several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl»n. Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the 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, to above 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 since 2001."

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 5 of 26

Defense: Emissions 3. There hasn’t been any warming for the past 11 years, despite increasing CO2 emissions 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 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. are technically correct. And he did mean to say “hotting up”, that’s 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, even though 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 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's warmth 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 and cosmic 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 have been 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 from Weatheraction, 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 almost entirely 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 the month. If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 6 of 26

Defense: “But…97% of scientists!” 4. Lolllll. That’s an appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, the bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad numerum, or consensus gentium. Here’re 31,000 scientists that think you’re wrong Bob Unruh [reporter], “31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda: 'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no 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 – have signed 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 of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." The Petition Project 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 special effort 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 petition signers 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 project was 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 a group 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 this statistical 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 real non-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 the hypothesis 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 medical doctors 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.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 7 of 26

Def/Off: Global Temperature 5. Our evidence is better – satellites show overall global temperature is fairly constant. This is more accurate when compared to localized temperature increases 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 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 Society’s Speakers Bureau, director of the Society’s Research Department, national director of the Society’s 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 qualified to 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) 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 his 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 19th century. 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 Singer

wrote 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 both data sets poorly controlled (in both quality and location)." On the other hand, "surface data from wellcontrolled U.S. stations (after removing the urban ‘heat-island’ effects) show the warmest years as being around 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 better measuring 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 fourtenths of one degree per century. This minuscule rate of increase, which could change, is far less than the dramatic increases in temperature the forecasters of doom have been warning against.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 8 of 26

Def/Off: Global Temperature 6. There hasn’t been any warming since satellite readings began 23 years ago 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. Board of 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 Conservative Union 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 global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01*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 heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 9 of 26

Def/Off: Global Temperature 7. Satellites, weather balloons, tree rings, & surface temp prove – no warming up in this bizniz. If anything, there’s a cooling trend. Testimony of Prof. S. 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 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 and academic 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 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 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 National Research 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 since about 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 and subpolar 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 absence of 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.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 10 of 26

Def/Off: Ocean Temperature 8. Oceans are entering into a cooling stage – this could show a global temperature cycle indicative of 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 global warming?" 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”, that’s 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 Western Washington 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 means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past 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 cool mode 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 have been 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 are equally 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 says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted 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 is crucial, 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 Leibniz Institute 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 be temporary, 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 warming is 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 that temperatures 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. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 11 of 26

Def/Off: Ocean Temperature 9. There is growing scientific evidence that suggests global warming is not anthropogenic but checked 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 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 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 to chant 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's surface 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 or cool 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-toachieve 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 wild legislation 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 computerdriven 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? Computer models, like the one used by Keenlyside, et al., rely on "positive feedbacks" to generate much of their warming. First, atmospheric carbon dioxide warms things up a bit. Then the ocean follows, raising the amount of atmospheric 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 a subject 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.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 12 of 26

Offense: The Sun (is a mass, of, incandescent gas… ♬) 10. Increased solar output is responsible for warming, not greenhouse gases Kenneth Green [studies climate change policy and directs the Environmental Program at Reason Public Policy 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, General Science, 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 by human 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 posed above. Other scientists would and have claimed ... that confident detection of a significant [humaninduced] climate change has already occurred." Further complications have arisen as additional climate-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 solar output 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 suggest that 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 the cause 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 carbon dioxide 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 of aerosols 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, the potential 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 be canceled 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.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 13 of 26

Offense: The Sun (is a mass, of, incandescent gas… ♬) 11. The sun, previously thought to have little effect, could be the source of almost all climate change 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 global warming?" 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”, that’s 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, even though 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 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's warmth 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 and cosmic 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 have been 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 from Weatheraction, 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 almost entirely 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 the month. If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 14 of 26

Offense: The Sun (is a mass, of, incandescent gas… ♬) 12. Changing energy output of the sun is responsible for warming, not humanity. Sallie Baliunas [astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory 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. Marshall Institute, and past contributing editor to World Climate Report. Her awards include the Newton-LacyPierce 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 Final Conflict. 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's atmosphere 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 strong correlation 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 -- the correlation 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 the change 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 the Maunder 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's magnetism -- 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 shorter magnetic 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 the proxy of brightness change. In this chart, the record of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere land temperature substitutes for global temperature, which is unavailable back to 1700.]

