Case Neg Antarctic

Infrastructure

Top Level

CX
Adaptation
Your warming evidence is in the context of Biblical level floods, monstrous
wildfires, mass biod extinction events, and resource wars --- What does the
plan do to adapt to that?

Strat
T!!!
China CP & SOI
Warming DA

Case

Science Diplomacy

1NC Science Diplomacy

Science Diplomacy Fails
Dickson 10 (David, director of SciDev, June 28
http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/ 7/9/11)//NR
Theres a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science
diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into
international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There is less agreement, however, on how far the
concept can or indeed should be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular

Science,
is no substitute for effective diplomacy.
Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science.
attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level.
despite its international characteristics,

These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in
Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists,
government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world. The definition of science
diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of public diplomacy, or
what US diplomats have recently been promoting as soft power (the carrot rather than the stick
approach, as a participant described it). Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader
concept of innovation diplomacy, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of
international scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a
diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the
focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how
diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel
for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries. There was

given the increasing number

of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians
have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science
diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UKs
little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many,

Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the
spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into
discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the
production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role
in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the
growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made
essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some important
implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canadas International Development
Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many
countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor perhaps predictably was there any major
disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science.

diplomacy can play a significant role in

facilitating science exchange and the launch of international
science projects, both essential for the development of modern science.
On the positive side, such

Europes framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the
first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of
Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts

increasing restrictions
on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks
in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange
programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as
helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions . The
to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively,

broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely
the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge
consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of
these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific
community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred to

the

failure of the Copenhagen climate summit

last December to come up with a

meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking. It was

had been partly due to a misplaced belief that

scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment
to collective action, without taking into account the political
impact that scientific ideas would have. Another example that received
argued that this failure

considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAME in Jordan, a
project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various
countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey).
The promoters of SESAME hope that as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a
research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States SESAME will
become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one
participant described as a beacon of hope for the region. But others cautioned that, however
successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East

Political conflicts have deep roots that

cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists
may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed,
there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific
projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage
by inadvertently favouring one social group over another . Scientists
peace process should not be exaggerated.

should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as
patronising, appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a
practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to

advances in science whether nuclear physics or genetic technology

have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science
automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. Science
for diplomacy therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The
take into account how

consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives and benefit
from diplomatic agreements but cannot provide the solutions to either.

2NC Science Diplomacy

Extend Science Diplomacy Fails
--- Science Dip is just crappier Diplomacy
--- Increasing Restrictions deck success
--- Empirics including Copenhagen fails
--- No account of political impacts, no spillover to
government
--- Makes Peace Less Likely --- Increased Weaponry
Dickson
A. Innovations create turbulence not collaboration
Dickson 9 (David Dickson, Founding Director of the Science-Development
Network, June 4, 2009, "The limits of science diplomacy," online:
http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html)
Using science for diplomatic purposes has obvious attractions and several benefits. But
there are limits to what it can achieve. The scientific community has a deserved
reputation for its international perspective scientists often ignore national boundaries and interests
when it comes to exchanging ideas or collaborating on global problems. So it is not surprising that
science attracts the interest of politicians keen to open channels of communication with other states.
Signing agreements on scientific and technological cooperation is often the first step for countries
wanting to forge closer working relationships. More significantly, scientists have formed key links
behind-the-scenes when more overt dialogue has been impossible. At the height of the Cold War, for
example, scientific organisations provided a conduit for discussing nuclear weapons control. Only so

the Obama administration has given this field a new

push, in its desire to pursue "soft diplomacy" in regions such as the Middle
East. Scientific agreements have been at the forefront of the administration's activities in countries
such as Iraq and Pakistan. But as emerged from a meeting entitled New Frontiers in Science
Diplomacy, held in London this week (12 June) using science for diplomatic purposes
is not as straightforward as it seems. Some scientific collaboration clearly demonstrates what
much science can do Recently,

countries can achieve by working together. For example, a new synchrotron under construction in

whether
scientific cooperation can become a precursor for political
collaboration is less evident. For example, despite hopes that the Middle East
synchrotron would help bring peace to the region, several countries have been
reluctant to support it until the Palestine problem is resolved . Indeed, one
Jordan is rapidly becoming a symbol of the potential for teamwork in the Middle East. But

speaker at the London meeting (organised by the UK's Royal Society and the American Association for

the changes scientific innovations

bring inevitably lead to turbulence and upheaval. In such a context,
viewing science as a driver for peace may be wishful thinking.
the Advancement of Science) even suggested that

B. Divergent international interests

Dickson 9 (David Dickson, Founding Director of the Science-Development
Network, June 4, 2009, "The limits of science diplomacy," online:
http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html)
Perhaps

the most contentious area discussed at the meeting was how science

diplomacy can frame developed countries' efforts to help build scientific

capacity in the developing world. There is little to quarrel with in
collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine desire for
partnership. Indeed, partnership whether between individuals, institutions or countries is the
new buzzword in the "science for development" community. But true partnership requires
transparent relations between partners who are prepared to meet as
equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role: to promote
and defend their own countries' interests. John Beddington, the British
government's chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he told the meeting that a
diplomat is someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve. Worlds
apart yet co-dependent The truth is that science and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the
other. Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or unfortunately
military; scientists need political support to fund their research. But they also occupy different
universes. Politics is, at root, about exercising power by one means or another. Science is or should
be about pursuing robust knowledge that can be put to useful purposes. A strategy for promoting
science diplomacy that respects these differences deserves support. Particularly so if it focuses on
ways to leverage political and financial backing for science's more humanitarian goals, such as tackling
climate change or reducing world poverty. But a commitment to science diplomacy that ignores the
differences acting for example as if science can substitute politics (or perhaps more worryingly, vice

The Obama administration's commitment to "soft power" is

already faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's nuclear
weapons test to domestic opposition to limits on oil consumption . A taste
of reality may be no bad thing.
versa), is dangerous.

C. Perceived as a covert intelligence front

Wolfe 13 (Audra J Wolfe, writer, editor and historian for The Guardian, BS
in chemistry from Purdue University, PhD in science from University of
Pennsylvania, editor for the sciences at Rutgers University Press, editor-inchief at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, professor at the Department of
the jhistory and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania,
Science diplomacy works, but only when its genuine, The Guardian, August
23, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/science/politicalscience/2013/aug/23/obama-science-foreign-policy) Wang
But science diplomacy programmes also draw on a long tradition that holds science and scientists as
uniquely qualified to spread American ideals. In the 1960s (the

last time that the United

States made a sustained effort to use science diplomacy to build international
partnerships), the concept was marred by ties to propaganda campaigns
and intelligence operations. The idea was that foreign elites who adopted the values of
science objectivity, internationalism, the free exchange of information would be more receptive to
American overtures more generally. This assumption drove most US science diplomacy throughout the

neither intelligence gathering

nor pro-American reporting would have come as a surprise : anyone agreeing to
Cold War. When government sponsorship was explicit ("overt"),

participate in a US government-sponsored scientific meeting, circa 1962, probably knew what they were

Things got much murkier when the foreign policy establishment

turned to groups of private citizens as ambassadors for science . An oddity of the
history of American diplomacy is that the United States routinely conducted its Cold War
cultural campaigns through arms-length arrangements . In a few cases, the groups
engaged in so-called "private diplomacy" really were unaffiliated, but more often than not
organisations touting their "independent" work on behalf of the US government received help,
usually with financial support channeled through fake philanthropic foundations . The passgetting into.

through strategy was common in US international activities from approximately 1948 until 1967, when an
article in Ramparts magazine uncovered the CIA's covert funding of the National Student Association (a
youth organisation), and caused a major foreign policy scandal. Science turned out to be a particularly
good fit for this sort of arm's-length operation. All attempts at private diplomacy offered benefits of

private science diplomacy carried the additional

weight of reinforcing American ideals. The American version of "science" that
these scientists and their patrons at the CIA had in mind stressed disinterestedness,
objectivity and scientist-driven research organisations. They portrayed Soviet
science, in contrast, as enslaved to the state, overly focused on technology and driven by
ideology. Who better to spread this message than private scientists, working as individuals? By
definition, this worldview undermined the ability of overtly sponsored
US government science diplomacy to promote the American message. Consider a
economy and plausible deniability, but

specific example. In the early 1960s, the Boulder, Colorado-based Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
produced a series of innovative biology textbooks; it's still around today. In 1961, the BSCS started
accepting funds from the Asia Foundation (now known to be a CIA pass-through) for its international

many of the private organisations that received at least part of

their funding through the CIA, the BSCS also received support from legitimate philanthropic
programmes. Like

organisations, including the Rockefeller Foundation and US government agencies, including the National
Science Foundation. Nor is it entirely clear whether the BSCS's leaders were aware of the true source of
Asia Foundation funds: Arnold Grobman, the BSCS's long-time executive director, denied any knowledge of
such links in an interview with me a few months before his death, in the fall of 2011. In any case, between
1961 and 1967, the BSCS and its overseas affiliates received 10s of thousands of dollars from the Asia
Foundation to underwrite the adaptation and translation of biology textbooks in Taiwan, Thailand, Japan,
Korea, Hong Kong and other nations on the Chinese perimeter. From the historical evidence, the BSCS's
overseas adaptation offices don't appear to be cover for something nefarious: they really did focus on
biology curriculum reform, especially textbook translation. The only thing sketchy about these offices was
that their support came from a different source than their local participants (and possibly even their
American partners) believed. And that's the problem. Covers can be blown. When the Asia Foundation's
board of trustees acknowledged their ties to the CIA in 1967 (in an attempt to pre-empt yet another
damaging story in Ramparts), the BSCS's entire overseas operation came under suspicion. Indian
authorities, for instance, briefly threatened to kick out any group that received funding from the Asia
Foundation; it took the BSCS years to re-establish trust with the foreign ministers of education who had

A similar fate befell almost all projects that involved

Americans abroad, as all "private support" became synonymous with "CIA
front". Covert operations discredited the concept of cultural diplomacy for a generation. The Obama
previously embraced their work.

administration's resurrection of the concept of science diplomacy offers enormous potential. But, once

the intelligence establishment has found in science diplomacy a

convenient cover for its own needs. The CIA's use of a fake vaccination campaign in the hunt
again,

for Osama bin Laden and the subsequent withdrawal of aid workers from Pakistan over fears for their

covert operations are threatening to derail

genuinely helpful, hopeful activities that might otherwise go a long way toward building
international goodwill. The state department's insistence on calling its science
envoys "private citizens", too, is cause for concern. Since the science envoys
are obviously doing the state department's work , why not call them "officials" and avoid
safety, are all too familiar. Once again,

the potential for confusion? The US has been there before. This time, science diplomacy is worth doing
right.

1NC --- Southern Leadership

No Uniqueness Arg --- Sci Dip is in the Status Quo
Science diplomacy not modeled asymmetries in
countries scientific abilities
Morabito 5/8 (Kaitlyn Morabito, predoctoral fellow at National Institutes
of Health at Georgetown, former research assistant at Henry M Jackson
Foundation, MS in Advanced biotechnology, biodefense from John Hopkins
University, and BS in Biology/Chemistry from Loyola Science Policy Around
the Web, Science Policy For All, May 8, 2014,
https://sciencepolicyforall.wordpress.com/tag/science-diplomacy/) Wang
When does science diplomacy fail? Technology and knowledge transfer can be
difficult between competitors, particularly where there are security concerns or with dual-use
technologies. Asymmetries in scientific capabilities (e.g., between the USA and
African nations) and lack of funding for international collaborative activities
can also hinder diplomatically productive scientific partnerships. For science diplomacy to
work, scientific goals must be at the forefront and diplomatic goals should be clearly defined to avoid

science diplomacy works

best on an individual level when scientists focus on doing good science without an overt
science diplomacy agenda.
science being used for purely political ends. Some argue that, ironically,

Alt Causes --- Their 1AC evidence talks about failures to

follow treaties and domestic attitudes about the
environment

---XT: Sci Dip Now

Funding increase
Mervis 1/14 (Jeffrey Mervis, Staff Writer for Science, reports on science
policy in the US, more than 30 years experience in the field, US Science
Agencies Get Some Relief in 2014 Budget, Science, January 1, 2014,
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/01/u.s.-science-agencies-get-somerelief-2014-budget) Wang
The ghost of former President George W. Bush permeates the 2014 budget that Congress released last
night. His presence is good news for physical scientists, but less cheery for biomedical researchers, as

Congress reserved some of the biggest spending increases for NASA and the
Department of Energy (DOE). The National Institutes of Health (NIH), meanwhile, got a $1
billion increase that is drawing mixed reviews from research advocates. The deal released late on
13 January has its origins in a spending deal that Congress struck on 10 December. It eased the pain of the
across-the-board cuts known as sequestration, calling for $1.012 trillion in 2014 discretionary spending.
That is some $44 billion more than would have been available under a 2011 agreement that called for
reducing the federal deficit by a trillion dollars over the next decade. But it took about a month for
lawmakers to decide how to divvy up the money. For agencies that provide major support for the physical

the new budget represents a healthy boost over 2013 spending levels ,
will
receive $7.17 billion, an increase of 4.2%, for example, and NASAs science
programs will get $5.15 billion, a 7.7% jump. DOEs Office of Science enjoys a 9.7%
sciences,

which were depressed by the sequesters 5% bite. The National Science Foundation ( NSF)

increase, to $5.07 billion, and DOEs Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy gets an 11.2% boost to

National Institutes of Standards and Technology will see its

budget grow 10.4%, to $850 million. Except for NASA, those agencies were all part of a 2006
$280 million. The

initiative launched by the Bush administration to increase funding for the physical sciences. Congress
formalized the idea in a 2007 law, the America COMPETES Act. Although agencies never received the
generous funding called for by COMPETES, which has recently expired after being reauthorized in 2010, its
message appears to have survived: The physical sciences need to be strengthened to help the U.S.
economy remain strong. President Barack Obama has continued that theme in his budget requests,
including a bid last spring for large increases at several agencies (see table).

Nongovernmental institutions, private foundations,

universities, and corporations fill the gap
Colglazier 13 (E. William Colglazier, science and technology advisor to
the secretary of state, former executive officer of the National Academy of
Sciences, former professor of physics and director of the energy,
environment, and resources center at the University of Tennessee, worked at
the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvards Kennedy School
of Government, full bio can be reached at
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/169019.htm, Remarks on Science and
Diplomacy in the 21st Century, US Department of State, August 20, 2013,
http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm) Wang
Nongovernmental institutions are also critically important to science diplomacy.
The U.S. National Academies which includes the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and
National Research Council collaborate bilaterally and multilaterally with
scientific academies and scientific organizations around the world to provide
independent, expert advice to governments and international organizations on important global

issues. The goal is not only to make progress on solving problems that countries face, but also to help

The
has created a Center for
Science Diplomacy that has focused on scientific communication with
countries where the U.S. Government does not have diplomatic relations.(5) The AAAS has
engaged with North Korea and Cuba, and was among the first to engage with
Burma. Both the AAAS and the NAS have engaged with Iran; in fact, the NAS has
scientific organizations around the world become more important advisers to their governments.
American Association for the Advancement of Science ( AAAS)

been conducting workshops and exchanges with the Iranian scientific community for over a decade.
Science cannot break down all the barriers, but when a window of opportunity emerges in governmental
relations, the existing scientific contacts can be a great asset, as was the case for U.S. relations with both
China and Russia. The U.S. State Department has always encouraged our nongovernmental scientific
organizations to maintain contact and communications with scientists in countries where diplomatic

Private foundations have also played a significant role . As an

partnered with South
Africa to create a fundamental science research center called KwaZulu-Natal Research
relations do not exist.

important recent example, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has

Institute for Tuberculosis and HIV (KRITH) in Durban to focus on solving the critical health problem of joint
HIV and TB infections.(6) Durban is the epicenter of this pandemic, and HHMI has committed over U.S.$70
million for KRITH. The research center works with the local university and hospitals in Durban and has
attracted researchers from around the world. It has built considerable good will between the U.S. and

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is another example of utilizing

science to solve health problems facing developing countries, and has
directed enormous resources and expertise at these issues. The foundation has
South Africa.

provided support for a decade to the NAS and Institute of Medicine to help science academies in Africa to

Foundations in other
countries have also served this role well. The Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation, which was established by the German federal government, is an excellent example of an
organization pursuing science diplomacy through collaborations in fundamental
science and engineering. The many Humboldtians around the world are an important scientific
network as well as a bridge between Germany and other countries. Research universities are
very international and build linkages between countries . The international
become more important advisers to their governments on health issues.

collaborations are not only those initiated by individual faculty, but also strategic engagements made by
university leaders and partly financed via university funds. It is hard to keep track of all the international

American multinational
corporations also contribute to science diplomacy . An interesting example is the
engagements that our major research universities are undertaking.

program that Intel created to help reform engineering education in Vietnam. Intel built its largest chip
assembly and test facility in the world outside of Ho Chi Minh City, and subsequently found that
Vietnamese engineers and technicians that it hired needed additional skills. Intel partnered with Arizona
State University -- with support from USAID, Vietnamese ministries, and other companies -- to create the
multiyear and multimillion dollar Higher Engineering Education Alliance Program to strengthen engineering

These international engagements by our universities and

companies have been a great asset for the U.S. in building positive
relationships with countries around the world. And it is important to remember that one of the
education in Vietnam.

greatest benefits for the U.S. innovation ecosystem from international engagement of our universities and
companies has been attracting many of the best and brightest from around the world for graduate
education and research and for creating and working in innovative American technology companies.

Alex Dehgans Appointment

Johnson 10 (Jenny. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 8 April.
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/usaid-appointment-boosts-science-diplomacy-focus.html)

The US government's international development agency is stepping up its focus on

science and technology with a key appointment intended to enhance the
agency's programmes in the Middle East and bolster the Obama administration's push for

science diplomacy. Alex Dehgan was appointed USAID's science and

technology advisor last month (11 March). The agency described him in a statement
as "the focal point for implementing the Administrator's vision to restore
science and technology to its rightful place within USAID". An agency spokeswoman said
that Dehgan will work closely with USAID's senior counselor and director of innovation, Maura O'Neill, and
will help shape development strategies, as well as create "novel science-based initiatives".

Dehgan's

appointment is widely seen as strengthening the administration's

commitment to science diplomacy the use of scientific programmes, such as efforts to
forge international cooperation among scientists and engineers, to achieve broader political objectives.
Dehgan, a conservation biologist and an attorney in international law, has worked for the US State
Department in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East. He also has experience working on large-scale
conservation projects in the non-governmental sector. The appointment is "very encouraging", said

"Dehgan has a
long background in science diplomacy, he is a bench-trained scientist, and he
is young he has energy and drive." She said that this appointment adds
to a growing list of high-level experts currently promoting US science
diplomacy. "There is a lot of interest and experience that's being brought to this issue." Al Teich,
Caroline Wagner, author of The New Invisible College: Science for Development.

director of science and policy programmes at the American Association for the Advancement of Science

that the appointment of Dehgan who has worked as an AAAS fellow, helping to
shows that science diplomacy is
"an idea whose time has come".
(AAAS), said

set up an electronic library of scientific journals in Iraq

Energy Grids

1NC Solar Storm

Solar Storms? More like Solar Breeze
Borenstein 12

[Seth- Writer for NBC News. Earth easily weathers solar storm that turned out
to be so-so. NBC News. 3/8/12. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46668792/ns/technology_and_sciencespace/t/earth-weathers-solar-storm-turned-out-be-so-so/#.U8lthPldWSo ] Dressler

Our high-tech world seems to have easily weathered a solar storm that didn't
quite live up to its advance billing. "It looks to me like it's over," NASA solar
physicist David Hathaway said late Thursday afternoon, after noticing a drop in a key
magnetic reading. But when the storm finally arrived around 6 a.m. ET Thursday, after
traveling at 2.7 million mph, it was more a magnetic breeze than a gale. The
power stayed on. So did GPS and satellites. Astronomers say the sun has
been relatively quiet for some time. And this storm, forecast to be strong and
ending up minor, still may seem fiercer because Earth has been lulled by several years of weak solar
activity.

