args

Acceleration Of Climate Change

While there is little doubt about the reality of climate change, it is unknown how mankind will be able to adapt to it. New technology may create arable land in areas that otherwise couldn’t be farmed. Furthermore, it is possible that relocating people from areas that are flooded will become easier due to improvements in technology.

Climate change is a fraud

Your point about surveys not asking if scientists considered the warming a problem is a fair one. However, You need not dig very deep to find examples of scientists who actively lobby for decreased greenhouse gas emissions to stop global warming and who describe it as a threat to the ecosystem. One example is a 2012 study by Paerl and Paul published in the journal Water Research found that climate change is likely to increase the frequency of cyanobacteria algal blooms in nutrient-rich waters; these blooms outcompete green algae and lead to low-oxygen levels in the water which kill fish and other aquatic life. Scientists also agree warming waters will dissolve more carbonic acid and lead to coral bleaching; this will destroy the Great Barrier Reef and other highly biodiverse marine ecosystems. If you're going to point to a lack of scientific consensus as evidence against climate change, Then the existing scientific consensus on plate tectonics should be evidence that it is true. If you believe all the world's scientists are wrong, Why are we even discussing what their position is? 2. My mention of nuclear weapons was not meant as an analogy; I was responding to your claim that humans cannot affect the Earth because their mass is so small. I gave an example which shows this is not the case. Given that over a million people have died of the coronavirus in less than a year, Which has never happened any of the other years humans have eaten the same thing, I don't see how you can claim diet is the true cause of viral disease. That said, You encounter the same problem as with plate tectonics; by ignoring the scientific consensus, You make this whole discussion a non-starter. The heat comes from the sun, But the greenhouse gases which trap the heat come from the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, If there were no sun, There would be no heat to trap, But that's a more extreme example than anything we see in the real world. 3. Water is the most potent greenhouse gas. Google "most potent greenhouse gas" to learn more. This means the more the globe warms, The more vapor enters the air, And the faster the warming goes. I'm glad to see you at least agreed with 4 (or didn't see it as objectionable enough to post a response to). 5. The first sentence of that quote you posted from NOAA clearly states that tree rings are proxies for temperature as well as precipitation. The two are closely related after all. How often do you have an unseasonable drought without it being hot? I certainly can't think of any times. Peer review as a process is designed to discourage fraud. In science, Academic integrity is everything. You can't lie about your findings or funding at all without destroying your reputation. It's a zero-tolerance system; one strike, You're out. Peer review weeds out corrupt scientists who cannot be trusted to do science honestly and bars them from further publication in reputable journals. Since science has the goal of improving human understanding of the universe, There is absolutely no reason for a scientist to invert their graphs or fudge their data without ulterior motives. What motives could possibly exist for faking climate change? The renewable sector is nowhere near as profitable as the fossil fuel sector; the latter would be a much better candidate for making money off of faulty data than the former, As we have seen. I look forward to this last round. If you have any final arguments you would like to hit me with, I will do my best to respond in my closing statement. Best of luck!

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Your lack of rebuttals makes me think you're stumped. You only responded to one thing I said because you think it is the only important thing I said, and didn't even bother to bring up the evidence I used to support it. You simply said that Co2 levels are higher then we expected. Which is not what I said was expected, what I said is that a warming trend is expected, as we have recently entered an inter galacial period as part of the paleostine ice age. You see, the climate is constantly changing, and my point was that the Co2 theory is becoming more and more flawed. Now you bring up hurricanes, again, this is all part of the warming trend. And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in danger because of hurricanes, then you are on the wrong path. When a developed country gets hit by a hurricane, the effects are far less devastating than when a hurricane or typhoon hits a less developed country. Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of climate change, and focus on bringing those countries out of poverty. Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today. Now, Co2 levels cannot be used to blame your stated problems on. For instance, low plant growth, if anything, can be blamed on low Co2 levels, as the optimal level for plant growth is 4x higher then ours today. And our high levels of Co2, as noted by satellite imagery, are actually making the Earth greener in terms of plant growth, as plants and forests begin to regrow at noticeably fast rates. Now, I have made legitimate claims and backed them up accordingly, and I would appreciate it if you acknowledge these claims, instead of cherry picking for one group of words to attack.