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 15 of 26

Offense: The Sun (is a mass, of, incandescent gas… ♬) 13. There is a direct correlation between sunspots and land temperature in the Northern Hemisphere 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 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 Society’s Speakers Bureau, director of the Society’s Research Department, national director of the Society’s 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 qualified to 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/fnews/1435624/posts, brackets added (HEG) • Man's effect on the climate: In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, Dr. Lindzen acknowledged in his 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, as astrophysicist 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 earth’s 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 NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, noted: "It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the earth’s 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 sun’s

changing 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 referenced above, explained how the sun’s 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 correlation between changes in the length of the sunspot cycle and Northern Hemisphere land temperature for 17501978.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 16 of 26

Offense: Clouds 14. Global climate fluctuations are checked by the creation of clouds Stephen 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 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 and academic 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 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? (McGrawHill, 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], "Singer Cool on Global Warming; Renowned scientist 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 rather than warm the climate. When you try to warm the ocean, I argued and the argument is still sound you evaporate 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.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 17 of 26

Offense: Clouds 15. Clouds keep global warming in check by reflecting sunlight Lee Bowman [Scripps Howard News Service], "Light reflected from earth may be tied to global warming", 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 past three 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 recent brightening 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 Solar Observatory 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 a crescent 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 relatively inexpensive 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 changing climate," 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 about by 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 higher latitudes, 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 sharp decline, 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 an important 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 seen doesn't match what is predicted by most computer climate models.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 18 of 26

Offense: El Niño, boiii [/bad pun] 16. El Niño, an anomaly, caused the major GW spike in 1998. Don’t get off on it. Patrick J. Michaels [Ph.D. Climatology, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a retired Research Professor 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 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], "LONG HOT YEAR: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria", Policy Analysis [a regular series 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 exam- ple) and in a new temperature history compiled by federal climatologists. Curiously, however, this new temperature history has not yet been published in the peerreviewed scientific literature and is riddled with serious problems, most of which suggest that the warming has been overstat- ed.26 Regardless, 1998 is clearly much warmer than normal on a global scale. 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 a warming trend. That is clear testimony to its El Niño relation. At the same time, surface temperatures (see Figure 2) have warmed slightly (0.11°C in the last decade). Imposing an El Niño upon an already warm decade creates the illusion of rapid global warming that I forecast would occur when a strong El Niño occurred in the 1990s.27

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 19 of 26

Offense: Climate Models (are Lousy) 17. Climate models are based on just that – models, not historical data. On top of that, models have 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, State Policy 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 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 Conservative Union 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) 3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers' expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says "climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable." 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. Board of 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 Conservative Union 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) 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), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC's latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes."

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 20 of 26

Offense: Climate Models (are Lousy) 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 San Diego, 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 of Technology, 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-Smithsonian Center 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 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 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 is entirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and 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 worldwide 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 computer climate 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 the seven 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 doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been benign. 20. Climate models consistently leave out clouds Lee Bowman [Scripps Howard News Service], "Light reflected from earth may be tied to global warming", 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 surface temperature 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 (in the computer models) and illustrate that we still lack the detailed understanding of our climate system necessary to model future changes with confidence," he said.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 21 of 26

Offense: Climate Models (are Lousy) 21. Empirics: Climate models are horrendously exaggerated; some projected atmospheric temperature 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 recently served 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 Coal Dependent 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 changes occurring 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 model simulations is to describe and predict the evolution of the ocean/atmospheric system in a way that is useful to discover possible environmental 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 ºF. This is roughly half of the total rise observed since 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 ºF---an amount less than 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, by Remote 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, because RSS data showed about 0.4ºF more warming than UAH's data for this same layer called the mid-troposphere. UAH's total warming for this layer was about 0.05ºF. (This layer is higher in the atmosphere than the lower troposphere mentioned earlier with its 0.7ºF 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 Oceanic

Technology.[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 by independent 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 a slow 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 quantity examined 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 of climate 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.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 22 of 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 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. Board of 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 Conservative Union 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), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer and marked "a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations," observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. "There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today."