2NC Solar Storm

Im gridding my teeth because this advantage is so bad
Sun, are you joking? Solar Storm? More like Solar Breeze
---- We have high tech
--- It was just a magnetic breeze
--- Forecasts are overhyped
That was Boresntein

Solar storms rarely happen anyway

Cookson 13 [Clive, science editor, Academy warns on solar superstorm, FT,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f30d9e54-7067-11e2-ab3100144feab49a.html#axzz37si9pbUl] JB
once-in-a-century solar
superstorm that could wreck the electricity grid and put communications and navigation satellites
Britain must continue to harden its infrastructure in preparation for a

out of action, the Royal Academy of Engineering has warned. The academys report, released on Thursday,
is the first to assess in detail the UKs vulnerability to an explosive outpouring of energy from the sun
aimed directly at Earth. The last true solar superstorm, known as the Carrington event, was in 1859, said
Paul Cannon, chairman of the academys study group. We believe that such

superstorms occur

every 100 to 200 years. The 1859 event destroyed much of the worlds newly installed
telegraph network, as its equipment succumbed to an electromagnetic surge as well as treating people
living in the tropics to a spectacular display of auroral lights normally seen only in polar regions. Our
message is: Dont panic but do prepare, added Professor Cannon. Another

superstorm will
happen one day and we need to be ready for it. The academys experts regard the most
cataclysmic scare stories about the likely impact of a superstorm as
exaggerated, because some action has already been taken to harden
infrastructure in the UK and worldwide. For example, National Grid
has protected its transformers against power surges and voltage
fluctuations since 1989, when the worst solar storm of the 20th century knocked out two
transformers. Chris Train, the grids operations director, said a Carrington-type superstorm might
cause local blackouts for a few hours, with a dozen transformers
taken out of service, but there would not be a sustained nationwide
blackout. Satellites are particularly vulnerable to electrically charged particles and radiation from the
sun. Our best engineering judgment...is that up to 10 per cent of satellites could experience temporary
outages lasting hours to days as a result of the extreme event, the report said. But many satellites would
be weakened by the experience and would therefore have to be replaced sooner than their designers had
expected. A particularly serious impact of a solar superstorm would be the likely loss of all global satellite
navigation signals, from the US GPS system and Europes new Galileo system, for one to three days. These
provide not only navigation but also timing for many communications systems. The current UK mobile
communications network is much less vulnerable than those in many other countries including the US, the
study found, because it does not depend on satellite time signals. However the new 4G mobile system may
be vulnerable because it does require synchronisation through satellite signals, Prof Cannon said .

The
sun is approaching the maximum of its 11-year activity cycle this
year. But, perhaps surprisingly, that does not increase the risk of a
superstorm. A superstorm is essentially a random event, said Prof
Cannon. If anything, the most intense solar storms like Carrington tend to occur when the suns activity is
falling away again toward a minimum.

And the Earth has natural protection and warning systems

Innovation 7/1/14 [How do we protect against a trillion-pound solar
superstorm?, Innovation, http://innovation.uk.msn.com/planet/how-do-weprotect-against-a-trillion-pound-solar-superstorm] JB
Earth's atmosphere does provide some protection against solar activity,
essentially funnelling highly charged solar wind towards the polar regions ,
areas that frequently suffer interruptions to radio. One visible consequence of
space weather are the spectacular aurora borealis and aurora australis, the
Northern and Southern Lights, which display in an oval shape around the
planet's poles. The very same CMEs on the Sun's surface can interrupt
infrastructure is what causes the green, blue and occasionally red lights as
super-charged electrons hits the Earth's upper atmosphere about 60 miles up
and collide with other molecules, emitting light. In fact, upon hearing the
phrase Coronal Mass Ejection, some astronomers immediately leave for the
Arctic Circle to view the resulting aurora. That's the good news; if a Solar
Super-storm kicks-off and the billions of tonnes of solar particles it spews is
headed our way, we do get between one to three days' warning of its arrival.

NASA predicts and save the grid

Dillow 10 [Clay, Contributing Writer at Popular Science and Researcher at
Popular Science Magazine, NASA is Building a 'Solar Shield' to Protect Power
Grids from Space Weather, Popular Science,
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/nasa-building-solar-shieldprotect-power-grids-space-weather]
The threat to power grids during bad solar weather is known as GIC, or geomagnetically induced current.
When the sun ejects a huge coronal mass in our direction, the impact with our atmosphere shakes up
Earth's magnetic field. That generates electric currents from the upper atmosphere all the way down to the
ground. These can cripple power grids, overloading circuits and in some cases melting heavy-duty
transformers. Those transformers are very necessary to keep the power flowing. They're also expensive,
irreparable in the field, and can take a year to replace. Meaning that a massive coronal ejection could
knock down entire power grids for long stretches of time, grinding economies to a halt and making life

NASA has a plan to battle these blackouts

with blackouts. If transformers are offline at the time the storm hits
they will not be affected, so the trick is to figure out where and
when a storm is going to hit before it reaches the atmosphere. To do
that, NASA's SOHO and two STEREO spacecraft identify a coronal
mass ejection (CME) heading toward earth and create a 3-D image of
it, allowing researchers to characterize its strength and determine
when it will hit. Depending on the intensity of the CME, the trip from sun to Earth can take 24-48
hours. NASA would track the CME across the sky, with the pivotal moment
coming about 30 minutes prior to impact when the storm comes
screaming past the ACE spacecraft, something like 930,000 miles
from Earth. Sensors aboard ACE gather more data on the storm's
speed, magnetic field, and density that is fed into computer models
at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. With less than 30 minutes
until impact, NASA's models calculate the places most likely to be
more than a little inconvenient. But

impacted with dangerous GIC and utilities are notified so they can
pull their grids offline. This will cause a blackout in the region, but
only a temporary one. When the storm ends, the grids come back
online and life goes on.

The grid is backed up by the military

Thompson 12

[Edric- Writer for the United States army. Army successfully demonstrates
tactical operations smart grid. US Army. 10/3/12.
http://www.army.mil/article/88440/Army_successfully_demonstrates_tactical_operations_smart_grid/ ]
Dressler

The U.S. Army demonstrated a proof of concept for a smart grid that could support
tactical operations, this summer at its integrated capabilities testbed at Fort Dix, N.J. The U.S. Army
Research, Development and Engineering Command's communications-electronics RD& E Center, or
CERDEC, powered portions of a Tactical Operations Center and used the event to gather data and lessons

Department of Defense efforts to develop a

solution that will reduce the number of generators needed, prevent overloads
and grid collapse while reducing the number of generators needed , manpower
requirements for grid operation and fuel consumption by 25 percent. Microgrid systems are
currently the only solution that allows the incorporation of multiple technologies, such as
learned that would help inform/support

renewables and energy storage systems, to supplement traditional power generation techniques, DeJong

"This allows us to create platforms that manage and distribute power

efficiently while using smaller generators. It's a sustainable practice that has
applicability across all echelons, from the Forward Operating Base down to the Soldier.
explained.

Furthermore, this is all transparent to the Soldier; the plug-and-play system has an open, user-friendly

"The ever increasing use

of electronics for communication, surveillance, sensing and targeting devices
at the Soldier level dictates an intelligent micro-grid , so it makes scientific and
architecture that allows for greater operational flexibility," DeJong said.

economic sense to collaborate, share information and resources where permissible," said Product Director
Lt. Col. Quentin L. Smith, PD C4ISR & Network Modernization.

1NC Econ
No chance of war from economic decline---best and most
recent data
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University,
October 2012, The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,
http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-ofGlobal-Economic-Governance.pdf

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great
Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple
analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use
of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were
genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the
Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement
fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggests otherwise ,
however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a Global Peace Index annually since
2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that The

average level of
peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.38 Interstate
violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis as have
military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great
Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in
violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers Brubaker concludes,
the

crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic
exclusion that might have been expected.40 None of these data suggest that the global
economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012.
Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of
cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the
aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed
world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope
or kind; expecting a standard V-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized
the post-2008 global economy as in a state of contained depression.41 The key word is contained,

Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the
proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the
outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This
however.

Time is Different: that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since
World War II and not even worse must be regarded as fortunate.42

2NC Econ
Extend No Impact We control the best and most recent
empirics
- Analysts disprove diversionary wars and great power
conflict
- Violence in 2012 is the same as 2007
- The Great Recession empirically denies the impact
- No Nationalism or Ethnic exclusion has resulted
Thats Drezner
Global economic governance institutions guarantee
resiliency
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University,
October 2012, The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,
http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-ofGlobal-Economic-Governance.pdf

Prior to 2008, numerous foreign policy analysts had predicted a looming crisis in global
economic governance. Analysts only reinforced this perception since the financial crisis, declaring
that we live in a G-Zero world. This paper takes a closer look at the global response to the
financial crisis. It reveals a more optimistic picture . Despite initial shocks that
were actually more severe than the 1929 financial crisis, global economic governance
structures responded quickly and robustly. Whether one measures results by economic
outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional flexibility, global economic governance has
displayed surprising resiliency since 2008. Multilateral economic institutions
performed well in crisis situations to reinforce open economic policies , especially
in contrast to the 1930s. While there are areas where governance has either faltered or failed, on the
whole, the system has worked. Misperceptions about global economic governance persist
because the Great Recession has disproportionately affected the core economies and because the
efficiency of past periods of global economic governance has been badly overestimated. Why the system
has worked better than expected remains an open question. The rest of this paper explores the possible
role that the distribution of power, the robustness of international regimes, and the resilience of economic
ideas might have played.

No empirical support for diversionary theory

Tir, 2010 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is
an Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, Territorial
Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 2, April
2010, Pp. 413425, Chetan]

According to the diversionary theory of war, the cause of some militarized conflicts is
not a clash of salient interests between countries, but rather problematic domestic circumstances.

Under conditions such as economic adversity or political unrest, the countrys leader
may attempt to generate a foreign policy crisis in order both to divert
domestic discontent and bolster their political fortunes through a rally
around the flag effect (Russett 1990). Yet, despite the wide-ranging popularity of
this idea and some evidence of U.S. diversionary behavior (e.g., DeRouen 1995, 2000; Fordham
1998a, 1998b; Hess and Orphanides 1995; James and Hristolouas 1994; James and Oneal 1991; Ostrom

after five decades of research broader empirical support for the

theory remains elusive (e.g., Gelpi 1997; Gowa; 1998; Leeds and Davis 1997; Levy 1998; Lian
and Job 1986),

and Oneal 1993; Meernik and Waterman 1996). This has prompted one scholar to conclude that
seldom has so much common sense in theory found so little support in practice
(James 1987, 22), a view reflected in the more recent research (e.g., Chiozza and Goemans 2003,
2004; Meernick 2004; Moore and Lanoue 2003; Oneal and Tir 2006). I argue that this puzzling lack of
support could be addressed by considering the possibility that the embattled leader may anticipate
achieving their diversionary aims specifically through the initiation of territorial conflict2a
phenomenon I call territorial diversion.

No escalation
Robert Jervis 11, Professor in the Department of Political Science and

School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December

2011, Force in Our Times, Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if
severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world
generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into
sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example,
perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a
worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself
produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back
old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these
dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be
great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate
fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence
has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed states that
were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have
fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme
versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited ,
it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high level of political
conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their
countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is
it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will
entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a
pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as
outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply
(correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a
sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of
arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about
greater economic conflict , it will not make war thinkable.

1NC --- Grids

Their internal link evidence is from 2004 --- Doesnt
assume modern warning systems
Turn --- Cyberattacks shut down the grid
Poulsen 04 [ Kevin, Former Cyber Hacker, August 14, South Pole
'cyberterrorist' hack wasn't the first, The register,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/south_pole_hack/] Schloss
It's a tale Tom Clancy might have written. From their lair in distant Romania,
shadowy cyber extortionists penetrate the computers controlling the
life support systems at a Antarctic research station, confronting the
58 scientists and contractors wintering over at the remote post with
the sudden prospect of an icy death. After some twists and turns,
the researchers are saved in the fourth act by an international law
enforcement effort led by FBI agents wielding a controversial, but
misunderstood, federal surveillance law. That's the story behind an
intrusion into the network at the National Science Foundation's
Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in May of last year, as it's been
told by the FBI and the US Attorney General. But did it actually happen that
way? The attack itself was real enough. On May 3rd, network
administrators for US Antarctic Program and the South Pole Station
received an anonymous e-mail with the subject line "South Pole
Station Servers HACKED." "This is a message from earth to earth, do you
copy?," the -mail began. The message demanded money, and threatened to
sell information stolen from the network "to another country," according to
the FBI. To establish their bona fides, the intruders attached a sample of data
lifted from the South Pole network. Network administrators quickly took the
compromised system offline and began forensics, while FBI computer crime
experts traced the demand letter to a cyber caf in Romania - a country that
exports hacker extortion schemes the way Nigeria produces Internet advance
fee scams. Agents zeroed in on two suspects who were already targets of FBI
investigations in Mobile, Alabama and Los Angeles, California for similar
protection rackets, and the pair were quickly rolled up by Romanian law
enforcement. The matter "is now pending prosecution in Romania," says FBI
spokesman Joe Parris. But did the intruders really endanger the lives of the 58
scientists and contractors? Could they have shut off the heat at a time of year
when aircraft don't dare to land for anything short of a medical emergency?
The most dramatic element of the South Pole story was absent from the FBI's
first public release on the attack in July of last year. That account - which has
since been scrubbed from the FBI's website - underscored the importance
of the Internet to scientists living at the South Pole station,
describing connectivity as "a lifeline" to the outside world. But that's
as far as it went. The hacked life support system first crept into the tale last
February, in testimony by FBI cyber chief Keith Lourdeau to a Senate
subcommittee conducting hearings on "cyber terrorism." "During May, the

temperature at the South Pole can get down to 70 degrees below zero
Fahrenheit; aircraft cannot land there until November due to the harsh
weather conditions," says Lourdeau. "The compromised computer
systems controlled the life support systems for the 50 scientists." (The
FBI's Parris said he hadn't seen Lourdeau's Senate testimony, and was
therefore not able to comment on it.) Lourdeau took pains in his testimony to
point out that the FBI still has not seen anything that qualifies as cyber
terrorism under the bureau's definition of the term. But last month Attorney
General John Ashcroft showed less reticence in describing the South
Pole hacks as "a cyber-terrorist threat" in a 29-page Justice Department
report meant to highlight, through dozens of examples, the importance of the
controversial USA Patriot Act, which he claimed had aided agents tracking the
alleged cyber terrorists' email. "The hacked computer ... controlled the life
support systems for the South Pole Station that housed 50 scientists
'wintering over' during the South Pole's most dangerous season," reads the
Justice Department report. "Due in part to the quick response allowed by [the
USA Patriot Act], FBI agents were able to close the case quickly with the
suspects' arrest before any harm was done to the South Pole Research
Station." Memo: 'No Critical System Corrupted' When Newsweek examined
the Justice report last month, the NSF disputed the role the USA Patriot Act
played in the Romanian investigation. But spokesman Peter West says the
Foundation will not otherwise not comment on the South Pole intrusion.
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo didn't return a phone call
inquiring about the description of events in the Justice report. But an internal
assessment of the attack by NSF senior staff, intended to explain the
intrusion to the NSF's inspector general and obtained by SecurityFocus under
the Freedom of Information Act, appears at odds with the Justice
Department's version. For starters, by the time the suspects were arrested,
the compromised system had already been secured -- the arrests were
apparently not responsible for preventing harm to the station. And as
described in the memo, released as a partially-redacted draft, the incident
was something less than a cyber terror attack to begin with, and prompted a
measured response from network administrators. "Given the fact that no
financial records or systems were compromised, no safety or loss of life was
threatened, and no critical system corrupted" by the Romanian hackers, "we
need to balance legitimate security needs with the legitimate needs of our
scientists at the Pole," the memo reads. The assessment noted that, at the
time of the Romanian intrusion, the South Pole's network was less
secure than other NSF sites "purposely to allow for our scientists at this
remotest of locations to exchange data under difficult circumstances."
Indeed, the station was no stranger to hack attacks when the wouldbe extortionists struck. Other documents show that less than two
months earlier the NSF's security team was plunged into a similar
fire drill when a computer intruder named "PoizonB0x" penetrated
the primary and backup data acquisition servers for a radio
telescope at the station called the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer
(DASI), which measures properties of the cosmic microwave background

radiation -- the afterglow of the Big Bang. The intruder, rated a prolific
website defacer by tracking site Zone-H, used his moment of cosmic access
to erect a webpage on the servers proclaiming, "I love my angel Laura."
Many of these systems are connected to the internet and run on
commonly understood operating systems using well-known,
standard communications protocols. In many cases, access to these
systems is not controlled as tightly as expected given their potential
impact on life and safety.

---XT: Cyberattacks Turn

Turn --- Cyberattacks shut down the grid
Poulsen Former Cyber Hacker
cyber extortionists penetrate the computers controlling the life
support systems at a Antarctic research station, confronting the 58
scientists and contractors wintering over at the remote post with the
sudden prospect of an icy death. After some twists and turns, the
researchers are saved in the fourth act by an international law
enforcement ]? The attack itself was real the South Pole Station
received an anonymous e-mail with the subject line "South Pole
Station Servers HACKED." " John Ashcroft showed less reticence in
describing the South Pole hacks as "a cyber-terrorist threat" South
Pole's network was less secure than other NSF sites "]access to
these systems is not controlled as tightly as expected given their
potential impact on life and safety.

Adaptation

1NC Navy
Budget cuts destroy readiness, aff gets no solvency
Ron Ault 13, Executive Assistant to the President for Metal Trades
Department, AFL-CIO, Navy Budget Cuts Sinking Americas Military
Readiness, Feb 15 2013, http://www.metaltrades.org/index.cfm?
zone=/unionactive/view_blog_post.cfm&blogID=1390&postID=6618
While many in Washington are focused on the rapidly-approaching March 1st sequestration deadline, few seem to be

massive cuts that will go into effect this week across our
military cuts that will have an equally devastating impact on our economy and
security. As the result of the continuing resolution (CR) that was agreed upon in the final hours of 2012, a deal that
paying much attention to the

averted the so-called fiscal cliff, the U.S. Navy was forced to accept $6.3 billion in cuts for the remainder of the forces
Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) budget. If sequestration goes into effect, that number could grow to $10 billion. As the
representative of 80,000 workers employed at U.S. shipyards and naval bases workers who take great pride in the role
they play in supporting our military I would like to shed some light on the severity and senselessness of the Navy budget
cuts and implore the 113th Congress to take prudent and expeditious action to avoid further Defense spending cuts in

Lawmakers have already taken a hatchet to the Defense budget; we

simply cannot sustain any further cuts this year. The $6.3 billion in Navy budget
reductions cut too deeply. For example, Navy Fleet Commanders have been
ordered to cancel 3rd and 4th Quarter surface ship maintenance. Thats a very tall
order considering our shipyards are already fully loaded with high priority
work on extremely tight schedules to support fleet deployment. Once scheduled
maintenance on a ship is missed, there is no capacity to make it up later
without causing delays elsewhere. The well-oiled machine breaks down. With the cuts
contained in the CR alone, it is conceivable that aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear
submarines, and other Navy vessels would be tied up at piers awaiting critical
repairs without the ability to move, much less support our national defense. If we allow
our fleet to collect barnacles in harbor for six months, we would significantly
disrupt our militarys access to the ships they need to defend our country.
FY13.