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent does not counter-argue even one of the points I made in my previous arguments/in the comment section. Instead he accuses of of making the argument grow in size to confuse people. Not only is this not true, but it points out how little my opponent understands my argument and this subject. If he had simply read the counter arguments I provided, you can see clearly that I do not try to distract from the topic at hand. Seeing as my opponent made no further arguments and did not make any comments about how I disproved all of his (relating to man causing the warming) claims, I am only left with the option to strengthen my own argument. Fact 1: Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method in science used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can store/release, Co2 can only store 7% of the heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. This is minuscule, especially when compared to water vapor which can store 850% more heat then Co2 can. Fact 2: There is not much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the rest of the earths history and history tells us there is little to no correlation of temperature to Co2 over long periods of time. It is as simple as looking at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 3: Almost every single planet in the solar system is exhibiting some sort of characteristic attributed to warming. If every planet is warming simultaneously, then why is Earth warming not natural. (For more info check the comment section where there was a mini debate on the subject or my previous debate where I explained the attributes each planet it expressing) Fact 3: There has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. We have already discussed this topic and my opponent brought up a good argument against it but I disproved it in my last argument (and the comment section). (Keep in mind that in the last 20 years 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during that period) Fact 4: The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick started in the 1700's, before the industrial revolution. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... Fact 5: Sun spots and ocean currents correlated stronger with temperature then Co2 for the majority of the 1900s. Yes, sun spot numbers decreased towards the end of the 1900s but that is also right before temperatures flat lined. Sun Spots Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) )is .57 1900-2004) http://www.soest.hawaii.edu... Ocean Current Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation here is .85 1900s-2007) http://i0.wp.com... Co2 Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) is .47 1895-2007) http://zfacts.com... Fact 6: Cosmic rays prove that greenhouse gasses do not have a big impact on the atmosphere. Cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other variables in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong. Fact 7: Almost every single climate model prediction warming from Co2 was wrong (see earlier argument for graphs) Fact 8: There is no way to scientifically test, through a controlled experiment, whether Co2 causes enough warming to drive the atmosphere. You can test that the Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but you can't test that it is a strong enough greenhouse gas to impact global climate. This just proves that the idea that Co2 causes warming is not based in science. It is based off of faith in computer models or flawed logic. In conclusion, I have now proven, beyond any doubt, that Co2 cannot be the main climate driver. I have given historical evidence, explained the flaws in the logic presented through cosmic ray induced cooling, shown how Co2 driving climate can't be scientifically tested, explained how we are not the only planet experiencing warming and described how much stronger other climate drivers are then Co2 by presenting correlation strengths of each driver. My opponent has effectively given up the argument and accused me of distracting the readers from the problem at hand. As you can see, just by reading the 8 facts listed above, I have not distracted, I have not manipulated. I have provided clear, easy to understand, proof to why my opponent is wrong. I have disproven all of his arguments, whether in the comment section or in my arguments presented above and given countless examples of evidence to why my side of the argument is correct. Thank you for reading this long debate and I hope you are certain of the right choice when you vote. To my opponent: I will be very surprised if you are reading this because it seems you have been ignoring my arguments from the beginning. You are so biased towards your own opinion that I am surprised you even decided to read any of my arguments instead of saying, "oh, he didn't separate the lines into enough paragraphs!" and ignoring them. I have looked at your past debates and concluded that, while you have done a good job at defeating some people, Retroz and maybe Epidexipteryx have both gotten the better of you. Even in your past debates (including the ones you have won) you have not been able to prove anything you claim. You attack sources, you focus on grammar, but you don't focus on your argument. This is why you attacked the whatsupwiththat website without providing any actual evidence showing the data I presented from it was wrong. In fact, you even admitted it was right! This just proves that attacking sources doesn't get you anywhere with your argument. Just a side tip, if you are going to attack anyone else's sources in future arguments, skeptical science isn't a trustworthy website either. It is run by John Cook who is known for manipulating and masking real information as he did with the 97% consensus. Go to 3:02 in this video or watch the whole thing: Here is an article saying the same thing: http://www.forbes.com... Keep in mind that this renders almost every single one of your arguments useless so if this debate actually focused on how credible sources are, I would instantly win. I thank you for participating in this debate, it was very fun, and I hope that we can both part from this as friends (or people that know each other online and happened to do a debate together whichever you prefer)

Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

There has been no global warming for 17 years, despite a 54% increase in CO2 Pro now argues there is something wrong with NASA's Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data [6] because it does not measure temperature with a thermometer. No scientist, to my knowledge, has ever questioned the ability of RSS to measure temperature. Satellite measurements are far superior to the spotty coverage of weather stations subject to urban heat island effects. Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty. … Satellites can measure the temperature of the atmosphere by evaluating thermal emission from gases in the atmosphere. ... By choosing the different measurement frequencies, and thus different values of absorptivity, the emission from different layers of the atmosphere can be measured. RSS studies the measurements made by 3 series of satellite-borne microwave sounders in order to construct long-term, climate-quality atmospheric temperature datasets for use by the scientific community. [24. http://www.remss.com...] If temperature continued to climb in the past 17 years, we would expect advocates of the theory of CO2 dominated climate to trumpet the success of climate models. But those advocates recognize the fact that the models have failed, the Voosen article I cited makes it clear that CO2 advocates are struggling for an explanation of why the models have failed. I explained in detail why there is no inconsistency with having no temperature increase in 17 years and having the 2001-2010 decade averaging warmer than the 90s. Pro ignored my explanation and claimed that there is a conflict. Pro said I claimed that the temperature anomaly was reset for each decade. That's nonsense, I made no such claim, and if it were reset every decade then the temperature anomalies would be a string of zeros. The anomaly is an arbitrary offset to prevent graphs from having to be scaled with the average global temperature of around 59 degrees F or 287 degrees Kelvin. Pro's graph shows global warming to have stopped since 2000. In additional to providing the actual data and the opinions of scientists who advocate CO2-dominated climate, I provided the work of Von Storch and separately of Mauritsen who showed that CO2 models could not explain the pause. [7] Pro claims I misrepresented Von Storch because in 2006 Von Storch said he believed CO2 dominates climate, but in 2012 Von Storch admitted the CO2 models failed. I quoted Von Storch as saying “we find that the continued stagnation in global warming, from 1998 to 2012, is inconsistent with model predictions, even at the 2% confidence level.” [17] That's not a misrepresentation. Scientists become convinced by unrelenting contrary data. The same is true of other CO2 advocates, quoted by Voosen [20], who finally have given up trying to defend the models. I cited Tinsdale's book [7] for it's extensive comparisons showing the CO2 models fail. Pro argues that I needed to have shown and argued every piece of evidence in the book. No, all I needed to do was to make a claim and cite the evidence. To refute Tinsdale, Pro might have cited some contrary compendium showing all the models were on target, but there is no such evidence to be cited. Some of the CO2 advocates claim the lack of global warming is due to something other than cosmic ray clouds seeding. Hansen supposes it might be reflective soot from coal burning in China. For the present debate, it suffices to say that CO2 is not dominating climate, and so until the science is resolved future predictions cannot be made reliability under the assumption that CO2 dominates. Cosmic ray effects, or something else associated with sunspots, are clearly the most likely factor because the sunspot trend since the early 1800s has been generally in favor of warming, but sunspots activity also tracks the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, the global warming pause from the 40s through the 70s, the 70s sharp cooling, and the current 17 year lack of global warming. All this was shown clearly in the data presented in the debate. Current models do not include all the natural forcings Pro's graphs of temperature with and without CO2 are purely math model predictions. He says that they include sunspot and ocean oscillation effects, but they unquestionably do not. That's apparent because the real temperatures post 2000 did not rise as the graphs show, and also because the projections go out into the future. Voosen [20] specifically referenced these elements missing from the models. The “natural forcings” in the model projections are defective because they do not include the cosmic ray and magnetic effects of sunspots, rather only the inconsequential changes in irradiance. Pro began by arguing that that we should not look at temperatures before 1900, because that's when anthropogenic global warming began. However, the physics of climate do not change, and temperature reconstructions on scales of millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, and the past 2000 years show that CO2 has never dominated climate, no matter what the source of CO2. CO2 levels have been many times current levels. In the past, CO2 increase was a product of warming, not a cause. CO2 may increase warming slightly, but it's never prevented natural forcings from driving temperatures down. To show that CO2 now dominates climate, advocates must show that no other natural factors are significant, but current lack of warming shows that the models are dead wrong. In this round Pro introduced the argument that CO2-induced warming began in the 1800s. But then what caused the preceding Medieval Warm Period and Little Age? It's far more likely that whatever caused those major climate changes ended, producing the subsequent warming. Those major climate events were tightly correlated with sunspot activity. To argue it was CO2, a switch must have been flipped around 1825 causing sunspots to no longer have an effect and CO2 to start dominating. Polar sea ice has increased to a current high, contrary to CO2 theory Pro began by claiming that the decrease in Arctic Ice proved that CO2 causes global warming. That claim evaporated in the light of evidence that Arctic ice has been disappearing and reappearing for centuries with the cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is not in the CO2 climate models. Also, CO2 warming does not explain why Antarctic ice has increased so much so that total ice has had a net increase. Pro shifted to arguing that total accumulated ice on earth has been decreasing since the end of the Little Age, but that is better explained by sunspot activity than CO2. No one claims the Little Age was due to a sudden CO2 shortage. Future CO2 levels are unpredictable. Pro offered only unsupported assertions to counter cited expert opinion that we are rapidly running out of fossil fuels, and technology will provide substitutes. The sun, not CO2, dominates climate We are seeing the real world destroy the theory of CO2 dominating climate. The CO2 math models cannot be tuned to explain how a 54% increase in CO2 has failed to produce and increase in global temperatures. For a while, the notion was that the failure was some transient glitch that would quickly disappear. After 17 years, it's clear that there is a fundamental lack of understanding reflected in climate models. CO2 theorists have been fervent in clinging to their theory, but they are nonetheless still scientists and ultimately obliged to yield their theory to the contrary data. I'm sure that science will ultimately succeed in getting climate models that match reality, and that the models will include some effect of CO2. But it should not be a surprise that the sun dominates climate, even though we are still figuring out exactly how.

Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

"You do not understand that this is a debate on climate change and not evoultion." ... WHAT do you mean? You said I don't understand this debate is not about Evolution. Are you incoherent? Or just a twat? You go on to say, that it is FACTUAL and PROVEN and SCIENTIFIC to suggest that the world is hundreds of thousands if not millions or billions of years old. HA. Science is Observation, in order to determine fact from theory. SO that doesn't support your case that the OZONE is real. In correlation to your proposition: We can see oxygen come out of leaves. Fire needs fuel. It burns on oxygen. Fire doesn't go out in container with leaves. One valid example. YOU git. You say you're a scientist (informed and aware) and I am not, but I can prove you're an idiot, and you lost. Now, It is not wrong to call an idiot an idiot. So I am not unformal. Nor am I being unprofessional. But fro an idiot to call anyone an idiot is idiocy. So watch your step. You can't stipulate I lack evidence in God because YOU "have not seen" it. I simply stated that I have not seen the Ozone. And regarding the OZONE, the term 'Gullible' comes to mind. billions of dollars in media & military embezzlements go into rocket science. Doesn't mean they found an OZONE. Also, the atmosphere is supposedly 190 000 km high, while the space station is only 3000km high. Where is this ozone? Near the Top you said? Oxygen the super heavy gas. OZONE hole over the south pole folks. Where no one including my opponent ever saw it. borderline delusional. To be so defensive and offensive over it's existence. I never heard anyone in my life ever say Cutting grass with non renewable resources is clinical insanity, criminal and is also denial of the Word of God {the form of denial being: destroying the world, vanity, delusion, earthly attachment, selfish, bigoted, a waste... poor expenditure of time and land. etc...) BUt that's okay, Because I didn't join this debate with nothing in my pockets. SO I'mma roll you out flat for being a bigot and attacking my religion which you obviously never investigated prior to wanking yourself - HARD. As a theoretical physicist I can determine that everything has a maximum potential for holding energy. That the energy follows the path of least resistance. Thermal dynamics playing a very key role in this. {The sun draws energy in and expels energy at an equal rate, creating Energy pools, not gravitational pull, nor energy thrust. As an example. thus explaining physics, and suggesting all contrary theories came out of the as of a 'toad'.} [For as you see, atoms cling to one another. They don't part. Thus, if you have a mass of molecules, that mass will forever stay the same size so long as it remains in a vacuum, and it will not disperse. Thus the sun will always soak up and expel the same amount of energy and never burn out, unless a foreign element contaminates it's chemistry after following a path of certain dynamics. Not Gravity, but slip-sliding/slip-streaming in the path of least residence. DO you follow me? The earth as a whole, atmosphere included is the same way. It takes in and expels the same amount of energy every second of the day. Not letting go if the sun goes out, and not soaking more fi the sun expanded. 100% capacity is met and determined and doe snot change. Specific objects in our atmosphere can change temperature, because the body as a whole can move it's energy and fluxuate the balance of nature. I'm a Christian, this is my religion.^^^ the better version of physics. The proven, factual version. The Christian Gordon Version. BIATCH. I patented that Theory. WEATHER change is real. Climate change is a a$s-hat spouted by self righteous-atheists to pretend they care as they continue to advocate atheism to womanizers, corrupt politicians, lazy boyfriends, self-indulgent people and people who Get SOOoooo emotional during conversations with God that they black mail him and refuse to use logic because of the emotional enmity they built Up. My point. You don't understand HOW climate change can be NOT real, and therefor you can't hold your in in this debate. You have to understand my side of the debate to argue with it. ~"You can't say God isn't real simply because YOU never seen him." {PS. blackmailing God, saying you'll promote atheism if he doesn't talk to you is the biggest blasphemy there is** blasphemy against the HOLY SPIRIT (Good Will)} But if your cherry-picking, I suggest You read my argument. Cause I'm coming back next round with another load.