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 23 of 26

Offense: Empirics (Past Warming) 23. There’s no data supporting anthropogenic climate change; the past proves – we’ve had warming 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-founding the 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 of numerous research papers on the deamidation of peptides and proteins], & ANDWILLIE SOON [astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center 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 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 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 is entirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and 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) CONCLUSIONS There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon 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 reason to 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 natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. 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, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 24 of 26

Offense: Empirics (Past Warming) 24. 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 San Diego, 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 of Technology, 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-Smithsonian Center 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 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 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 is entirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and 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 computer climate 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 the seven 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 doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been benign.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 25 of 26

Offense: Spartaaaaaaaa! (blitzkrieg of tangible measurements) 25. 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 “Climate Change Science”, Compiled by Ken Gregory, Published/originated by/from Friends of Science [a non-profit organization comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. Does not represent any industry group. Operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work they are doing in the field of science], July 9, 2009, http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Changing (HEG) Climate Is Always Changing The Earth's history shows that the climate has always been changing, over both short-term and long-term time scales. These changes have sometimes been abrupt and severe, without any help from humans. Climate temperature reconstructions are determined from a variety of sources, such as from tree ring width studies and ocean floor sediments. During the last 2 billion years, the Earth has alternated between cool periods like today, and warm periods like when the dinosaurs roamed the planet. The figure below on the left is a temperature reconstruction of the Earth over 2 billion years. Temperatures over this time frame are determined by mapping the distribution of ancient coals, desert deposits, tropical soils, salt and glacial deposits, as well as the distribution of plants and animals that are sensitive to climate, such as alligators, palm trees & mangrove swamps. See here for further information.

Will Malson

GW is natural, yo

Page 26 of 26

Offense: Schwartz is a nut 26. Peter Schwartz is one of the most in-credible… whoops, un-credible… authors to cite mang. Lorne Gunter [senior columnist at the Edmonton Journal. A regular contributor of commentaries for both CBC Radio and Global Television, as well as for several private radio services. He has published essays and opinion pieces in various newspapers and magazines, including the Globe and Mail, Readers' Digest, National Review, the Weekly Standard and others. Former chief of staff to a minister in the last Trudeau government. Currently the editorial director of the Canadian Centre for Libertarian Studies, a member of the editorial board of conservativeforum.org and the incoming president of Civitas - a society for conservative and libertarian academics, think-tankers, lobbyists and journalists], Published by the Edmonton Journal, page A13, “Left-leaning, Bush-bashing newspaper engaged in distortion: Global-warming believers taking in by sexed-up climate-change report”, February 25, 2004, brackets added (HEG) One author, Doug Randall is an MBA [master of business administration]; the other, Peter Schwartz is a self-described "scenario planning futurist," who "helps organizations think the unthinkable by creating alternative stories or scenarios about how the future might pan out." Hmm, "think the unthinkable" and "alternative" futures -- like, say, creating an alternative story about an unthinkable future climate catastrophe that is more alarmist than even the wildest predictions by David Suzuki or the UN? The Guardian misrepresented Schwartz as a CIA analyst and never mentioned he is the founder of GBN and currently serves as its chairman. He has consulted with the CIA, but is not employed by them. Nor did the Guardian see fit to mention that Schwartz is a frequent script consult on Hollywood sci-fi movies or that his 1999 book, The Long Boom, predicted the dot.com boom could continue for decades. No reader would know any of this from the Guardian's sensationalist story, nor would they have much of a clue that neither co-author is a climate scientist. The story doesn't say they are, but it doesn't state they're not, either. The Guardian also conveniently failed to explain that the Pentagon branch that commissioned the report -- the internal think-tank known as the Office of Net Assessment -- is responsible for "modelling" and "gaming" worst-case scenarios for American national security, then assessing whether the U.S. military is up to the challenge of defending against such possibilities, in manpower, training and equipment. Indeed, the ONA is not mentioned until the 23rd paragraph of a 25-paragraph story, and even then its role as the Pentagon's brainstorming arm, where all sorts of out-there and fringe ideas are rolled into fantastical storylines to test the military's ability to adapt, is never explained.