2NC Navy
Budget Cuts --- Destroys all Naval Power
Ron Ault 13 --- West 07 doesnt assume the sequester in
2012
1. Ships and Carriers
Massive budget cuts into the ship maintenance and the
navy breaks down carriers destroyers submarines and
other navy vessels from failure of critical repair which
significantly disrupted our military access --- Means even
if the data is collected there is no Naval Power to back up
the assault.
2. Undersea Dominance
Hugh Lessig 13, Daily Press, 9/12/13, U.S. Navy: Budget challenges
threaten submarine program, http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-0912/news/dp-nws-forbes-submarine-hearing-20130912_1_u-s-navysubmarines-missile
The U.S. military touts its submarine program as an unqualified success, yet
the fleet is expected to drop by nearly 30 percent in coming years and one Hampton
Roads lawmaker wants to pull money from outside the Navy's shipbuilding program to ease the pressure

Navy leaders on Thursday told a panel chaired by Rep. Randy Forbes,

that more budget cuts would dull the edge of the submarine
program, where the U.S. enjoys a distinct advantage over other superpowers. Forbes
on one key program. Two
R-Chesapeake,

chairs the House Armed Service's subcommittee on sea power. About 2,300 jobs at Newport News
Shipbuilding are tied to the U.S. submarine program. The shipyard builds them in partnership with General
Dynamics Electric Boat of Groton, Conn.

The U.S. military has three types of nuclear-

powered submarines. First are the smaller fast-attack submarines that fall primarily in two classes,
the older Los Angeles class and the newer Virginia class. Last week, the Navy commissioned the newest
Virginia class sub at Naval Station Norfolk. The second type are Ohio class ballistic missile submarines
that roam the seas and provide a nuclear strike capability. The third type is an offshoot of the second:
When the Cold War ended, the U.S. converted four of those ballistic missile submarines into guided-cruise
missile submarines. All three types are scheduled to drop, said Rear Adm. Richard P.
Breckenridge and Rear Adm. David C. Johnson. who testified before the Forbes panel.

3. National Debt --- Guarantees an ineffective navy

Seth Cropsey 10, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Deputy
Undersecretary of the Navy, The US Navy in Distress, Strategic Analysis Vol.
34, No. 1, January 2010, 3545, http://navsci.berkeley.edu/ma20/Class
%208/Class%2012.%20Sea%20Power.
%20%20Cropsey_US_Navy_In_Distress.pdf
the continued withering of the US combat fleet which today numbers
about 280 ships. This is less than half the size achieved towards the end of the
Reagan administration buildup and 33 ships short of what the Navy says it
needs to fulfill todays commitments. Nothing suggests a substantive reversal. Most
signs point to additional decline over the long term. Four years ago the Navys projected fleet size had
The most tangible result is

dwindled to 313 ships. There it has stayed . . . until May of this year when a senior Navy budget official, commenting on

the new Quadrennial Review now underway at the Defense

Department will likely result in a smaller projected fleet size. Huge increases in
current and projected national debt and the vulnerability of the military
budget to help offset it increase the chance that without compelling events the
nations sea services will experience additional and perhaps drastic reductions.
National indebtedness will grow from its current ratio of 40 per cent of GDP to 80 per cent of
GDP in a decade. Servicing this will cripple the nations ability to modernize
and increase a powerful world-class fleet or drive us deeper into a yawning financial hole.
the proposed 2010 budget, suggested that

4. Understaffed Ships
Cropsey 10 - (Seth, The US Navy in Distress, Strategic Analysis Vol. 34 No.
1, January 2010, pgs 35-45,
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Cropsey_US_Navy_In_Distress.pdf)
In February 2009, the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser U.S.S. Port Royal ran
aground about a half mile south of the Honolulu airport. The Navys
investigation found that the ships navigational gear was broken and that the
ships fathometer wasnt functioning. In simple terms the bridge didnt know
where the ship was. The investigation subsequently discovered that the commanding
officer was exhausted, sleep-deprived, and that sailors who were nominally
assigned to stand watch against such incidents were assigned elsewhere in
the ship to cover manning shortages. Two months later the Navys iron-willed Board of
Inspection and Survey determined that problems with corrosion, steering, surface ships
firefighting systems, and anchoring were widespread throughout the Navy .
Asked by Defense News to comment on these findings five former commanding officers agreed that

smaller crews, reduced budgets, and fewer real-life training opportunities for
over-worked crews were important causes for this catalogue of affliction . Its
hardly a surprise. The Navy reported last year that 11,300 sailors were supporting ground forces in Iraq

Reduced budgets, efforts to save money by cutting the size of

crews, schemes to take up the slack with shore services, and all manner of
labor-saving devices parallel and reflect the Navys increasingly distressed fortunes since the end
and Afghanistan.

of the Cold War. The US Navy has not been as small as it is today since the administration of William
Howard Taft when the Royal Navy filled the international role that Americas naval forces eventually
inherited and currently possess. As suggested by the past two decades of declining navy procurement, the
rising cost of ships, hints from the Pentagons Quadrennial Review now underway that previous goals for
fleet size are open to question, and the publics focus on the nations land wars in the Middle East, chances
are that US naval shrinkage will continue.

The likelihood of a much diminished navy

coincides in time with every current prediction of large global strategic
change in the foreseeable future. Among National Intelligence Council estimates, Joint
Operating Environment forecasts, the Pentagons Office of Net Assessments studies, the UK Defence
Ministrys Development, Concepts, and Doctrine Centre as well as similar predictive efforts undertaken by

Proliferation, resource
scarcity, environmental change, the emergence of new international power
centres including non-state actors, significant changes in relative US power,
failed states, and demographic change point to an increasingly unstable
future and challenging international strategic environment. The common
French and German national security experts, there is a general consensus.

denominator in managing these problems is maritime power: force that can be applied to the shore from
the sea, used to protect against missile-borne as well as stealthier ocean-borne Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD), marshaled to alleviate the causes of massive immigration, and displayed to reassure
allies and dissuade enemies.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sucked the oxygen

out of any serious effort to understand the connection between the large
changes that strategic planners see in the future, Americans expectations
that they will retain their ability to wield global influence, the Navys role in
maintaining such influence, and the US fleets slow evanescence . No attempt to
connect fleet shape and size to the unfolding strategic environment exists as a referent for public debate.

civilian and military leadership maintains in the face of growing demand

for ships to defend against relatively low threats like piracy as well as very dangerous
Indeed,

ones like the possibility of smuggled WMD reaching our shores that capability rather than number of

With very few exceptions political

leaders in both parties do not ask fundamental questions. What role does
naval power have in preserving Americas position as the worlds great power
in the middle of a fluid and troubling strategic environment ? Even with Congress and
ships is key to accurately measuring our naval power.

administration support how can the nations current maritime strategy achieve its own goals, to say
nothing of the global objectives that Theodore Roosevelt saw so clearly? The cooperative arrangements
with foreign navies envisioned by the Navys current maritime strategy may perhaps moderate problems
of failing states and terror. But is this enough to manage other challenges? Is the Navys current
organization capable of addressing both conventional and asymmetric threats? Can todays highly
structured and inflexible system for designing and building ships adapt quickly and cost-effectively to

What, for example, do globalization, the growing

dependence of the United States on sea-borne transit for strategic resources and minerals,
and the likelihood of more dislocations such as continue from Somali piracy mean for
the future of US national security?
changes in the strategic environment?

5. No R&D, Power Projection Research, or Electromagnetic

Systems
Eaglen, 12 (Mackenzie, March 15th, Obamas Shift-to-Asia Budget is a
Hollow Shell Game
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/15/crafty-pentagon-budget-showcasesmarquis-programs-while-masking/)
Pentagon plans now retire seven cruisers and two dock landing ships at the
same time as the Navy is revising downward its 30-year shipbuilding plan.
Military leaders have been quick to point to the ten ships planned for construction over the next fiscal year.
The problem is that this figure, as it appeared in the FY 2012 budget, was supposed to be thirteen, not 10.
In fact, in the 2012 budget, the Navy requested 57 ships from 2013-2017. The new 2013 budget cuts this
to 41 ships. It's hard to see how these dramatic cuts in fleet size fit into the administration's pivot to Asia.

Naval research and development do not fare much better. While the Navy is to be
commended on a getting some research initiatives right -- such as breaking out a new account for Future
Naval Capabilities focusing on advanced research and prototypes, increasing funding for the Littoral

many of the Navy's

RDT&E decisions do not appropriately resource the rhetorical emphasis on
the Pacific. The budget slices the Power Projection Applied Research account
by nearly 15%, affecting programs like precision strike and directed energy
weapons. Similarly, Force Protection Applied Research dropped by 27%, cutting
innovation in anti-submarine warfare and hull assurance . A 28% cut in
Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research affects initiatives such as
electronic attack, surface-based anti-cruise and ballistic missile defenses , and
Combat Ship, and increasing funding for the Marine Corps' Assault Vehicles --

the Surface Warfare Improvement Program, or SEWIP, which uses electronic warfare to disarm incoming
missiles. Other R&D cuts impact separate initiatives on anti-submarine warfare, undersea weapons, cyber
security, electronic warfare, sensing, SATCOM vulnerabilities, missile defense countermeasures, S and X-

band radar integration, and radar defenses against electronic attack. These programs form important parts
of the Navy's next-generation arsenal, especially when it comes to the Pentagon's evolving AirSea Battle

They are exactly the type of programs the Pentagon should be

protecting if it is serious about emphasizing the unique challenges of the
Asia-Pacific. The fact that R&D money declined for these particular Navy programs is a disturbing sign
concept.

for the overall coherence of the administration's budget. While the Navy received a $4 billion increase in

The Navy has been stretched past

the breaking point in terms of operational readiness, with nearly one quarter
of its ships failing their annual inspection in 2011 and cracks in the aluminum
superstructure of every cruiser in the Navy's inventory. The naval readiness
crisis was so bad in 2011 that Vice Admiral Kevin McCoy told the House Armed
Services Committee that, "we're not good to go." Increased O&M funding for the Navy helps,
O&M funding from 2012, it could not come soon enough.

but more needs to be done in order to fix the fleet. It certainly does not help that the Navy is forced to pay

Various defense
officials and military chiefs have testified recently that the services are
sacrificing size of the force for either readiness or quality. Given the rapidly
rising levels of risk associated with the latest defense budget cuts, it is likely
both readiness and quality will decline despite the Chiefs' best efforts.
nearly $900 million to retire ships early while the fleet size is already too small.

Naval power is irrelevantthere are no emerging threats

Gerson and Russell 11(Michael and Allison Lawler, Michael Gerson is
a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice weekly in the
Washington Post. Michael Gerson is the Hastert Fellow at the J. Dennis
Hastert Center for Economics, Government, and Public Policy at Wheaton
College in Illinois., Russell is also an assistant professor of Political Science
and International Studies at Merrimack College in North Andover,
Massachusetts. Russell holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, an M.A. in International Relations from
American University in Washington, D.C., and a B.A. in Political Science
from Boston College., American Grand Strategy and Sea Power,
https://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/American%20Grand%20Strategy
%20and%20Seapower%202011%20Conference%20Report%20CNA.pdf)

According to Dr. John Mueller, the United States has been and will continue
to be substantially free from threats that require a great deal of military
preparedness. In his view, there are no major threats to U.S. security, and
there have been none since the end of the Second World War. During the
Cold War, the United States spent trillions of dollars to deter a direct military
threat that did not exist, since the Soviet Union had no intention of
launching an unprovoked attack on Europe or the United States. Despite the
continued absence of significant threats today, the United States is still
engaged in a number of conflicts in an effort to make the world look and act
the way we want. In reality, however, most modern security issues are not
really military in nature; rather, they are policing and diplomatic activities
that do not require substantial U.S. military involvement. While isolationism
is not a viable policy, the United States does not need to use its military to
solve all of the problems in the world. b 17 Dr. Mueller argued that the
absence of war among developed countries since 1945 is the greatest single
development about war in history. The end of the Cold War ushered in a New

World Order, and from 1989 to 2000 the United States was engaged in what
Dr. Mueller called policing wars. There was very little domestic support for
most of these ventures, however, because there was a strong U.S. public
aversion to nation building, a low tolerance for casualties, and a lack of
concrete political gains from success.

1NC Warming
No extinction from climate change
NIPCC 11 the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,
an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars, March 8,
2011, Surviving the Unprecedented Climate Change of the IPCC, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html
In a paper published in Systematics and Biodiversity, Willis et al. (2010)
consider the IPCC (2007) "predicted climatic changes for the next century" -i.e., their contentions that "global temperatures will increase by 2-4C and
possibly beyond, sea levels will rise (~1 m 0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2
will increase by up to 1000 ppm" -- noting that it is "widely suggested that
the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and
animals going extinct," citing studies that suggest that "within the next
century, over 35% of some biota will have gone extinct (Thomas et al., 2004;
Solomon et al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical
rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008)." On the
other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have
pointed out that "many of the predicted increases in climate have happened
before, in terms of both magnitude and rate of change (e.g. Royer, 2008;
Zachos et al., 2008), and yet biotic communities have remained remarkably
resilient (Mayle and Power, 2008) and in some cases thrived (Svenning and
Condit, 2008)." But they report that those who mention these things are often
"placed in the 'climate-change denier' category," although the purpose for
pointing out these facts is simply to present "a sound scientific basis for
understanding biotic responses to the magnitudes and rates of climate
change predicted for the future through using the vast data resource that we
can exploit in fossil records." Going on to do just that, Willis et al. focus on
"intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations
increased up to 1200 ppm, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased
by greater than 4C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher
than present," describing studies of past biotic responses that indicate "the
scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on
biodiversity." And what emerges from those studies, as they describe it, "is
evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel
ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another." And,
most importantly in this regard, they report "there is very little evidence for
broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world." In concluding, the
Norwegian, Swedish and UK researchers say that "based on such evidence we
urge some caution in assuming broad-scale extinctions of species will occur
due solely to climate changes of the magnitude and rate predicted for the
next century," reiterating that "the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic
resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate."

2NC Warming
No risk of a warming impact two reasons why
First is mitigation new technology can mitigate the
impacts of warming all of their warrants are alarmist
and misleading science and economics prove that
therell be mild consequences if any
Second is resiliency --- Biotic communities have been
resilient or thrived --- Broad scale extinction is massively
overhyped --- The fossil record also supports that claim
Thats NIPCC

No impact to climate change IPCC models do not account

for critical negative feedback models their evidence is
garbage in and garbage out
Bast and Taylor 14 (Joseph and James, president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, a 29year-old national nonprofit research center located in Chicago, Illinois and has been recognized many times
for his contributions to public policy research and debate AND managing editor of Environment & Climate
News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism. He is
also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute, focusing on energy and environment issues. Global
Warming: Not a Crisis, 2014, http://heartland.org/ideas/global-warming-not-crisis)//WL
The burning of fossil fuels to generate energy produces carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which,
everything else being equal, could lead to some warming of the global climate. Most scientists believe the
Earth experienced a small rise in temperatures during the second half of the twentieth century, but they
are unsure how large a role human activities may have played. The important questions from a public
policy perspective are: How much of the warming is natural? How sure are we that it will continue? Would

Probably two-thirds of the

warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes; the warming trend
already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the
benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs . Global
warming, in other words, is not a crisis. Why Does Heartland Address Global Warming? The
continued warming be beneficial or harmful? The answers, in brief, are:

Heartland Institute has been studying global warming since 1994, when it produced Eco-Sanity: A
Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism (Madison Books). Heartland is a national nonprofit research
and education organization that focuses on economics, not science. So why have we become, in the words
of the science journal Nature, a major force among climate sceptics? (Tollefson, 2011) We were made
curious by the fact that every single environmental group in the U.S. says global warming is real and a
crisis, even though there was in 1994, and still is today, considerable debate going on in the scientific

Many of the worlds most distinguished scientists believe climate

processes are too poorly understood to support calls for immediate action
or predictions of catastrophic global warming (Solomon, 2008). The reason for the
community.

consensus among environmentalists is simple: If AGW is true, then stopping or preventing it requires
higher taxes, more income redistribution, more wilderness preservation, more regulations on corporations,
smart growth, subsidies for renewable energy, and on and on. In other words, many of the policies

Liberals have no reason to look under the hood

of the global warming scare, to see what the real science says. They believe in global warming
because they feel it justifies their ideological convictions (Hulme, 2009).
already on the liberal political agenda.

Independents, conservatives, and libertarians about 80 percent of the general population, according to
surveys, but less than 20 percent of journalists and academics dont want to go down the road to higher
taxes and more regulations unless it is necessary. They open the hood of the global warming scare and
look at the real science. They study the issue and come to understand it. Based on that understanding
not ideological conviction or belief 60 percent of them conclude global warming is not a crisis.

(Rasmussen 2012) The Heartland Institute looked under the hood and concluded concern over the
possibility of catastrophic global warming was being manufactured to advance a political agenda. We then
took upon ourselves the task of publicizing the scientific uncertainty behind the global warming scare and
documenting the high costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions economic costs as well as the loss of
freedom. And now you know why an economic think tank is so prominent in a scientific debate. We do not
do this to raise money from oil companies or others with a stake in the issue oil companies never
contributed more than 5 percent of our annual budgets, and they give a trivial amount today. (See Reply to

We challenge
claims that climate change is a crisis because our pursuit of the truth led us
to this position. Isnt There a Consensus? Science doesnt advance by consensus. A single
scientist or study can disprove a theory that is embraced by the vast majority
of scientists. The search for a consensus is actually part of what
philosophers call post-normal science, which isnt really science at
all. Still, many people ask: What do scientists believe? Most surveys cited by those who claim there is a
Our Critics for more about efforts to smear us with false claims about our funding.)

consensus ask questions that are too vague to settle the matter. It is important to distinguish between the
statement that global warming is a crisis and the similar-sounding but very different statements that the

Climate is always changing,

and every scientist knows this. Our emissions and alterations of the
landscape are surely having impacts on climate, though they are often local
or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation. There is
plenty of evidence that there is no scientific consensus that climate change is
man-made and dangerous (Bast and Spencer, 2014). The multi-volume Climate Change
climate is changing and that there is a human impact on climate.

Reconsidered series cites thousands of articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals that challenge the
basic underlying assumptions of AGW (Climate Change Reconsidered 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014).

