4. Bioterror attacks grossly overestimated – empirically proven
HSC 2005
(Henry Stimson Center, 2005, “Frequently Asked Questions: Likelihood of Terrorists Acquiring and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons”, ACCEM, http://www.accem.org/pdf/terrorfaq.pdf) aw
The Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo was brimming with highly educated scientists, yet the cult’s biological weapons program turned out to be a lemon. While its poison gas program certainly made more headway, it was rife with life-threatening production and dissemination accidents. After all of Aum’s extensive financial and intellectual investment, the Tokyo subway attack, while injuring over 1,000, killed only 12 individuals. In 96 percent of the cases worldwide where chemical or biological substances have been used since 1975, three or fewer people were injured or killed.
5. Warming not real - 30,000 scientists signed a petition saying warming is flat-out nonexistent - their data is skewed
Bell 12 (Larry Bell, Prof at Univ of Houston, Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, 7/17/2012, "That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/2/)
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…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.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists. So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.) The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
6. No runaway warming – even if CO2 growth is exponential temperature rises slowly
De Freitas in ‘2
(C. R., Associate Prof. in Geography and Enivonmental Science @ U. Aukland, Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, “Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?” 50:2, GeoScienceWorld)
In any analysis of CO2 it is important to differentiate between three quantities: 1) CO2 emissions, 2) atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and 3) greenhouse gas radiative forcing due to atmospheric CO2. As for the first, between 1980 and 2000 global CO2 emissions increased from 5.5 Gt C to about 6.5 Gt C, which amounts to an average annual increase of just over 1%. As regards the second, between 1980 and 2000 atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by about 0.4 per cent per year. Concerning the third, between 1980 and 2000 greenhouse gas forcing increase due to CO2 has been about 0.25 W m–2 per decade (Hansen, 2000). Because of the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and greenhouse gas forcing, even an exponential increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration translates into linear forcing and temperature increase; or, as CO2 gets higher, a constant annual increase of say 1.5 ppm has less and less effect on radiative forcing, as shown in Figure 3. Leaving aside for the moment the satellite temperature data and using the surface data set, between 1980 and 2000 there has been this linear increase of both CO2 greenhouse gas forcing and temperature. If one extrapolates the rate of observed atmospheric CO2 increase into the future, the observed atmospheric CO2 increase would only lead to a concentration of about 560 ppm in 2100, about double the concentration of the late 1800’s. That assumes a continuing increase in the CO2 emission rate of about 1% per year, and a carbon cycle leading to atmospheric concentrations observed in the past. If one assumes, in addition, that the increase of surface temperatures in the last 20 years (about 0.3 °C) is entirely due to the increase in greenhouse gas forcing of all greenhouse gas, not just CO2, that would translate into a temperature increase of about 1.5 °C (or approximately 0.15 °C per decade). Using the satellite data, the temperature increase is correspondingly lower. Based on this, the temperature increase over the next 100 years might be less than 1.5 °C, as proposed in Figure 19
Share with your friends: |