Climate Change is happening

Note: following argument copy and pasted from a previous debate of mine. Con FRAMEWORK My opponent is stating a specific scientific theory is true, and as the side making a positive assertion. She holds the burden of proof. If I simply negate her arguments without forwarding any of my own that should be enough to win this debate. On top of her having the BOP she has another obstacle to overcome. She has to prove 2 things while I merely have to prove 0. She must prove that A. Global warming is real and B. that it is also man made. So if she proves global warming is real but fails to show that it is man made than she has lost this debate. The norm is to make opening arguments in round 2, rebuttals in rund 3 and counter rebuttals in round 4. I will not deviate from the norm this debate. CLIMATE GATE A lot of the global warming debate has been made political. Scientists are engaging in a cover up to sweep all evidence that climate change isn't occurring, under the rug. It's no mystery that these scientists with all their university indoctrination into liberal thinking are themselves big liberals. Global warming is used as a political tool to increase the size and role of the federal govenment and if it's proven to be false then it's a big tool that is lost. It's sad but too many scientists are willing to engage in this coverup to help their team win. The truth simply doesn't matter to them. All that matters is thateir team can hijact the eenvironmentalist movement for ther own selfish causes. In November of 2009 a bunch of climate scintists e-mails were hacked into. [1] These E-mails actually show scientists actively engaging in suppression of evidence. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[2] The trick he is rferring to is using a hockey stick type of graph to make the data hide a cooling trend. [3] "Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we"re throwing out all post-1960 data "cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data "cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we"ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley"s! ... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures " another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"[4] "Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme] In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "[5] I could literally show hundreds of emails where these scientists speak of fudging the numbers or doing tricks with the data or applying artificial adjustments but space is limited on this debate. GLOBE IS NOT COOLING According to a report by the Daily Mail. The MET office has released data showin no global warming for the last 16 years. The temperature of the Earth has been remaining relativiley steady. [6] Here is a cart to llustrate my point. It's pretty much scientific consensus that the Earth has not been heating up for the past 10 years and longer. There can not be global warming if the globe isn't warming. In fact the term climate change is slowly replacing the term global warmig so that any change in the Earths climate can be used to suit the left's political agenda. ARCTIC ICE The arctic ice has increased by over 50% according to a report by the ESE. [7] Despite the fact that Al Gore and other advocates for global warming state that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now.[8] Strong evidence actually shows that the ice cap are getting bigger and stronger. It's only a matter of time beforethey start claiming it's global cooling again like they did in the 40s through 70s and advocatng for nuking the poles like they did back in that time. I'm glad people were smarter than to take the liberal's advice to nuke the poles then. I wish they were justa little bit smarter now. CONCLUSION Rebuttals are coming next round. I'll leave his round by stating that the Ice caps are getting bigger and have not disappeared like people who say global warming is real predicted 5 years ago. Also the Earth's temperature is also pretty steady sowe have multple forms of evidence that the Earth is not warming and when you add that on top of the uncovered emails showing a conspiracy in the scientific community to fudge numbers perform trickery and just plain lie to foward their theory, it's pretty obvious global warming is a lie. I leave you with some predictions people who have forwarded this theory to advance a political agenda have made "Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades " up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated" Al Gore 1992 "senior research scientist" David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within "a few years," snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event" in Britain. "Children just aren"t going to know what snow is," he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past."[9] Here is the funny thing aboutglobal warming alarmists not only will they say increased temperaues on Earth will make snowing a thing of the pas but when it does snow real heavy they also somehow blame that on global warming. So what is it? Does global warming lead to more snow or less? "Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the "greenhouse effect" would be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots." By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska "would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." The situation would get so bad that "Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands."[9] sources 1. http://web.archive.org... 2. http://www.americanthinker.com... 3 http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4 http://tomnelson.blogspot.com... 5. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com... 6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 7. http://www.esa.int...