More than 30,000 scientists have signed a petition saying there is no threat
that man-made global warming will pose a threat to humanity or nature
(Petition Project). Alarmists often cite an essay by Naomi Oreskes claiming to show that virtually all articles
about global warming in peer-reviewed journals support the so-called consensus. But a no-less-rigorous
study by Benny Peiser that attempted to replicate her results searched the abstracts of 1,117 scientific
journal articles on global climate change and found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the consensus
view while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming
over the past 50 years. A more recent search by Klaus-Martin Schulte of 928 scientific papers published
from 2004 to February 2007 found fewer than half explicitly or implicitly endorse the so-called consensus
and only 7 percent do so explicitly (Schulte, 2008). A survey that is frequently cited as showing consensus
actually proves just the opposite. German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have surveyed
climate scientists three times, in 1996, 2003, and 2007 (Bray and von Storch, 2010). Their latest survey
found most of these scientists say they believe global warming is man-made and is a serious problem, but
most of these same scientists do not believe climate science is sufficiently advanced to predict future
climate conditions. For two-thirds of the science questions asked, scientific opinion is deeply divided, and
in half of those cases, most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist
case (Bast, 2011). On August 2, 2011, von Storch posted the following comment on a blog: From our own
observations of discussions among climate scientists we also find hardly consensus [sic] on many other
issues, ranging from changing hurricane statistics to the speed of melting Greenland and Antarctica,
spreading of diseases and causing mass migration and wars (von Storch, 2011). These are not minor
issues. Extreme weather events, melting ice, and the spread of disease are all major talking points for Al
Gore and other alarmists in the climate debate. If there is no consensus on these matters, then skeptics

How can
scientists say they believe global warming is a problem, but at the same time
not believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to predict future climate
conditions? Either this is hollow careerism and ought to be subject to public criticism, or it is
cognitive dissonance holding two contradictory ideas in your mind at the
same time. If the latter, it is probably caused by the complexity of the issue (we must trust the
are right to ask why we should believe global warming is a crisis. Cognitive Dissonance?

judgment of scientists working in other fields to form opinions on subjects we are not ourselves expert
about) and its close association with social and economic agendas (we want to believe something is true
even if our own research suggests it is not). This is not an unreasonable claim or an attack on the integrity
of working scientists. It is a standard theme in many books on the history of science, dating back at least

as far as Charles Mackays 1841 classic, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, and
as recently as Mike Hulmes 2009 tome, Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Hulme, not incidentally,
is no skeptic: He contributes to the alarmist IPCC reports and works at the University of East Anglia (home
of the Climategate scandal). Even he admits that his position is based on belief rather than scientific
understanding and is inseparable from his partisan political beliefs. Bray and von Storch, in an essay in
1999 reporting on the results of their first survey, remarked on how a willingness to make predictions and
recommendations about public policy that arent supported by actual science is a sign of post-normal
science, or the willingness to rely on consensus rather than actual scientific knowledge when the risks
are perceived as being great (Bray and von Storch, 1999). Scientists who express beliefs about global
warming that they cant support with real science are sharing opinions shaped by ideology and trust. Their
beliefs should be given no more weight than the beliefs of nonscientists. Natural or Man-Made? The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency of the United Nations, claims the warming
that has occurred since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in

Many climate scientists disagree

with the IPCC on this key issue. As Idso and Singer wrote in 2009, The IPCC does not
apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of
current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases
(GHG). A comparison of fingerprints from best available observations with
the results of state-of-the-art GHG models leads to the conclusion that the
(human-caused) GHG contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available,
was ignored by the IPCC. The IPCC continues to undervalue the overwhelming
evidence that, on decadal and century-long time scales, the Sun and
associated atmospheric cloud effects are responsible for much of past climate
change. It is therefore highly likely that the Sun is also a major cause of twentiethcentury warming, with anthropogenic GHG making only a minor contribution .
In addition, the IPCC ignores, or addresses imperfectly, other science issues that call for
discussion and explanation (Idso and Singer, 2009). Scientists who study the issue
say it is impossible to tell if the recent small warming trend is natural , a
continuation of the planets recovery from the more recent Little Ice Age, or unnatural, the result of
human greenhouse gas emissions. Thousands of peer-reviewed articles point to natural
sources of climate variability that could explain some or even all of the
warming in the second half of the twentieth century (Idso and Singer, 2009). S. Fred
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC, 2007).

Singer and Dennis Avery documented natural climate cycles of approximately 1,500 years going back

It is clear from climate

records that the Earth was warmer than it is now in recorded human history,
before man-made greenhouse gas emissions could have been the cause. We
know enough about how the Earths climate works to know that biological and physical
processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a faster rate when
concentration levels are higher and release more heat into space when
temperatures rise. These feedback factors and radiative forcings are poorly modeled or
missing from the computer models that alarmists use to make their forecasts. The
hundreds of thousands of years (Singer and Avery, second edition 2008).

arguments are complex, but the debate over natural versus man-made climate change is unquestionably

The more we learn, the less likely it becomes that human

greenhouse gas emissions can explain more than a small amount of the
climate change we witness. How Much Warming? NASA satellite data recorded since
1979 allow us to check the accuracy of claims that the past three decades
have been warming at an alarming rate. The data show a warming rate of
0.123 degrees C per decade. This is considerably less than what land-based
temperature stations report during the same time period, and which are
relied on by the IPCC (Christy, 2009). If the Earths temperature continues to rise
at the rate of the past three decades, the planet would see only 1.23 degrees
still ongoing.

C warming over the course of an entire century . Most climate scientists, even skeptics,
acknowledge that rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would, all other things held constant, cause
some small amount of warming. Alarmists claim that small amount will trigger increases in the amount of

scientists have
found no evidence of rising levels of moisture in those areas of the
atmosphere where the models claim it should be found . Without this
amplification, there is no global warming crisis (Singer, 2011). While the
global climate warmed slightly during the 1980s and 1990s, it has not
warmed at all since 2000, and there is some evidence that a cooling trend
has begun (Taylor, 2007). This contradicts the predictions of the IPCC and poses a
challenge to the theory that CO2 concentrations play a major role in global
temperature trends. It confirms the views of many less-politicized climate scientists who
acknowledge that the global climate is always warming or cooling (Michaels, 2005; Christy, 2006). The
scientific communitys lack of certainty about future climate trends is rooted
in the shortcomings of computer models. These models are the
centerpiece of the IPCCs reports, yet it is widely recognized that they fail to
account for changes in precipitation, water vapor, and clouds that are likely
to occur in a warmer world. It is a case of garbage in, garbage out. If we
cannot predict how much warming will occur, how can we claim that
continued human emissions of greenhouse gases is harmful ? Global Warming
moisture in the atmosphere, which in turn will cause further warming. But other

Benefits as Well as Harms Alarmists claim global warming will cause massive flooding, more violent
weather, famines, and other catastrophic consequences. If these claims are true, then we should have
seen evidence of this trend during the twentieth century. Idso and Singer (2009) provide extensive
evidence that no such trends have been observed. Even von Storch (2011) admits there is no consensus
on these matters. The preponderance of scientific data suggest sea levels are unlikely to rise by more than
several inches, weather may actually become more mild, and since most warming occurs at night and
during the winter season, it has little adverse effect (and some positive effect) on plants and wildlife.
Hurricanes are likely to diminish, not increase, in frequency or severity (Spencer, 2008; Singer and Avery,
2008). Higher levels of CO2 have a well-documented fertilizing effect on plants and make them more
drought-resistant. Warmer temperatures are also likely to be accompanied by higher soil moisture levels
and more frequent rain, leading to a greening of the Earth that is dramatically different from the
parched Earth scenario featured in many biased and agenda-driven documentary films (Idso, 1995). The
current best estimate is that, if left unaddressed, by 2060 global warming is likely to have a small (0.2
percent of GDP) positive effect on the U.S. economy and a small (1 to 2 percent of GDP) negative effect on
the global economy (Mendelsohn and Neumann, 1999). These estimates are very small and speculative.

Global warming has stopped natural factors supplant

C02 effects
Akasofu 8 (Syun-Ichi, former director of the Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic
Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Former director of International Arctic Research
Center says: Global warming has paused, 9/27/14, Originally published in the Fairbanks Daily News
Miner, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/27/former-director-of-international-arctic-research-center-saysglobal-warming-has-paused/)//WL

Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological
Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the

show clearly that the rising trend of global average

temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in
the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also
have stopped rising. The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001.
University of Alabama Huntsville

The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientists hypothesize rising temperatures
were mostly caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they predicted further
temperature increases after 2000. It was natural to assume that CO2 was responsible for the rise, because
CO2 molecules in the atmosphere tend to reflect back the infrared radiation to the ground, preventing

cooling (the greenhouse effect) and also because CO2 concentrations have been rapidly increasing since

many
scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by
nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in
longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify
the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes . Only
then can we be sure of the man-made contributions . This suggestion brought me the
1946. But, this hypothesis on the cause of global warming is just one of several. Unfortunately,

dubious honor of being designated Alaskas most famous climate change skeptic. The stopping of the
rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by

there are at
least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes. The first
is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age, which occurred approximately
1800-1850. The other is what we call the multi-decadal oscillation. In the recent past,
the IPCC need serious revision. I have been suggesting during the last several years that

this component had a positive gradient (warming) from 1910 to 1940, a negative gradient (cooling
many Fairbanksans remember the very cold winters in the 1960s) from 1940 to 1975, and then again a
positive gradient (warming many Fairbanksans have enjoyed the comfortable winters of the last few

The multi-decadal oscillation peaked around

2000, and a negative trend began at that time. The second component has a large
decades or so) from 1975 to about 2000.

amplitude and can overwhelm the first, and I believe that this is the reason for the stopping of the

Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates
that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect , as I have stated during the last
temperature rise.

several years. Future changes in global temperature depend on the combination of both the recovery from

We have an
urgent need to learn more about these natural changes to aid us in predicting
future changes.
the Little Ice Age (positive) and the multi-decadal oscillation (both positive and negative).

Not anthropogenicother factors are more important and

there is a diminishing curve.
Paterson 11 [Norman R., Professional Engineer and Consulting
Geophysicist, PhD in Geophysics from University of Toronto, Fellow of the
Royal Society of Canada, Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic
Model and its Consequences, Geoscience Canada, Vol. 38, No 1, March,
Ebsco]
The term global warming is commonly used by the media to mean anthropogenic global warming; that
is, warming caused by human activity. In this article, the writer has chosen to prefix global warming,

We are
led today by our media, governments, schools and some scientific authorities
to believe that, through his CO2 emissions, man is entirely, or almost entirely,
responsible for the modest, modulated rise in global temperature of about 0.7 C
where appropriate, by the terms anthropogenic or humancaused in order to avoid confusion.

that has taken place over the past 100 years. We are told, and many sincere people believe, that if we
continue on this path, the planet will experience escalating temperature and dangerous sealevel rise
before the end of this century. Over the past 20 years or so, this has become so much a part of our belief
system, that to challenge it is to be labelled a denier and put in the same category as a member of the
Flat Earth Society. Yet,

even a cursory review of the peer-reviewed scientific

literature will show that the popular anthropogenic global warming dogma is
being questioned by hundreds of respected scientists. Furthermore, emerging
evidence points directly to other natural phenomena as probably having greater
effects on global temperatures than can be attributed to human-caused CO2
emissions. The disproportionate scientific weighting attributed to the anthropogenic warming
interpretation, and the general public perception of its validity, could be a serious problem for society, as

the human-caused global warming belief is diverting our attention from other, more serious anthropogenic
effects such as pollution and depletion of our water resources, contamination of our food and living space
from chemicals, and diminishing conventional energy resources.
PROBLEMS WITH THE ANTHROPOGENIC MODEL The fact that the world has undergone cycles of warming
and cooling has been known for a very long time, but the question as to mans influence on climate did not
become a hot debate until after the mid-twentieth century, when Revelle and Seuss (1957) first drew
attention to the possible effect of greenhouses gases (particularly CO2 ) on the earths temperature.
Subsequent studies pointed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 from roughly 0.025% to 0.037%, or 50%,

Much was made of the apparent but crude covariance of

atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and the conclusion was drawn that
[hu]mans escalating carbon emissions are responsible for the late 20 th century
temperature rise. Anxiety was rapidly raised among environmentalists, and
also attracted many scientists who found ready funding for studies aimed at
better understanding the problem. However, scientists soon encountered three
important difficulties:
over the past 100 years.

i) To this date, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to how CO2 at less

than 0.04% of atmospheric concentration can make a major contribution to
the greenhouse effect, especially as the relationship between increasing CO2
and increasing temperature is a diminishing logarithmic one (Gerlich and
Tscheuschner 2009);

Geological records show unequivocally that past temperature increases

have always preceded, not followed, increases in CO2; i.e. the warming could
potentially cause the CO2 increase, but not the reverse. Studies (e.g. Petit et al.
1999) have shown that over the past 400 000 years of cyclical variations,
temperature rose from glacial values about 800 years before CO2
concentration increased. A probable explanation is that solar warming, over a long period of time,
ii)

causes the oceans to outgas CO2 , whereas cooling results in more CO2 entering solution, as discussed by
Stott et al. (2007). Averaged over a still longer period of geological time, it has been shown (Shaviv and

there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature; for

example, levels of CO2 were more than twice present day values at 180 Ma,
at a time when temperature was several degrees cooler ;
Veizer 2003) that

Other serious mistakes in analysis were made by some scientists over the
years. Perhaps the worst of these (see Montford 2010 for a thorough discussion) was the publication
of the Hockey Stick Curve (Fig. 1), a 1000-year record of past temperature which purported to
iii)

show that The 20 th century is likely the warmest century in the Northern Hemisphere, and the 1990s was
the warmest decade, with 1998 as the warmest year in the last 1000 years (Mann et al. 1999). This

conclusion was adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2001
report and also by Al Gore in the movie An Inconvenient Truth. Subsequently, Mann et al.s
work has been challenged by several scientists (though to be fair, it is also supported by
some). For example, McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) amended Manns graph, using
all available data and better quality control (Fig. 1), and showed that the 20 th
century is not exceptionally warm when compared with that of the 15 th
century. However, the IPCC has continued to report a steady increase in global
temperature in the face of clear evidence that average temperature has
remained roughly level globally, positive in the northern hemisphere and negative in the
southern hemisphere, since about 2002 (Archibald 2006; Fig. 2).

cyclical warming and cooling of the earth

results from a number of different causes, none of which, taken alone, is
dominant enough to be entirely responsible . The more important ones are
solar changes (including both irradiance and magnetic field effects), atmosphereocean
interaction (including both multidecadal climatic oscillations and unforced internal variability), and
greenhouse gases. All of these factors have been discussed by IPCC , but the first
WHAT CAUSES WARMING? It is likely that the

two have been dismissed as negligible in comparison with the greenhouse-gas effect and mans
contribution to it through anthropogenic CO2 . It is claimed (e.g. Revelle and Suess 1957) that the
particular infrared absorption bands of CO2 provide it with a special ability to absorb and reradiate the
suns longer wavelength radiation, causing warming of the troposphere and an increase in high-altitude
(cirrus) cloud, further amplifying the heating process. Detailed arguments against this conclusion can be
found in Spencer et al. (2007) and Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009). These scientists point out (among
other arguments, which include the logarithmic decrease in absorptive power of CO2 at increasing
concentrations), that clouds have poor ability to emit radiation and that the transfer of heat from the
atmosphere to a warmer body (the earth) defies the Second Law of Ther-modynamics. They argue that the
Plank and Stefan-Boltzman equations used in calculations of radiative heat transfer cannot be applied to
gases in the atmosphere because of the highly complex multi-body nature of the problem. Veizer (2005)

to play a significant role, CO2 requires an amplifier, in this case

water vapour. He concludes that water vapour plays the dominant role in
global warming and that solar effects are the driver, rather than CO2 . A
explains that,

comprehensive critique of the greenhouse gas theory is provided by Hutton (2009).

It is firmly established that the sun is the primary heat source for the global climate system, and that the
atmosphere and oceans modify and redirect the suns heat. According to Veizer (2005), cosmic rays from
outer space cause clouds to form in the troposphere; these clouds shield the earth and provide a cooling

Solar radiation, on the other hand, produces a thermal energy flux which,
combined with the solar magnetic field, acts as a shield against cosmic rays
and thereby leads to global warming. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate both the cooling by cosmic
effect.

rays (cosmic ray flux, or CRF) and warming by solar irradiation (total solar irradiance, or TSI) in the long
term (500 Ma) and short term (50 years), respectively. CRF shows an excellent negative correlation with

the reconstructed,
oxygen isotope-based temperature curve illustrates a lack of correlation with
CO2 except for a period around 350 Ma.
temperature, apart from a short period around 250 Ma (Fig. 3). In contrast,

Other studies have highlighted the overriding effect of solar radiation on

global heating. Soon (2005) studied solar irradiance as a possible agent for medium-term variations
in Arctic temperatures over the past 135 years, and found a close correlation in both decadal (510 years)
and multi-decadal (4080 years) changes (Fig. 5). As to the control on this variation, the indirect effect of
solar irradiance on cloud cover undoubtedly results in modulations of the suns direct warming of the
earth. Veizer (2005) estimated that the heat reflected by cloud cover is about 78 watts/m2 , compared to
an insolation effect of 342 watts/m2 , a modulation of more than 25%. This contrasts with an IPCC estimate
of 1.46 watts/m2 , or about 0.5% of TSI, for the radiative effect of anthropogenic CO2 accumulated in the
modern industrial era (IPCC 2001). Veizer concludes: A change of cloud cover of a few percent can

the
intensity of the Earths magnetic field (which deflects the charged particles
that constitute cosmic rays) and associated sun-spot maxima are correlated
with historic periods of global warming such as the Medieval Climate Optimum (Fig. 6), and
therefore have a large impact on the planetary energy balance. In addition to solar insolation effects,

typically occur mid-way between ice ages (Veizer 2005). Solar magnetic minima have accompanied global
cooling, such as occurred during the Little Ice Age between 1350 and 1850 A.D. A proxy for sunspot
activity prior to the start of telescope observations in 1610 can be reconstructed from the abundance of
cosmogenic 10 Be in ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland (Miletsky et al. 2004).
Global temperature oscillations have been evident in both geologic and recent times, with periods varying
from a few years (mostly solar and lunar driven) up to 120 million years (galactic and orbital influences)

ocean atmosphere interactions are implicated in the

control of some shorter-period climatic oscillations. For example, McLean et al. (2009)
(Plimer 2009). In addition,

have studied the El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a tropical Pacific oceanatmosphere phenomenon,
and compared the index of intensity (the Southern Oscillation Index, or SOI) with global tropospheric
temperature anomalies (GTTA) for the 19602009 period (Fig. 7). McLean et al. (2009) concluded that
Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year long record, and 68% for the 50year record. They found the same or stronger correlation between SOI and mean global temperature, in
which SOI accounted for as much as 81% of the variance in the tropics (Fig. 8). A delay of 5 to 7 months

Volcanic
influences on temperature are also evident (Figs. 7, 8), probably caused by
the injection of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, where it is converted
into sulphate aerosols that reflect incoming solar radiation (McLean et al. 2009). The
was deduced between the SOI maximum and the associated temperature anomaly.

GTTA nearly always falls in the year or two following major eruptions.

Both solar irradiation and oceanatmosphere oscillations have therefore been

demonstrated to have effects on global temperature of at least the same
order of magnitude as the CO2 greenhouse gas hypothesis, and these
alternative mechanisms are supported by well-documented empirical data .
Nevertheless, the CO2 hypothesis, the theoretical basis for which is being increasingly
challenged, remains the popular explanation for global warming in the public
domain.
The main factors that have led to heated scientific controversy
A
surge of media coverage and consequent public interest and anxiety,
magnified by productions such as Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth.
THE CONTROVERSY

regarding the cause of the mild late 20 th century global warming can be summarized as follows: i)

ii) Fear and concern on the part of environmentalists, who were already aware of many other harmful

Environmentalists, including NGOs

exploited the open disagreements that
existed among scientists as to the scale of the warming and its impacts ,
aspects of industrial, commercial and other human activities.
such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund,

disagreements that inevitably arose because climate science is complex and empirical data were in short
supply until recently.

No anthropogenic warming and no impact scientific

consensus flows our way.
Taylor 13 (James, Forbes magazine contributor on energy and environmental issues, citing a survey
published by Organization Studies, a peer-reviewed academic journal Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds
Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis, 2/13/13; <
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientistsskeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/>)

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted
global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a
scientific consensus. Dont look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global
warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that
humans are creating a global warming crisis , according to a survey reported
in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority
of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of
recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be
a very serious problem. The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists)
and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists
(summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global
warming claims. According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36

percent of respondents fit the Comply with Kyoto model. The scientists in this group express the strong
belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main

the overwhelming
majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is
skeptical of alarmist global warming claims. The survey finds that 24 percent
of the scientist respondents fit the Nature Is Overwhelming model . In their
diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural,
normal cycles of the Earth. Moreover, they strongly disagree that
climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact
on their personal lives. Another group of scientists fit the Fatalists model. These scientists,
or central cause. The authors of the survey report, however, note that

comprising 17 percent of the respondents, diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally
caused. Fatalists

consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little

impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is
settled regarding the IPCC modeling. These scientists are likely to ask, How can anyone
take action if research is biased? The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of
respondents, fit the Economic Responsibility model. These scientists diagnose climate change as being

the real cause of

climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable .
Similar to the nature is overwhelming adherents, they disagree that climate
change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal
life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is
natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that

accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to
the economy. The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the Regulation
Activists model. These scientists diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused,
posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Moreover, They are also
skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC

skeptical groups numerically blow away

the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and
a serious concern. The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit
modeling is accurate. Taken together, these four

the Economic Responsibility model. These scientists diagnose climate change as being natural or
human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the real cause of climate change is
unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the nature is overwhelming
adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their
personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC
modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all
regulation will do to the economy. The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents,
fit the Regulation Activists model. These scientists diagnose climate change as being both human- and
naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Moreover,
They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive
whether IPCC modeling is accurate. Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away

One
interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the
survey takers. They frequently use terms such as denier to describe
scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they
refer to skeptical scientists as speaking against climate science rather than
speaking against asserted climate projections. Accordingly, alarmists will have
a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the vast
right-wing climate denial machine. Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it
the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist

We now have meteorologists,

geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted
global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media
statements without polling their member scientists.

and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist

members actually believe. People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists
about an alleged consensus have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists.
Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do

skeptical scientists may

indeed form a scientific consensus. Taken together, these four skeptical
groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global
warming is human caused and a serious concern.
many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these

Global warming is absurd and has no impact empirics

and flawed methods.
Deming 11 (David, geophysicist and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma, Why I
deny Global Warming, 10/19/11; <http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/10/david-deming/why-i-deny-globalwarming/>)

There is no substantive evidence that the

planet has warmed significantly or that any significant warming will
occur in the future. If any warming does occur, it likely will be
concentrated at higher latitudes and therefore be beneficial. Climate
research has largely degenerated into pathological science, and the coverage of global warming
in the media is tendentious to the point of being fraudulent. Anyone who is an
Im a denier for several reasons.

honest and competent scientist must be a denier. Have you ever considered how difficult it is to take the
temperature of the planet Earth? What temperature will you measure? The air? The surface of the Earth
absorbs more than twice as much incident heat from the Sun than the air. But if you measure the
temperature of the surface, what surface are you going to measure? The solid Earth or the oceans? There
is twice as much water as land on Earth. If you decide to measure water temperature, at what depth will
you take the measurements? How will the time scale on which the deep ocean mixes with the shallow
affect your measurements? And how, pray tell, will you determine what the average water temperature
was for the South Pacific Ocean a hundred years ago? How will you combine air, land, and sea temperature
measurements? Even if you use only meteorological measurements of air temperature, how will you

Determining a mean planetary

temperature is not straightforward, but an extremely complicated problem.
Even the best data are suspect. Anthony Watts and his colleagues have surveyed 82.5 percent
of stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. They have found shockingly that over 70
percent of these stations are likely to be contaminated by errors greater than
2 deg C [3.6 deg F]. Of the remaining stations, 21.5 percent have inherent
errors greater than 1 deg C. The alleged degree of global warming over the
past 150 years is less than 1 deg C. Yet even in a technologically advanced
country like the US, the inherent error in over 90 percent of the surveyed
meteorological stations is greater than the putative signal. And these errors
are not random, but systematically reflect a warming bias related to
urbanization. Watts has documented countless instances of air temperature sensors located next
compensate for changes in latitude, elevation, and land use?

to air conditioning vents or in the middle of asphalt parking lots. A typical scenario is that a temperature
sensor that was in the middle of a pasture a hundred years ago is now surrounded by a concrete jungle.

all of the
temperature rise that has been inferred from the data is an artifact
that reflects the growth of urban heat islands. The denier is portrayed as a
Urbanization has been a unidirectional process. It is entirely plausible even likely that

person who refuses to accept the plain evidence of his senses. But in fact it is the alarmist who doesnt
know what they are talking about. The temperature of the Earth and how it has varied over the past 150
years is poorly constrained. The person who thinks otherwise does so largely because they have no
comprehension of the science. Most of these people have never done science or thought about the
inherent difficulties and uncertainties involved. And what is global warming anyway? As long ago as the

fifth century BC, Socrates pointed out that intelligible definitions are a necessary precursor to meaningful
discussions. The definition of the term global warming shifts with the context of the discussion. If you
deny global warming, then you have denied the existence of the greenhouse effect, a reproducible
phenomenon that can be studied analytically in the laboratory. But if you oppose political action, then
global warming metamorphoses into a nightmarish and speculative planetary catastrophe. Coastal cities
sink beneath a rising sea, species suffer from wholesale extinctions, and green pastures are turned into
deserts of choking hot sand. In fact, so-called deniers are not deniers but skeptics. Skeptics do not
deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. Holding all other factors constant, the mean planetary air
temperature ought to rise as the atmosphere accumulates more anthropogenic CO2. Christopher Monckton
recently reviewed the pertinent science and concluded that a doubling of CO2 should result in a

If this temperature increase mirrors those

in the geologic past, most of it will occur at high latitudes . These
areas will become more habitable for man, plants, and other
animals. Biodiversity will increase. Growing seasons will lengthen.
temperature increase of about 1 deg C.

Why is this a bad thing? Any temperature increase over 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2 must come from a
positive feedback from water vapor. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in Earths atmosphere,
and warm air holds more water than cold air. The theory is that an increased concentration of water vapor
in the atmosphere will lead to a positive feedback that amplifies the warming from CO2 by as much as a
factor of three to five. But this is nothing more that speculation.

Water vapor also leads to

cloud formation. Clouds have a cooling effect. At the current time, no one knows if the
feedback from water vapor will be positive or negative. Global warming predictions cannot
be tested with mathematical models. It is impossible to validate computer
models of complex natural systems. The only way to corroborate such models
is to compare model predictions with what will happen in a hundred years. And
one such result by itself wont be significant because of the possible compounding effects of other
variables in the climate system. The experiment will have to repeated over several one-hundred year

the theory of catastrophic global warming cannot be

tested or empirically corroborated in a human time frame. It is hardly
cycles. In other words,

conclusive to argue that models are correct because they have reproduced past temperatures. Im sure
they have. General circulation models have so many degrees of freedom that it is possible to endlessly
tweak them until the desired result is obtained. Hindsight is always 20-20. This tells us exactly nothing
about a models ability to accurately predict what will happen in the future. The entire field of climate
science and its coverage in the media is tendentious to the point of being outright fraudulent. Why is it
that every media report on CO2 an invisible gas is invariably accompanied by a photograph of a
smokestack emitting particulate matter? Even the cover of Al Gores movie, An Inconvenient Truth, shows
a smokestack. Could it be that its difficult to get people worked up about an invisible, odorless gas that is
an integral component of the photosynthetic cycle? A gas that is essential to most animal and plant life on
Earth? A gas that is emitted by their own bodies through respiration? So you have to deliberately mislead
people by showing pictures of smoke to them. Showing one thing when youre talking about another is
fraud. If the case for global warming alarmism is so settled, so conclusive, so irrefutablewhy is it
necessary to repeatedly resort to fraud? A few years ago it was widely reported that the increased
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause poison ivy to grow faster. But of course

carbon dioxide causes almost all plants to grow faster. And nearly all of these
plants have beneficial human uses. Carbon dioxide fertilizes hundreds or
thousands of human food sources. More CO2 means trees grow
faster. So carbon dioxide promotes reforestation and biodiversity. Its
good for the environment. But none of this was reported. Instead, the media only reported
that global warming makes poison ivy grow faster. And this is but one example of hundreds or thousands of

If sea ice in the Arctic diminishes, it is cited as irrefutable

proof of global warming. But if sea ice in the Antarctic increases, it is ignored.
Even cold weather events are commonly invoked as evidence for global
warming. People living in the future will look back and wonder how we could have been so delusional.
For the past few years I have remained silent concerning the Climategate emails. But what
they revealed is what many of us already knew was going on: global
warming research has largely degenerated into what is known as
such misleading reports.

pathological science, a process of wishful data interpretation.

When

I testified before the US Senate in 2006, I stated that a major climate researcher told me in 1995 that w e

have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. The existence and global
nature of the Medieval Warm Period had been substantiated by literally
hundreds of research articles published over decades. But it had to be
erased from history for ideological reasons. A few years later the infamous
hockey stick appeared. The hockey stick was a revisionist attempt to rewrite the
temperature history of the last thousand years. It has been discredited as
being deeply flawed. In one Climategate email, a supposed climate scientist
admitted to hiding the decline. In other words, hiding data that tended to
disprove his ideological agenda. Another email described how alarmists would try to
keep critical manuscripts from being published in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature. One of them wrote, well keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine
what the peer-review literature is! Gee. If the climate science that validates global warming
is so unequivocal, why is it necessary to work behind the scenes to suppress dissent? You doth protest too
much. As described in my book, Science and Technology in World History: The Ancient World and Classical
Civilization, systematic science began with the invocation of naturalism by Greek philosophers and
Hippocratic physicians c. 600-400 BC. But the critical attitude adopted by the Greeks was as important as
naturalism. Students were not only allowed to criticize their teachers, but were encouraged to do so. From
its beginnings in Greek natural philosophy, science has been an idealistic and dispassionate search for
truth. As Plato explained, anyone who could point out a mistake shall carry off the palm, not as an enemy,
but as a friend. This is one reason that scientists enjoy so much respect. The public assumes that a
scientists pursuit of truth is unencumbered by political agendas. But science does not come easy to men.
Science, George Sarton reminded us, is a joykiller. The proper conduct of science requires a high
degree of intellectual discipline and rigor. Scientists are supposed to use multiple working hypotheses and
sort through these by the processes of corroboration and falsification. The most valuable evidence is that
which tends to falsify or disprove a theory. A scientist, by the very definition of his activity, must be
skeptical. A scientist engaged in a dispassionate search for truth elevates the critical he does not
suppress it. Knowledge begins with skepticism and ends with conceit. Finally, Im happy to be known as a
denier because the label of denier says nothing about me, but everything about the person making
the charge. Scientific theories are never denied or believed, they are only corroborated or falsified.
Scientific knowledge, by its very nature, is provisional and subject to revision. The provisional nature of
scientific knowledge is a necessary consequence of the epistemological basis of science. Science is based
on observation. We never have all the data. As our body of data grows, our theories and ideas must
necessarily evolve. Anyone who thinks scientific knowledge is final and complete must necessarily endorse
as a corollary the absurd proposition that the process of history has stopped. A scientific theory cannot be
denied. Only a belief can be denied. The person who uses the word denier thus reveals that they hold
global warming as a belief, not a scientific theory. Beliefs are the basis of revealed religion. Revelations
cannot be corroborated or studied in the laboratory, so religions are based on dogmatic beliefs
conservatively held. Religions tend to be closed systems of belief that reject criticism. But the sciences are
open systems of knowledge that welcome criticism. Im a scientist, and therefore I must happily confess to
being a denier.

No warming modeling fails, cooling now, no tipping

point, causal-correlative mistakes, resilient Arctic AND
warming strengthens the biosphere.
Hayden 9 (Howard C., geophysicist and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma,
Physicist Howard Haydens One-Letter Disproof of Global Warming Claims, 10/29/12; <
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/41453.html>)

that the science is settled on the issue of CO2 and climate.

Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false . The
It has been often said

letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely
one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements. Alternatively, one may ask which one of the

twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research

Not a single climate

model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model
(singular) would have predicted it. Let me next address the horror story that we are
approaching (or have passed) a tipping point. Anybody who has worked
with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output goes to the rail. Not only that, but
funds that have kept those models alive. We can take this further.

it stays there. Thats the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASAGISS) and Al Gore.

we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth,

it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to
8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be
here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the
present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is
lower than it has been for the last 300 million years . Global-warming alarmists tell us
that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming. (A) CO2
concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The
present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have
made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the
But therein lies the proof that

CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the preindustrial value. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools.

The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans
to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. (B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to
come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede
CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?
Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is

A warmer
world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in
summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better. The higher
the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous
experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make
increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is

CO2 is plant food, pure and simple. CO2 is not pollution by any
A warmer world begets more precipitation. All computer
models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the
equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms. The
melting point of ice is 0 C in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The
highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is 14 C, and the lowest is
117 C. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the
ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists ?
not productive enough.
reasonable definition.

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term
climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits
of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, thats climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change
whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change. In a way, we have been here before.
Lord Kelvin proved that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He proved it using
the conservation of energy. What he didnt know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the
internal heat of the sun and the earth. Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have proved that CO2
causes global warming. Except when it doesnt. To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists
have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and
numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a
travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

No impact to warming
Stafford 3/11/2013 (James, 2013, interviewing Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast
meteorology veteran "Climate Change without Catastrophe: Interview with Anthony Watts,"
http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Climate-Change-without-Catastrophe-Interview-with-Anthony-Watts.html)
Anthony Watts: The premise of the issue for proponents can be summed up very simply: You put CO2 in the atmosphere

Earths climate system is far more complex

than that: It isnt just a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, it is a dynamic ever-changing
one, and climate is tremendously complex with hundreds of interactive variables and feedbacks. Predicting an
outcome of a chaotic system over the long term is a very, very big task, one
that weve really only scratched the surface of. Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia
Tech describes it as a wicked problem. But it is being popularly portrayed as a simple black-andand it makes it warmer, thats bad. The reality is that the

white problem and few really delve much beyond the headlines and the calls for action to understand that it is really many
shades of grey. Oilprice.com: As a former TV meteorologist and a developer of weather data dissemination technology,
can you tell us more about how your background lends to your pragmatic scepticism on climate change? Anthony Watts:
In TV, if I was wrong on the forecast, or the temperature reported was inaccurate, Id hear about it immediately. Viewers
would complain. That immediate feedback translates very quickly to making sure you get it right. With climate, the
forecast is open-ended, and we have to wait years for feedback, and so the skill level in forecasting often doesnt improve

Ive had a lifetime of experience in designing and deploying

weather instrumentation, and like with forecasting, if we dont get it right, we hear
about it immediately. What I learned is that the government weather service (NOAA) had it right at one time,
very much with time. Also,

but theyd dropped their guard, and my recent study (preliminary) shows that not only is the deployment of weather
stations faulty in siting them, but that the adjustments designed to solve those issues actually make the problem worse.
Oilprice.com: Is there any way to remove the camp element from the issue of climate change? How far do disastrous
weather eventslike Hurricane Sandygo towards reshaping the climate change debate? Anthony Watts: The idea that
Hurricane Sandy, a minor class 1 storm, was somehow connected to CO2 driven climate change is ludicrous, especially
when far worse storms existed in the same area in the past when CO2 was much lower. Hurricane Hazel in October 1954

Looking at the
history of severe weather, there really arent any trends at all. Both the IPCC
and The Journal Nature say this clearly, but activists persist in trying to link severe
is a case in point. In my view, the only way to null out the camp element is via education.

weather and CO2 driven climate change because since temperature increases have paused for about 15 years, it is all
they have left. But even that doesnt hold up when you study the data history: There is also some peer-reviewed analysis
which goes into some depth on this subject. This analysis concludes that " there

is no evidence so far
that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural
disasters." Oilprice.com: Your message on climate change has been controversial among those who believe this issue is
the gravest one facing us today. In what way do you think your message is misunderstood? Anthony Watts: They think and

Im paid nothing for this

interview) in an effort to minimize my views, while ignoring the fact that I was actually on the
proponent side of warming at one time. Now, Id describe myself as a lukewarmer. Yes, it has gotten
warmer, CO2 is partially a factor, but catastrophic predictions of the future just
havent held up when you look at the observed data compared to the
early predictions.
promote that Im categorically a denier in the pay of big oil (for the record,

Warming does not cause extinction their models are

flawed
Stockwell 11 (David Stockwell 11, Researcher at the San Diego
Supercomputer Center, Ph.D. in Ecosystem Dynamics from the Australian
National University, developed the Genetic Algorithm for Rule-set Production
system making contributions modeling of invasive species, epidemiology of
human diseases, the discovery of new species, and effects on species of
climate change, April 21, 2011, Errors of Global Warming Effects Modeling,
online: http://landshape.org/enm/errors-of-global-warming-effects-modeling/)

Predictions of massive species extinctions due to AGW came into prominence with a January
2004 paper in Nature called Extinction Risk from Climate Change by Chris Thomas et al.. They made the
following predictions: we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that
1537% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be committed to extinction.

raised technical
problems, including one by the eminent ecologist Joan Roughgarden. Opinions raged from Dangers of
Subsequently, three communications appeared in Nature in July 2004. Two

Crying Wolf over Risk of Extinctions concerned with damage to conservationism by alarmism, through
poorly written press releases by the scientists themselves, and Extinction risk [press] coverage is worth
the inaccuracies stating we believe the benefits of the wide release greatly outweighed the negative
effects of errors in reporting. Among those believing gross scientific inaccuracies are not justified, and
such attitudes diminish the standing of scientists, I was invited to a meeting of a multidisciplinary group of
19 scientists, including Dan Bodkin from UC Santa Barbara, mathematician Matt Sobel, Craig Loehle and
others at the Copenhagen base of Bjrn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. This resulted

We were
particularly concerned by the cavalier attitude to model validations in the
Thomas paper, and the field in general: Of the modeling papers we have reviewed, only
a few were validated. Commonly, these papers simply correlate present distribution of
species with climate variables, then replot the climate for the future from a climate
model and, finally, use one-to-one mapping to replot the future distribution of the
species, without any validation using independent data. Although some are
clear about some of their assumptions (mainly equilibrium assumptions), readers who are not
experts in modeling can easily misinterpret the results as valid and validated. For example,
in Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity published in 2007 BioScience.

Hitz and Smith (2004) discuss many possible effects of global warming on the basis of a review of
modeling papers, and in this kind of analysis the unvalidated assumptions of models would most likely be

few mass extinctions have been seen over recent

rapid climate changes, suggesting something must be wrong with the models
to get such high rates of extinctions. They speculated that species may survive in refugia,
suitable habitats below the spatial scale of the models. Another example of an unvalidated
ignored. The paper observed that

assumptions that could bias results in the direction of extinctions, was described in chapter 7 of my book
Niche Modeling. When climate change shifts a species niche over a landscape (dashed to solid circle) the
response of that species can be described in three ways: dispersing to the new range (migration), local
extirpation (intersection), or expansion (union). Given the probability of extinction is correlated with range
size, there will either be no change, an increase (intersection), or decrease (union) in extinctions
depending on the dispersal type. Thomas et al. failed to consider range expansion (union), a behavior that
predominates in many groups. Consequently, the methodology was inherently biased towards extinctions.
One of the many errors in this work was a failure to evaluate the impact of such assumptions. The
prevailing view now, according to Stephen Williams, coauthor of the Thomas paper and Director for the
Center for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, and author of such classics as Climate change in

Many
unknowns remain in projecting extinctions, and the values provided in Thomas et al. (2004)
Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe, may be here.

should not be taken as precise predictions. Despite these uncertainties, Thomas et al. (2004) believe
that the consistent overall conclusions across analyses establish that anthropogenic climate warming at
least ranks alongside other recognized threats to global biodiversity. So how precise are the figures?
Williams suggests we should just trust the beliefs of Thomas et al. an approach referred to disparagingly
in the forecasting literature as a judgmental forecast rather than a scientific forecast (Green & Armstrong

simple models gloss over numerous problems in validating

extinction models, including the propensity of so-called extinct species quite
2007). These

often reappear. Usually they are small, hard to find and no-one is really looking for
them.

Past Tipping Point

Guterl 9 (Fred Guterl 9, Executive Editor of Scientific American, Will
Climate Go Over The Edge?, 2009 http://www.newsweek.com/id/185822)
climate scientists Gerard Roe and Marcia Baker turned for insight to the
published an analysis in the journal
Science arguing that climate models were skewed in the direction of
underestimating the warming effect of carbon. The report reasoned that carbon emissions
Since the real world is so messy,

distinctly neater world of mathematics. Last year, they

have the potential to trigger many changes that amplify the warming effectwater absorbs more sunlight than ice,
humidity traps more heat, and so onbut few that would mitigate it. The odds, they figure, are about one in three

there's little chance at all

that they'll rise by less than 2 degrees C. "We've had a hard time
eliminating the possibility of very large climate changes ," says Roe. The answer is still
that temperatures will rise by 4.5 degrees C (the top of the IPCC's range), but

couched in probabilities, but they've shifted in a worrying direction. What can be done? Can a diplomatic miracle in
Copenhagen save the planet from the dreaded tipping point? Sea ice in the Antarctic was supposed to last for 5,000
years until scientists found that the melting was proceeding at a faster pace than expected. Now it will all be gone in a

Is there
any way to halt the process before it goes too far? No, says Susan
Solomon, a climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in Boulder, Colorado. In a recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academies of
Science, she found that most of the carbon we've already released into the
atmosphere will hang around for another 1,000 years. Even if world
leaders somehow managed to persuade everybody to stop driving cars and heating their homes
bringing carbon emissions down to zero immediatelythe Earth would
continue to warm for centuries. The effect of rising temperatures on rainfall
patterns is also irreversible, says Solomon. Parts of the world that tend to be dry (Mexico, north Africa,
mere 850 years. Bringing it back would require something like 10,000 years of cooler temperatures.

southern Europe and the western parts of Australia and the United States) will continue to get drier, while wet areas
(the South Pacific islands, the horn of Africa) will keep getting wetter .

"You have to think of it as

being like a dial that can only turn one way," she says. "We've cranked up the
dial, and we don't get to crank it back." The point of a climate treaty, then, isn't so much to roll
things back as to keep them from getting a whole lot worsea worthy and important goal, if not a particularly
inspiring one.

View any evidence from the IPCC with skepticismno

actual evidence or authors listed
Paterson 11 (Norman R., Professional Engineer and Consulting
Geophysicist, PhD in Geophysics from University of Toronto, Fellow of the
Royal Society of Canada, Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic
Model and its Consequences, Geoscience Canada, Vol 38, No 1, March,
Ebsco)
iii) The IPCC was formed in 1988 by two organizations of the United Nations, the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, to assess...the scientific, technical and
socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate

IPCCs mandate appears to take

for granted that man is responsible for at least a significant part of the
current global warming. Because of its political nature, the number of
subscribing countries (currently 130), and the fact that it carries out no research
of its own, defining a scientifically meaningful IPCC consensus has become an
change (http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings//se ssion21/doc18.pdf).

almost impossible task. Nevertheless, IPCC has faithfully followed its guidelines in each of its four
Assessment Reports, concluding in its fourth report (IPCC 2007) that Most of the global average warming
over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a
discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). (authors italics).
Hidden behind this bold statement are many dissenting opinions by scientists whose views do not appear

it is difficult to find in the IPCC lists of authors and

reviewers, any prominent independent scientists such as those
whose opinions are referred to in this article. This bias has led to
serious criticism of the IPCC process. The criticism culminated recently in a
study by the Inter-Academy Council (IAC), which recommended, among other
changes, that The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to exercise their
authority to ensure that reviewers comments are adequately considered by
the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the
report (Inter-Academy Council 2010). The one-sided nature of the IPCC reports, and the
errors that IPCC has since acknowledged, have cast considerable doubt on
the validity of the IPCCs main conclusions. For example, and as mentioned earlier also,
claims by IPCC and others that 1998 was the warmest year on record ignore
the data from 1500 and earlier, and also fail to point out that 1998 was the
year of strongest ocean/atmospheric effect, known as El Nio. Other errors in its
climate models, such as the predicted meltdown of the Himalayan glaciers
(Guardian, March 10, 2010), and the large number of grey (i.e. not peerreviewed) literature sources that IPCC cites, have now become widely known
in the reports. In fact,

in the public domain.

IPCCs temperature recordings are flawed

Taylor 12 (James M, managing editor of Environment & Climate News,
senior fellow for The Heartland Institute focusing on environmental issue, JD
from Syracuse, Adjustment Errors Created Nearly Half of IPCC Warming, 720, http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/07/20/adjustmenterrors-created-nearly-half-ipcc-warming)
Nearly half of the claimed warming during the past century did not
occur in the real world but is merely the creation of flawed data
adjustments, reports a new paper presented at a meeting of the European Geosciences
Union. Removing flawed adjustments to raw temperature readings shows the
Earth warmed merely 0.42 degrees during the past century, rather than the
0.7 to 0.8 degrees claimed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Government analysts take raw data gathered from temperature
stations around the world and adjust the temperature readings in several
ways before releasing official temperature reports. Skeptics have long pointed out that the
majority of the analysts are far from objective referees of the raw
temperature data. Most are outspoken global warming alarmists who accumulate and retain large
budgets, staff, and media attention only so long as a global warming crisis appears to exist. The European

analysts routinely discard readings from

temperature stations showing cooling temperatures and give unwarranted
weight to readings from temperature stations showing warming
temperatures. Moreover, they often adjust the data at individual temperature
Geosciences Union paper points out the

stations reporting cooling temperatures in a way that allows them to claim

temperatures are actually rising at these stations .

No warming and not anthropogenic

Ferrara, 2012 (Peter, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute,
Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General
Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis,
served in the White House Office of Policy Development, graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law
School , 5/31/2012, "Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling,"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/)
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing

natural climate cycles have already turned

from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for
more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two
decades or more. That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference
ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because

sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic

serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested

political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists
Implications of High Cost Energy. The conference featured

seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United

you will see are calm, dispassionate

presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In
sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot
defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in
Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online. What

public debate. With the conference presentations online, lets see if the alarmists really do have any response. The Heartland Institute has
effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered
volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Those Climate Change
Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UNs IPCC. You can ask any
advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are

20th century temperature record, and you will find

that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolutions upward
march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been
much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of
naturally caused climate cycles. For example, temperatures dropped steadily
from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have
cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s, the natural cycles
turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic
not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently. Check out the

interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less
warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal

Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the

colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects
global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late
Oscillation (PDO).

1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). In 2000,
the UNs IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political

Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly
predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction
science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes? Don

because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UNs IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

results are in, and the winner is

Easterbrook

Well, the
.Don
. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland
conference, with a presentation entitled Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible? Watch that online and you will see how scientists

All I ever see from the global

warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad
hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they cant
defend their views in public debate. Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the
are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it.

IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening. Thats a big
miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard
Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the
historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this
century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Haydens presentation online as

Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue

for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of
warming and cooling over the past 500 years , with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further
expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend. But that is not all. We are also currently experiencing
a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earths
history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum
well. Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years,

from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816
(which may have had other contributing short term causes). Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715,
which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such
periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350
to 1850. The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death. Such

impacts of the sun on the earths climate were discussed at the conference by
astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of
Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz
Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun. Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold
this present cold cycle will get. Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s? Or will the paucity
of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum? He says it is impossible to know now. But based
on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.

Tech and adaptive advances prevent all climate impacts--warming wont cause war
Singer et al 2011 Dr. S. Fred Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Professor
Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a
Member of the International Academy of Astronautics; Robert M. Carter, Research Professor at James Cook
University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia), palaeontologist, stratigrapher,
marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience; and
Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical
Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, and Association of
American Geographers, et al, 2011, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, online:
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/FrontMatter.pdf)

Decades-long empirical trends of climate-sensitive measures of human wellbeing, including the percent of developing world population suffering from chronic hunger, poverty rates,
and deaths due to extreme weather events, reveal dramatic improvement during the twentieth
century, notwithstanding the historic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The
magnitude of the impacts of climate change on human well-being depends on society's
adaptability (adaptive capacity), which is determined by, among other things, the wealth
and human resources society can access in order to obtain, install, operate, and maintain
technologies necessary to cope with or take advantage of climate change impacts. The
IPCC systematically underestimates adaptive capacity by failing to take
into account the greater wealth and technological advances that will be
present at the time for which impacts are to be estimated . Even accepting the
IPCC's and Stern Review's worst-case scenarios, and assuming a compounded annual growth rate
of per-capita GDP of only 0.7 percent, reveals that net GDP per capita in developing
countries in 2100 would be double the 2006 level of the U.S. and triple
that level in 2200. Thus, even developing countries' future ability to cope
with climate change would be much better than that of the U.S. today.
The IPCC's embrace of biofuels as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was premature, as many

researchers have found "even the best biofuels have the potential to damage the poor, the climate, and
biodiversity" (Delucchi, 2010). Biofuel production consumes nearly as much energy as it generates,
competes with food crops and wildlife for land, and is unlikely to ever meet more than a small fraction of

The notion that global warming might cause war and

is not only wrong, but even backwards - that is, global cooling has
led to wars and social unrest in the past, whereas global warming has coincided
with periods of peace, prosperity, and social stability.
the world's demand for fuels.
social unrest

1NC --- Adaptation

The aff doesnt solve Rising Sea Levels --- Thats what the
1AC NRC says is key to Naval Readiness
The warning system stuff is a joke --- Detection doesnt
mean deflection

DA --- Mitigation
Adaptation is impossible in a world of massive warming
Visser 13(Nick Visser, writer for The Huffington Post, Climate Change Worse Than We Thought,
Likely To Be 'Catastrophic Rather Than Simply Dangerous' 12/31/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/climate-change-worse_n_4523828.html) King

Climate change may be far worse than scientists thought , causing global
temperatures to rise by at least 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, or about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a
new study. The study, published in the journal Nature, takes a fresh look at clouds' effect on the planet,

research found that as the planet heats, fewer

sunlight-reflecting clouds form, causing temperatures to rise further in an
upward spiral. That number is double what many governments agree is the
threshold for dangerous warming. Aside from dramatic environmental shifts
like melting sea ice, many of the ills of the modern world -- starvation,
poverty, war and disease -- are likely to get worse as the planet warms . "4C
would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous ," lead researcher
Steven Sherwood told the Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult,
if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual
melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet."
Another report released earlier this month said the abrupt changes caused by rapid
warming should be cause for concern, as many of climate change's biggest
threats are those we aren't ready for. In September, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change said it was "extremely likely" that human activity was the
dominant cause of global warming, or about 95 percent certain -- often the
gold standard in scientific accuracy. "If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't
know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater
cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it," U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry said after the IPCC report was released.
according to a report by The Guardian. The

But adaptation crowds out mitigation strategies --- Thats

key to prevent warming.
Sterman 13 (John, Director of the MIT System Dynamics Group at the MIT
Sloan School of Management with an AB in engineering and environmental
systems from Dartmouth and a PhD in system dynamics from MIT,
Adaptation or Mitigation? Lessons from abolition in the Battle Over Climate
Policy, Climate Progress, 07/05/13,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/05/2258731/adaptation-ormitigation-lessons-from-abolition-in-the-battle-over-climate-policy/) Chen

adaptation without mitigation is futile. Since Sandy the focus has been on
updating flood maps and building sea walls. But sea walls are the Maginot line of climate
change. Sea walls wont help with ocean acidification, water shortage, drought,
more and more dangerous wildfires, declines in agricultural output, and the
many other impacts of climate change, not to mention the climate refugees
However,

and risks of war in regions those impacts create. However, when we point out that
theres no adapting to the changes in the climate we are facing if we dont cut emissions dramatically,
some adaptation advocates say, yes, but if we can convene people around adaptation, theyll soon see its
limitations and will end up strongly advocating mitigation as part of their local adaptation plan. Im

the current push for adaptation will

consume all the resources, energy and attention around climate
change, so mitigation wont be considered, or become an
afterthought. New York City just released its $20 billion climate resilience
plan. The plan focuses on adaptation, and pays no attention to reducing the
greenhouse gas emissions that create the need for adaptation in the first
place. Nearly 50 mayors and other local leaders just signed on to the new Resilient Communities for
deeply skeptical. It is more likely that

America Agreement (RC4A), pledging to invest in adaptation and urging state and federal leaders to
support our local resilience initiatives and to take meaningful steps to build resilience and security
throughout the nation. There are potential synergies between adaptation and mitigation, and these

that investments in emissions

reductions can avoid the costs of adapting to more severe climate impacts.
But the focus is on hardening local infrastructure and preparing for more
extreme events, not mitigation, especially not at the level of national policy
or international agreements. Unfortunately, spending on sea walls, beach
nourishment, hardening infrastructure, and other adaptation
measures consumes resources that could be spent on mitigation. And
adaptation doesnt do anything to capture the harmful externalities of
greenhouse gas emissions by, for example, pricing carbon at its true cost, thus weakening
incentives to invest in efficiency and renewable, low-carbon energy. Worse, adaptation
measures are likely to ease the pressure people feel to price
greenhouse gas emissions or cut emissions through moral hazard
and moral licensing effects. When people have subsidized flood insurance or believe the
should be exploited. For example, the RC4A recognizes

government will bail them out after a disaster, they are more likely to build in the danger zone and less

if people believe adaptation protects them from

the risks of rising seas or more severe storms they may be less willing to cut
their personal carbon footprint or work for policies that would reduce
emissions. But can we do it? Can we cut emissions? Can we create an energy
system and economy that works, sustainably, for everyone? Technologically,
the answer is yes. Those who say we dont have the technology, that clean, renewable energy is too
willing to reduce their risk. Similarly,

expensive, that building a sustainable economy have a profoundly pessimistic view of human ingenuity.
Efficiency, wind, solar and other renewable, low carbon technologies are getting cheaper every day.

Many actions to reduce emissions are profitable today, with ready to go, off
the shelf technologies. If fossil fuel prices reflected the true costs of the emissions they create
then even more technologies for mitigation would be cost effective today.

And Warming isnt inevitable its immediately reversible

and there is no time lag
Desjardins 13 (Clea, member of Concordia university Media Relations Department, academic
writer, citing Damon Matthews; associate professor of the Department of Geography, Planning and
Environment at Concordia University, PhD, Member of the Global Environmental and Climate Change
Center, Global Warming: Irreversible but Not Inevitable, http://www.concordia.ca/now/what-wedo/research/20130402/global-warming-irreversible-but-not-inevitable.php)

Carbon dioxide emission cuts will immediately affect the rate of future
global warming Concordia and MIT researchers show Montreal, April 2, 2013 There is a
persistent misconception among both scientists and the public that there is

a delay between emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and the climates

response to those emissions. This misconception has led policy makers to argue that CO2
emission cuts implemented now will not affect the climate system for many decades. This
erroneous line of argument makes the climate problem seem more
intractable than it actually is, say Concordia Universitys Damon Matthews and MITs
Susan Solomon in a recent Science article. The researchers show that immediate decreases
in CO2 emissions would in fact result in an immediate decrease in the
rate of climate warming. Explains Matthews, professor in the Department of Geography,
Planning and Environment, If we can successfully decrease CO2 emissions in the
near future, this change will be felt by the climate system when the
emissions reductions are implemented not in several decades." The
potential for a quick climate response to prompt cuts in CO2 emissions
opens up the possibility that the climate benefits of emissions reductions
would occur on the same timescale as the political decisions themselves.
In their paper, Matthews and Solomon, Ellen Swallow Richards professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and

the onus for slowing the rate of global warming falls

squarely on current efforts at reducing CO2 emissions, and the resulting
future emissions that we produce. This means that there are critical implications for the
Climate Science, show that

equity of carbon emission choices currently being discussed internationally. Total emissions from
developing countries may soon exceed those from developed nations. But developed countries are
expected to maintain a far higher per-capita contribution to present and possible future warming.
This disparity

clarifies the urgency for low-carbon technology investment

and diffusion to enable developing countries to continue to develop, says Matthews. Emission
cuts made now will have an immediate effect on the rate of global
warming, he asserts. I see more hope for averting difficult-to-avoid negative impacts by
accelerating advances in technology development and diffusion, than for averting climate system
changes that are already inevitable. Given the enormous scope and complexity of the climate
mitigation challenge,

change.

clarifying these points of hope is critical to motivate

---XT: Adaptation Impossible

Adaptation is impossible in a world of massive warming --4 Degrees would reshape the planet --- Melting ice sheets, Resource wars,
Agricultural failures, refugee crises and regional instability cannot be adapted
to

Thats Visser --- Warming is anthro which means we have

to solve it
More Warrants why Adaptation Fails
Biological Factors --- Warming decks biological functions,
biodiversity, agricultural yields, spikes disease and
transforms the ecosystem
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific
intergovernmental body under control of the UN with the aims of assessing
human-induced climate change and reviewing options for adaptation and
mitigation, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,
IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
Since the AR4, the literature on biological (including behavioural, physiological, and genetic) tolerances of
individuals, populations, and communities to climate change and extremes has continued to expand (4.4;
5.5.5; 6.2). This has resulted in a significant increase in the number of studies describing mechanisms by

biological factors can constrain the adaptation options for humans, nonhuman species, and ecological systems more broadly. In particular, biological
characteristics influence the capacity of organisms to cope with increasing
climate stress in situ through acclimation, adaptation, or behavior (Jensen et al.,
which

2008; Somero, 2010; Tomanek, 2010; Aitken et al., 2011; Gale et al., 2011; Sorte et al., 2011; Donelson et

as well as the rate at which organisms can migrate to occupy suitable

bioclimatic regions (Hill et al., 2011; Morin and Thuiller, 2009; Feeley et al., 2012) (very high
al., 2011)

confidence). Studies of humans also find age and geographic variation among populations with respect to
perceptions of thermal comfort in indoor and outdoor space, which in turn influences the use of
technologies (e.g., air conditioning, vegetation) and behaviour to adjust to the thermal environment
(Indraganti, 2010; Chen and Chang, 2012;Yang et al., 2012; Fuller and Bulkeley, 2013; Muller et al., 2013).
The biological capacity for migration among non-human species is linked to characteristics such as
fecundity, phenotypic and genotypic variation, dispersal rates, and interspecific interactions (Aitken et al.,
2008; Engler et al., 2009; Hellmann et al., 2012). For example, Aitken et al. (2008) argue that migration
rates of tree species necessary to track a changing climate are higher than what has been observed since
the last glaciation. However, Kremer et al. (2012) note that long-distance gene flow of tree species can
span distances in one generation that are greater than habitat shifts predicted under climate change.
Additional research is needed to clarify the capacity of species and communities to migrate in response to
a changing climate. The degradation of environmental quality is another source of constraints (Cot and
Darling, 2010) (very high confidence), with multiple studies including natural capital as a foundation for
sustainable livelihoods (Paavola, 2008; Thornton et al., 2008; Iwasaki et al., 2009; Badjeck et al., 2010;
Nelson et al., 2010a, b). Non-climatic stresses to ecological systems can reduce their resilience to climate
change as evidenced by studies on coral reefs and marine ecosystems, tropical forests, and coastal
wetlands (Malhi et al., 2009a, b; Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008; Kapos and Miles, 2008; Afreen et al., 2011)
(very high confidence; 4.2.4; CC-CR). For example, several studies have noted interactions between
anthropogenic land use change and species migration rates on the risk of extirpation (Feeley et al., 2010;

Ecological degradation also

reduces the availability of ecosystem goods and services for human
populations (Nkem et al, 2010; Tobey et al., 2010; 4.4.3; 6.4.1; (very high confidence). For example,
Yates et al., 2010; Cabral et al., 2013; Svenning and Sandel, 2013).

degradation of coastal wetlands and coral reef systems may reduce their capacity to buffer coastal

systems from the effects of tropical cyclones (Das and Vincent, 2009; Tobey et al., 2010; Gedan et al.,

Similarly, soil degradation and desertification can

reduce crop yields and the resilience of agricultural and pastoral livelihoods
to climate stress (Iglesias et al., 2011; Lal, 2011). Ecosystem constraints can also
arise from non-native species, including pests and disease, that compete with
endemic species (Hellman et al., 2008; Dukes, et al., 2009; Moser et al., 2011; Ziska et al., 2011;
Pautasso et al., 2012; Svobodova et al., 2013) (4.2.4.6). Climate change could reduce the
effectiveness of current control mechanisms for invasive species (Hellmann et al.,
2011; Keryn et al., 2011; Box CC-EA).

2008) (very low confidence). However, studies also indicate that uncertainty associated with predictions of
future pests, disease, and invasive species remains high (Dukes et al., 2009)

Economic Constraints --- Warming decks all major of the

sectors of the economy --- Causes instability
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific
intergovernmental body under control of the UN with the aims of assessing
human-induced climate change and reviewing options for adaptation and
mitigation, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,
IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
The AR4 concluded that adaptive capacity is influenced by the entitlements
of actors to economic resources and by larger macro-level driving forces such
as economic development and trends in globalization (Adger et al., 2007).
More recent literature continues to identify economic constraints associated
with adaptation. However, such constraints are often associated with the
financing of discrete adaptation options (e.g., Matasci et al., 2013; Islam et
al., 2014). This chapter draws a distinction between such financial constraints
(16.3.2.5) and economic constraints, which are associated with broader
macroeconomic considerations. Long-term trends in economic development
as well as short-term dynamics in economic systems can have a significant
influence on the capacity of actors to adapt to climate change (very high
confidence) (16.3.1.1). Multiple authors, for example, discuss the concept of
double exposure where actors are subjected to stresses associated with
climate change as well as those associated with economic disruptions such as
the recent global financial crisis or other stresses (Leichenko et al., 2010;
Silva et al., 2010; Leichenko, 2012; Jeffers, 2013; McKune and Silva, 2013).
Similarly, Kiem and Austin (2013) argue that prevailing economic conditions
have an important influence on the capacity of Australian farmers to cope
with drought. The implications of economic constraints vary among different
sectors that have differential vulnerability to climate change. Economies that
are disproportionately comprised of climate-sensitive sectors such as
agriculture, forestry and fisheries, may be particularly vulnerable to the
effects of climate change and may encounter greater constraints on their
capacity to adapt (very high confidence). Such economies occur
disproportionately in the developing world (Thornton et al., 2008; Allison et
al., 2009; Feng et al., 2010; Fussel, 2010), although multiple studies have
explored climate-sensitive regional economies in developed nations as well
(Edwards et al., 2009; Aaheim et al., 2012; Leichenko et al., 2010; Kiem and
Austin, 2013). Poverty and development deficits that are linked to economic

conditions also exist in urban areas (8.1.3; 8.3.2.1). While economic

development and diversification are generally seen as factors that can
ameliorate resource deficits (20.2.1.2; 20.3.2), certain economic enterprises
can constrain adaptation. For example, the AR4 noted that activities such as
shrimp farming and conversion of coastal mangroves, while profitable in an
economic sense, can exacerbate vulnerability to sea-level rise (Agrawala et
al., 2005 in Adger et al., 2007). More recent studies have demonstrated that
economic development and urbanization of hazardous landscapes may
increase human exposure to extreme weather events and climate change
resulting in greater economic losses and risks to public health and safety
(Baldassare et al., 2010; IPCC, 2012; Preston, 2013). Economic development
also can put pressure on natural resources and ecosystems that can constrain
their capacity to adapt (Titus et al., 2009; Sydneysmith et al., 2010; 16.3.2.3;
20.3.2). The extent to which economic development creates opportunities or
constrains adaptation is dependent on the development pathway (17.4.3;
20.6). Low resource-intensive economic growth can enhance adaptive
capacity while minimizing externalities of development that can increase
vulnerability of human and natural systems (20.6).

No clear solution --- People dont know how to adapt

Hill 3/31 (Adriene Hill, reporter for learning curve Why adapting to climate change is so difficult,
3/31/14, http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/why-adapting-climate-change-so-difficult) King
The newest report on climate change is out from the U.N. Researchers say climate change is
already affecting many parts of the worldrising sea levels, heat waves. Now
is the time to adapt. But figuring out how to adapt, even if you put politics
aside, can be incredibly tricky for a few reasons. People do OK handling risks
weve experienced. We do a pretty good job of preparing for some infectious
diseases, with getting children vaccinated, said Ben Orlove, a co-director of
the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University.
We put we put strong housing codes into effect in earthquake prone areas.
But, people are less good at preparing for threats that arent
familiar -- threats like climate change. Its hard for us to accept risks
that are uncertain, and that are far in the future, said Orlove. The
uncertainty and the future nature of many climate change impacts, makes
difficult decisions about adaptation even more difficult. Who should adapt?
Who should pay to adapt? How should communities use land? How are
you going to make all these decisions when you cant tell them exactly at
what level the sea rise is going to affect them in 2030, 2040, 2050? said Dan
Mazmanian, a professor at USCs Sol Price School of Public Policy . He calls the

best strategy for moving ahead adaptive management for adaptation. Communities adapt, and then stay
flexible to adapt the way they adapt. Many climate models look out to a future thats too far away for us
to imagine, said Mazmanian. Instead, we ought to be thinking a few decades out. And then rethinking the
rules again, and again, as the science and future gets clearer.

---XT: Crowd Out

Adaptation crowds out mitigation strategies --- Thats key
to prevent warming --- Walls cant solve acidification,
water shortage, drought, etc --- Mitigation wont be
considered in a world of hardening infrastructure or other
methods because it eases pressure on us making us less
willing to cut carbon footprints
Thats Sterman
Warming is anthropogenic reducing CO2 is key and
adaptation cant solve. Our science is watertight and
theirs is garbage.
Harvey 2013 Fiona, Guardian Environment Reporter, IPCC climate report: human impact is
'unequivocal', September 27 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climatereport-un-secretary-general
World leaders must now respond to an "unequivocal" message from climate scientists and act with policies
to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the United Nations secretary-general urged on Friday. Introducing a
major report from a high level UN panel of climate scientists, Ban Ki-moon said, "The heat is on. We must

The world's leading climate scientists , who have been meeting in all-night sessions this
said there was no longer room for doubt that climate
change was occurring, and the dominant cause has been human actions in
pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In their starkest warning yet, following nearly
seven years of new research on the climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) said it was "unequivocal" and that even if the world begins to moderate greenhouse
gas emissions, warming is likely to cross the critical threshold of 2C by the end of this
century. That would have serious consequences, including sea level rises,
heatwaves and changes to rainfall meaning dry regions get less and already wet areas receive
act."

week in the Swedish capital,

more. In response to the report, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, said in a statement: "This is yet
another wakeup call: those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire."

the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling , and the
costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or
commonsense should be willing to even contemplate ," he said. He said that livelihoods
"Once again,

around the world would be impacted. "With those stakes, the response must be all hands on deck. It's not
about one country making a demand of another. It's the science itself, demanding action from all of us. The
United States is deeply committed to leading on climate change." In a crucial reinforcement of their

the IPCC warned that the world

cannot afford to keep emitting carbon dioxide as it has been doing in recent
years. To avoid dangerous levels of climate change, beyond 2C, the world can
only emit a total of between 800 and 880 gigatonnes of carbon. Of this, about 530
gigatonnes had already been emitted by 2011. That has a clear implication for our fossil
fuel consumption, meaning that humans cannot burn all of the coal, oil and
gas reserves that countries and companies possess . As the former UN commissioner
message included starkly in this report for the first time

Mary Robinson told the Guardian last week, that will have "huge implications for social and economic
development." It will also be difficult for business interests to accept. The central estimate is that warming
is likely to exceed 2C, the threshold beyond which scientists think global warming will start to wreak
serious changes to the planet. That threshold is likely to be reached even if we begin to cut global
greenhouse gas emissions, which so far has not happened, according to the report. Other key points from
the report are: Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are now at

levels "unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years." Since the 1950's it's "extremely likely" that
human activities have been the dominant cause of the temperature rise. Concentrations of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased to levels that are unprecedented in at least
800,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels is the main reason behind a 40% increase in C02 concentrations
since the industrial revolution. Global temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3C to 4.8C, by the end of the
century depending on how much governments control carbon emissions. Sea levels are expected to rise
a further 26-82cm by the end of the century. The oceans have acidified as they have absorbed about a
third of the carbon dioxide emitted. Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the working group on physical science,
said the message that greenhouse gases must be reduced was clear. "We give
very relevant guidance on the total amount of carbon that can't be emitted to stay to 1.5 or 2C. We are not
on the path that would lead us to respect that warming target [which has been agreed by world
governments]." He said: "Continued

emissions of greenhouse gases will cause

further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions." Though governments around the world have agreed to curb
emissions, and at numerous international meetings have reaffirmed their commitment to holding warming
to below 2C by the end of the century, greenhouse gas concentrations are still rising at record rates.
Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, said it was for governments to take action based on the science
produced by the panel, consisting of thousands of pages of detail, drawing on the work of more than 800
scientists and hundreds of scientific papers. The scientists also put paid to claims that global warming has
"stopped" because global temperatures in the past 15 years have not continued the strong upward march
of the preceding years, which is a key argument put forward by sceptics to cast doubt on climate science.

the longer term trends were clear: "Each of the last three
decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 in the northern hemisphere [the earliest date for reliable temperature
But the IPCC said

records for the whole hemisphere]." The past 15 years were not such an unusual case, said Stocker.
"People always pick 1998 but [that was] a very special year, because a strong El Nio made it unusually
hot, and since then there have been some medium-sized volcanic eruptions that have cooled the climate."
But he said that further research was needed on the role of the oceans, which are thought to have

The scientists have faced sustained

attacks from so-called sceptics, often funded by "vested interests" according to
the UN, who try to pick holes in each item of evidence for climate change . The
experts have always known they must make their work watertight against such an onslaught, and every
conclusion made by the IPCC must pass scrutiny by all of the world's
governments before it can be published. Their warning on Friday was sent out to
absorbed more than 90% of the warming so far.

governments around the globe, who convene and fund the IPCC. It was 1988 when scientists were first

the research has become

ever clearer. Now, scientists say they are certain that "warming in the climate
system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes have been observed
throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over decades to millennia."
That warning, from such a sober body, hemmed in by the need to submit every
statement to extraordinary levels of scrutiny, is the starkest yet . "Heatwaves are
convened for this task, and in the five landmark reports since then

very likely to occur more frequently and last longer. As the earth warms, we expect to see currently wet
regions receiving more rainfall, and dry regions receiving less, although there will be exceptions," Stocker
said. Qin Dahe, also co-chair of the working group, said: "As the ocean warm, and glaciers and ice sheets
reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the
past 40 years." Prof David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate
Change, said: "The far-reaching consequences of this warming are becoming understood, although some

The most significant uncertainty, however, is how much

carbon humanity will choose to put into the atmosphere in the future. It is the
total sum of all our carbon emissions that will determine the impacts. We
need to take action now, to maximise our chances of being faced with
impacts that we, and our children, can deal with. Waiting a decade or two before taking climate
uncertainties remain.

change action will certainly lead to greater harm than acting now."

And Adaptation Causes Mindset Shift --- Its fatalistic and

guts emission solutions
Skuce 13 (Andy, A geophysical consultant living in British Columbia. He
has a BSc in geology from Sheffield University and an MSc in geophysics from
the University of Leeds. His work experience includes a period at the British
Geological Survey in Edinburgh and work for a variety of oil companies based
in Calgary, Vienna and Quito, Global Warming: Not Reversible, but
Stoppable, Skeptical Science, 04/19/13,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-reversible-butstoppable.html) Chen
many mistakenly believe that
the climate system is going to send more warming our way no matter what
we choose to do. Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint can lead to a fatalistic
approach, in which efforts to mitigate climate change by cutting emissions
are seen as futile: we should instead begin planning for adaptation or, worse,
start deliberately intervening through geoengineering. But this is wrong. The
inertia is not in the physics of the climate system, but rather in the human
economy. This is explained in a recent paper in Science Magazine (2013, paywalled but freely
The second question reveals a different kind of misunderstanding:

accessible here, scroll down to "Publications, 2013") by Damon Matthews and Susan Solomon: Irreversible
Does Not Mean Unavoidable. Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels has
been building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is now approaching 400 parts per million

If we were to stop all emissions immediately, the

CO2 concentration would also start to decline immediately , with some of the
gas continuing to be absorbed into the oceans and smaller amounts being
taken up by carbon sinks on land. According to the models of the carbon
cycle, the level of CO2 (the red line in Figure 1A) would have dropped to
about 340 ppm by 2300, approximately the same level as it was in 1980. In the
(ppm), up from 280 ppm prior to 1800.

next 300 years, therefore, nature will have recouped the last 30 years of our emissions.

---XT: Not Inevitable

Climate change reversible increase in efficiency will
reduce carbon footprint.
E & E No Date (E & E is a recognized global leader in environmental
management. Employing nearly 1,000 respected experts in 85 engineering
and scientific disciplines, E & E has offices in 43 cities across the United
States and in 12 locations around the globe. Since 1970, we have completed
over 50,000 projects in 122 different countries, in nearly every ecosystem on
the planet, We Can Solve Climate Change, E & E, http://www.ene.com/ceoblog/we-can-solve-climate-change) Chen

We Can Solve Climate Change After about 25 years of discussing climate change, the global
stage is finally set to seriously address what we have to do to reduce our footprint. This is hugely
important. Taking action is required if we want to leave the planet in good shape
for our children and grandchildren. Most of the people on Earth think that this is important. Almost all of
the countries that represent these people are in the process of saying that they agree that something must
be done. There have been lots of meetings and discussions up to this point. Copenhagen this December
will be another one these important meetings, and many discussions, and actions will need to follow. Our
global climate is extremely important to every one of us. There is agreement that we all need to act, but

There are several ways

that we can reduce our carbon footprint. They are typically referred to in
categories like efficiency and changes in generation. Efficiency is a way to
reduce the use of energy to do the same thing. There are lots of ways to
improve efficiencies. Changing a light bulb to a more efficient one is a good
example of this, but don't think only technology can make us more efficient. There are very simple
questions surround what it will cost. Reducing Emissions... and Costs

things like turning out that light when it is not used that have no capital cost and great return on

There are also non-carbon sources of energy generation that can be

used to power a new green economy . Proof it Can Be Done... and with Great ROI! In the
release of our 2008 Sustainability Report we document achieving an 80%
reduction in carbon emissions from our global headquarters at a net cost
savings! We did this in just nine years. E & E's headquarters is the oldest existing LEED
investment.

Platinum building in the world. This means two things. One, at 22 years old, we are among the longestrunning green office buildings in the world. Two, we built one of the better buildings environmentally and
were still able to reduce our footprint by 80%...(and save a couple hundred thousand dollars in the
process). Since we started with a good building, our reduction was arguably more difficult than most
buildings. This is huge. The discussion of the economics of reducing our global carbon footprint has been

there is fear by some that large carbon

reductions can't be made without destroying our economy. We are proof that
large reductions in carbon emissions not only won't bankrupt our world, but
that they can be economically beneficial. The trick is all in how you do it. In our 2008
Sustainability Report, we detail how we approached the issue . We got a lot out of behavior
changes. We mixed in the right amounts of technology and renewable energy.
We got world leading performance and great return on investment. This is
how to solve climate change.
largely theoretical. Real data has been lacking, and

Climate change reversible new way of solving: online

crowdsourcing.
Malone et al 14 (Thomas, Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan
School of Management, director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence,
and the principal investigator for the Climate CoLab project, How Millions of
People Can Help Solve Climate Change, 01/15/14, PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/crowdsourcing-climate-changesolutions/) Chen

If there ever was a problem thats hard to solve, its climate change . Its a
complex challenge requiring more expertise than any one person can possessin-depth knowledge of the
physics of the upper atmosphere, a firm grasp on the economics of technological innovation, and a
thorough understanding of the psychology of human behavior change. Whats more, top-down approaches
that have been tried for decadeslike efforts to pass national legislation and to negotiate international
agreementswhile important, havent yet produced the kind of change scientists say is needed to avert

We now have
a newand potentially more effectiveway of solving complex global
challenges: online crowdsourcing. Millions of people around the world can now work together
climate changes potential consequences. But theres at least one reason for optimism.

online to achieve a common goal at a scale and with a degree of collaboration that was never before
possible. From Wikipedia to open source software to online citizen science projects, crowdsourcing has
produced remarkable results in the worlds of education, technology, and science. Take the online game
FoldIt, for example. In just ten days, players from around the world helped produce an accurate model of a
key protein found in an HIV-like virus, solving a problem that had stumped scientists for 15 years. We

at the MIT Center

for Collective Intelligence, were exploring the potential of crowdsourcing to
help solve the worlds most difficult societal problemsstarting with climate
change. To do that, weve created the Climate CoLab, an on-line platform
where people from around the world collaborate on developing and
evaluating proposals for what to do about global climate change. (All three of us
believe these examples are just the beginning of whats possible. In our work

are actively involved in the Climate CoLab.) Anyone is allowed to contribute. In the same way that FoldIt

the Climate CoLab opens up the elite conference

rooms and meeting halls where climate strategies are developed today. To
move beyond relying solely on experts, scientists, and politicians to develop
solutions, weve broken down the complex issue of climate change into
focused sub-problems and invited a global community to tackle each of the
sub-problems and then put the puzzle back together again into a global
strategy. Anyone is allowed to contribute. No matter who a person is or where they come from, they
can contribute ideas and have them reviewed by an international community
of thousands of peopleincluding world-renowned experts from organizations
like NASA, the World Bank, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, and
leading universities like MIT, Stanford, and Columbia. Over the past three
years, the Climate CoLab community has grown dramatically, and it now has
over 10,000 members from more than 100 countries. Members include
business people, researchers, scientists, officials at non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), policymakers, students and concerned citizens, as well
as dozens of the worlds leading experts on climate science, policy, clean
tech, investing, and more. Together, the community has submitted and
opened up the chemists laboratory,

evaluated over 400 proposals on a wide variety of topics ranging from eating
vegetarian diets to adapting to sea level rise to shifting public attitudes about climate change.

Climate change reversible in squo current tech and

knowledge allow for greater energy efficiency.
Sanders 7 (Bernie, An American politician and the junior United States
Senator from Vermont. Before serving in the Senate, he represented
Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives and
served as mayor of Burlington. He does not belong to a political party. He
graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964 with a Bachelor of Arts in
political science, Global Warming Is Reversible, The Nation, 11/27/07,
http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-reversible#) Chen

Scientists now tell us that the crisis of global warming is even worse than
their earlier projections. Daily front-page headlines of environmental disasters give an inkling of
what we can expect in the future, multiplied many times over: droughts, floods, severe weather

Yet the
situation is by no means hopeless. Major advances and technological
breakthroughs are being made in the United States and throughout the world
that are giving us the tools to cut carbon emissions dramatically, break our
dependency on fossil fuels and move to energy efficiency and sustainable
energy. In fact, the truth rarely uttered in Washington is that with strong governmental
leadership the crisis of global warming is not only solvable; it can be done
while improving the standard of living of the people of this country and others
around the world. And it can be done with the knowledge and
technology that we have today; future advances will only make the task easier. What
should we be doing now? First, we need strong legislation that dramatically cuts
back on carbon emissions. The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309),
a bill that I introduced with Senator Barbara Boxer and that now has eighteen co-sponsors, would
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050. Second, if
the federal government begins the process of transforming our energy
system by investing heavily in energy efficiency and sustainable energy, we
can accomplish the 80 percent carbon reduction level and, at the same time,
create millions of high-paying jobs. Energy efficiency is the easiest, quickest
and least expensive path toward the lowering of carbon emissions . My hometown
disturbances, loss of drinking water and farmland and conflicts over declining natural resources.

of Burlington, Vermont, despite strong economic growth, consumes no more electricity today than it did
sixteen years ago because of a successful effort to make our homes, offices, schools and other buildings

In California, which has a growing economy, electric

consumption per person has remained steady over the past twenty years
because of that state's commitment to energy efficiency. Numerous studies tell
us that retrofitting older buildings and establishing strong efficiency
standards for new construction can cut fuel and energy consumption by at
least 40 percent. Those savings would increase with the adoption of new technologies such as LED
more energy-efficient.

light bulbs, which consume as little as 10 percent of the electricity that incandescent bulbs do and last
twenty years. Transportation must also be addressed in a serious manner. It is
insane that we are driving cars today that get the same twenty-five miles per gallon that US cars did
twenty years ago. If Europe and Japan can engineer their vehicles to average more than forty-four miles

raising fuel-efficiency standards to forty

miles per gallon would save roughly the same amount of oil as we import
from Saudi Arabia and would dramatically lower carbon emissions. We should
also rebuild and expand our decaying rail and subway systems and provide
energy-efficient buses in rural America so that travelers have an alternative
to the automobile.
per gallon, we can do at least as well. Simply

Climate change reversible renewable energy.

Sanders 7 (Bernie, An American politician and the junior United States
Senator from Vermont. Before serving in the Senate, he represented
Vermont's at-large district in the United States House of Representatives and
served as mayor of Burlington. He does not belong to a political party. He
graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964 with a Bachelor of Arts in
political science, Global Warming Is Reversible, The Nation, 11/27/07,
http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-reversible#) Chen

Sustainable energies such as wind, solar and geothermal have tremendous

potential and often cost no more than fossil fuels (and, in some cases, even
less). Increased production and research should cause sustainable energy
prices to decline steeply in the future. Wind power is the fastest growing
source of new energy in the world and in the United States, but we have barely
begun to tap its potential. Denmark, for example, generates 20 percent of its electricity from wind. We
should be supporting wind energy not only through the creation of large wind farms in the appropriate
areas but through the use of small, inexpensive wind turbines available today that can be used in homes

These small turbines can produce, depending on

location, more than half the electricity that an average home consumes while
saving consumers money on their electric bills. Solar energy is another
rapidly expanding technology. In Germany, a quarter of a million homes are
now producing electricity through rooftop photovoltaic units, and the cost of
that technology is expected to decline steeply. California is providing strong
incentives so that 1 million homes will have solar units in the next ten years.
The potential of solar energy, however, goes far beyond rooftop photovoltaic
units. Right now, in Nevada, a solar plant is generating fifty-six megawatts of
electricity. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the US Energy Department,
"Solar energy represents a huge domestic energy resource for the United
States, particularly in the Southwest where the deserts have some of the best solar resource
levels in the world. For example, an area approximately 12 percent the size of Nevada
has the potential to supply all of the electric needs of the United States." As a
strong indication of what the future holds, Pacific Gas and Electric, the largest electric
utility in the country, has recently signed a contract to build a 535-megawatt
and farms throughout rural America.

solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert. This plant, which should be operating in about
four years, will have an output equivalent to a small nuclear power plant and will produce electricity for

the price of the electricity generated by this

plant, about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, is competitive with other fuels today
and will be much cheaper than other fuels by the end of the twenty-five-year
contract. Experts in the industry say that dozens of these plants can be built within the
next twenty years. Geothermal energy, the heat from deep inside the earth,
is another overlooked resource with real potential. It is free, renewable and
can be used for electricity generation and direct heating. A recent report for the US
about 400,000 homes. Most important,

Energy Department by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests that geothermal could supply
100,000 megawatts of new carbon-free electricity at less than 10 cents per kilowatt hour, the going rate
today. It is estimated that electricity from geothermal sources could provide 10 percent of the US baseload

As the nation at last confronts global warming, it is no time

for denial, greed, cynicism or pessimism. It is a time for vision and
international leadership. It is a time for transforming our energy system from
the polluting and carbon-emitting technologies of the nineteenth century into
the unlimited and extraordinary energy possibilities of the twenty-first . When we
do that we will not only solve the global warming crisis; we will open up
unimaginable opportunities for improving life all over the planet.
energy needs in 2050.

Off Case

T - Land

1NC T - Land
Interpretation: The Earths oceans are the five oceans
Spellman and Price-Bayer 12 (Frank R. Spellman, Consult for U.S. Dept of
Justice on Accident Cases, author, Joni Price-Bayer is a speech language
pathologist with Norfolk Public Schools. She has degrees in both English and
education and is a professional member of the American Speech-Language
Health Association, The Handbook of Nature, page 192, accessed 7/8/14)
Earths oceans Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, Indian, and Southern are the
storehouses of Earths saline water. Oceans cover about 71% of Earths surface. Average
depth of Earths oceans is about 3,800 m, with the greatest ocean depth recorded at 11,036 m in the
Mariana Trench. At the present time, the oceans contain a volume of about 1.35 billion cubic kilometers
(96.5% of Earths total water supply), but the volume fluctuates with the growth and melting of glacial ice.

Violation:the Southern Ocean and Antarctica are distinct

SCAR 04 Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is an
interdisciplinary body of the International Council for Science. 14th July 2004
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:iKawM5ul5EgJ:www.scar.org/articles/southernocean.html+&cd=4&hl
=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The expression Southern Ocean has been in common use for many years and has been widely understood
by oceanographers and others working in the southern parts of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.
Originally the International Hydrographic Organization declined to define the Southern Ocean but, at a

The definition
of the Southern Ocean is given in the following paragraph and further information
can be found via the URL link after the definition. Background: A spring 2000 decision by the
International Hydrographic Organization delimited a fifth world ocean from
the southern portions of the Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean.
The new ocean extends from the coast of Antarctica north to 60 degrees
south latitude which coincides with the Antarctic Treaty Limit. The Southern Ocean is now the
meeting in 2000, it was agreed that the Southern Ocean should be formally recognized.

fourth-largest of the world's five oceans (after the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean but
larger than the Arctic Ocean).

Standards
1. Effect T --- Unlimits the topic, justify unpredictable
number of affs --- Makes T a question of solvency which
mixes burdens
2. Extra T --- The aff can claim unfair advantages and
generate offense we cant have research on --- That key to
clash and education
3. Ground --- We dont have our ocean links to our DAs
and Ks, and our Land CPs
Voter for Fairness and Education

AT: C/I Includes Land

Their card is terrible --- Prefer our SCAR evidence --- They
have an intent to definte and distinguishes the continent
of Antarctica to the Ocean --- Gut check --- every 8 year
old knows that the ocean is different from a continent
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) is an interdisciplinary
body of the International Council for Science.

Their interpretation has zero bright line for whats topical

or not theres no way to determine whats part of an
ecosystem or not thats predictable
Prefer the most precise definitions Antarctic
Convergence is a term that is impossible to define
precisely
Pidwirny 13 , Prof. of Physical Geography at Univ. of British Columbia,
2013 (Michael, PhD Simon Fraser Univ., 5/13
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156187)
Some oceanographers tend to prefer the Antarctic Convergence, or the
boundary between water masses and currents of the oceans to the north
(Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans), as the northern limit of the Southern
Ocean. While the Antarctic Convergence is approximately at the latitude of
60south, it moves seasonally and thus provides challenges as a useful
boundary to chartographers and others.

Their interpretation links to all of our offense --- Its a

horrible vision for the topic

AT: Anderson Evidence

They dont meet their own interpretation - Their Anderson
evidence for the interpretation says, The Antarctic
Convergence occurs in the ocean. Nowhere does it say it
includes land.
No intent to define oceans their definition merely
defines Antarctica three different ways, but never defines
the Southern Ocean.

---XT: Southern Ocean

Southern Ocean only includes the bodies of water
Michael Robertson 13 Deputy Chief of CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences .
Aug 30, 2013 http://www.oceannavigator.com/September-2013/SouthernOcean/
The limits of the Southern Ocean are the parallel of 60S to the north (the
common limit with the South Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and the South
Pacific Ocean) and the coast of Antarctica, including the Antarctic Peninsula,
to the south. Of course, there are more than political considerations. The scientific community is
mostly resolved that there is a basis for a distinct definition for this body of water, but there is
disagreement among oceanographers about its northern boundary.

The Southern oceans is included in the earths oceans.

NOAA No Date (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/howmanyoceans.html There is only one global oceanNationa Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration AWEY)

While there is only one global ocean, the vast body of water that covers 71 percent of the Earth is
geographically divided into distinct named regions. The boundaries between these regions have evolved
over time for a variety of historical, cultural, geographical, and scientific reasons. Historically, there are
four named oceans: the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic. However, most countriesincluding the United
Statesnow recognize the Southern (Antarctic) as the fifth ocean. The Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian are

The Southern Ocean is the 'newest' named ocean. It

is recognized by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names as the body of water
extending from the coast of Antarctica to the line of latitude at 60
degrees South. The boundaries of this ocean were proposed to the International Hydrographic
known as the three major oceans.

Organization in 2000. However, not all countries agree on the proposed boundaries, so this has yet to be
ratified by members of the IHO. The U.S. is a member of the IHO, represented by the NOS Office of Coast
Survey.

T Development

T Infrastructure
Interpretation: Development includes transportation,
communication, fresh water conversion, mineral
extraction, food production and research activities
Lipp 60, [James E, member of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on
New Devices for Exploring the Oceans, FRONTIERS IN OCEANIC RESEARCH
HEARINGS HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,
http://archive.org/stream/frontiersinocean00unit/frontiersinocean00unit_djvu.t
xt] Wilary
to subdivide the field of ocean development into half a dozen
parts and handle each very briefly. These are ; naval weapons, underwater
transportation and communication, fresh water conversion, mining
or chemical extraction of minerals, food production, and finally
research activities.
I should like

And the aff doesnt directly research --- It builds

infrastructure
NRC, 1AC Author, 11 Committee on Future Science Opportunities in
Antarctica and the Southern Ocean; National Research Council 2011 (Future
Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean//RC)
Antarctica and the Southern Ocean occupy a vast territory, much of which is
inaccessible during Austral winter months. Even during summer months the
conditions prove challenging, with average temperatures below freezing and
rapidly changing winds. Infrastructure is essential to survival and is vital to
the conduct of science. Two kinds of infrastructure can provide opportunities
to advance scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean:
physical systems infrastructure, including transport, and
cyberinfrastructure.

Topicality vs Antarctica

1NC

1NC Shell
Interpretation of determines the substance
constituting something of the Earths oceans means
the development must be OF THE OCEAN
Oxford Dictionary
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/of
of /v/ preposition 6. indicating the relationship between a verb and an indirect object with a verb
expressing a mental state. "they must be persuaded of the severity of the problem" expressing a cause.

indicating the material or substance constituting something .

house was built of bricks"

"he died of cancer" 7.

"the

Violation- the aff develops Antarctic which is a body of

land
Merriam Webster No Date (Merriam webster, Antarctica,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antarctica)
ANTARCTICA body of land around the S. Pole ; a plateau covered by a
great ice cap & mountain peaks area ab 5,500,000 square miles (14,300,000 square
Definition of

kilometers), divided into West Antarctica (including Antarctic Peninsula) &East Antarctica by Transantarctic
Mountains

Voting issuea. Limits- Allowing any aff that develops the land OR
the ocean makes the topic infinite and justifies
literally any aff which makes this already massive
topic unmanageable
b. Predictability- they shift the focus away from ocean
debates to land development debates which kills
predictable clash
c. Ground- we dont get access to any of our ocean
specific disads or counterplans
d. Effects T- ocean development isnt an effect of the
plan- the plan creates infrastructure on land which
allows for exploration- Anything can affect ocean
policy- reject the team

2NC

Overview
Our interpretation is that they have to develop the ocean,
not the land - Prefer our interpretation- it allows them to
read ANY affs that explore or develop the ocean- they
justify developing cyber and physical infrastructure on
any continent, the entire TI topic because TI is
infrastructure near an ocean and more.

AT: We meet
No you dont- the plan text says you develop physical
and cyber infrastructure in Antarctica- thats distinct
from developing the ocean
Topical version of the aff is- The United States federal
government should increase its exploration of the
Southern Ocean- if theyre right that developing
infrastructure is a prerequisite then that would likely be
an effect of the plan- solves their offense and advantage
ground.

AT: C/I Development is directed at the ocean

Their interpretation explodes limits- They can do any
development on land for the purpose of exploring the
ocean which allows an infinite number of affs- which
causes stale debates because the neg is always one step
behind because were never prepared for unpredictable
affs- being able to predict the aff ensures we have specific
strategies to each aff and is crucial to in-depth debate
and analysis which is key to decision making skills
Prefer decision making skills because theyre the only out
of round impact

AT: C/I- Antarctica is part of the Ocean

Their interpretation allows an infinite number of affs
because we can develop anything on Antarctica and it
would still be considered ocean development- which
causes stale debates because the neg is always one step
behind because were never prepared for unpredictable
affs- being able to predict the aff ensures we have specific
strategies to each aff and is crucial to in-depth debate
and analysis which is key to decision making skills
Prefer decision making skills because theyre the only out
of round impact
Their interp evidence is about the ANTARCTIC not
ANTARCTICA- antarctica is the land
Anderson 2003 (Genny Author of online Marine Science Santa Barbara
City College Antarctica, Continent of Ice Ice, Ice Shelves, Tidewater Glaciers,
Icebergs, and Sea Ice Revised 18 June
2003http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/04benthon/AAcontinent.htm//R
C)
Antarctica can be defined in three ways. The first way is the outline of the continental land mass and its
permanent ice. The second is to use the Antarctic Circle (at latitude 66.5 degrees south) and consider

The third way is perhaps the best for

considering the entire Antarctic as an ecosystem - this is to use the Antarctic
Convergence as the defining line. The Antarctic Convergence occurs in the ocean
surrounding Antarctica and is where very cold (low salinity) Antarctic water, flowing away from the
everything south of that latitude to be Antarctica.

continent and constantly cooled by the ice on the continent, meets with the southernmost parts of the
Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. The Antarctic water is denser, because it is so cold, and sinks,
creeping north across the ocean bottoms. South of this convergence not only is the ocean water colder but
the air is distinctly colder and drier than north of the convergence. Most of the life forms found in
Antarctica depend on the ocean within the Antarctic Convergence so using this as a definition for
Antarctica encompasses the entire physical area that is important for the complex ecosystem that is found
there. The convergence moves north during the Antarctic winter, and south in the Antarctic summer - in
response to the freezing and thawing of the sea ice. This Convergence is a biological barrier to organisms
both in the ocean and the air because of the big temperature difference.

AT: Reasonability
Reasonability makes no sense in the context of their affdeveloping the land isn't a reasonable interpretation of
OCEAN development/exploration
Competing interps good race to the top to find the best
interpretation for both teams forces the aff to prove that
their standards and vision of the topic is good thats
necessary to in depth discussion about what we should be
able to debate allowed and the only way to start at an
equal starting point.

Extra Interp cards

Ocean
The ocean isn't land. lol
Dictionary.com No data (Dictionary.com, Ocean,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ocean)
Ocean
the vast body of salt water that covers almost three fourths of the earth's surfa
ce.

Antarctica Interps
Interpretation: Antarctic is a body of land
Merriam Webster No Date (Merriam webster, Antarctica,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antarctica)
ANTARCTICA body of land around the S. Pole; a plateau covered by a
great ice cap & mountain peaks area ab 5,500,000 square miles (14,300,000 square
Definition of

kilometers), divided into West Antarctica (including Antarctic Peninsula) &East Antarctica by Transantarctic
Mountains

Antarctica is a continent
The Free Earth Dictionary No Date (The free earth dictionary, Antarctica,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Antarctica)

Antarctica Continent lying chiefly within the Antarctic Circle and asymmetrically
centered on the South Pole. Some 95 percent of Antarctica is covered by an icecap
averaging 1.6 km (1 mi) in thickness. The region was first explored in the early1800s, and although there
are no permanent settlements, many countries have made territorial claims. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959,
signed by 12 nations, prohibited military operations on the continent and provided for the interchange of
scientific data.

Antarctic is a continent
The Free Earth Dictionary No Date (The free earth dictionary, Antarctica,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Antarctica)

Antarctica The continent surrounding the South Pole : almost entirely covered by an
ice sheet. ab. 5,000,000 sq. mi. (12,950,000 sq. km). Also called Antarctic Continent.

standards

Competing Interpretations
Competing Interpretations means that the Aff must prove
that they meet the best relative interpretation in the
debate in order to prove that theyre topical. Especially
on this broad of a topic, the burden should be on the
Affirmative to prove that theyre topical.
Holding the Aff to a higher standard creates the best
model for debate if we prove a relatively better
interpretation exists, there is no logical reason to allow
the Aff to meet a worse one.
Reasonability relies on them winning that their
interpretation is in fact a reasonable interpretation of the
topic which all of our arguments above disprove.
Lastly, Reasonability is the most subjective form of judge
intervention because it asks judges to decree absolute
judgments about good versus bad instead of relative
judgments that directly prove one interpretation better
than another one, which is definitively more objective.

-Topic Limits O/W Aff Ground

Limits outweigh Aff ground because of the necessity of
burdens of response and rejoinder. Negative predictability
is necessary to foster debates with large amounts of
clash. This is key to ensuring the Affirmative gets tested
from multiple perspectives and allows for the debaters
themselves to become better at defending their positions.
Aff ground is inevitable on a broad topic; it is only a
question of creating the standard that fosters the best
possible debates.

-Ocean Education Good

Engaging ocean education at the high school level is
crucial to increase diversity in the ocean scientific fields
Gilligan 6 ~ Dr. Matthew, Savannah State University, Moderator Report on Building an Innovative
Workforce through Diversity, Conference on Ocean Literacy Report, June 7-8, 2006 Washington, DC
Persistent myths. The myth that underrepresented groups arent interested in science and technologyis
accompanied by others, such as high-performing science students dont exist in underrepresented
groups; they have no science or technology role models; theyre unable to get through weed-out courses in STEM disciplines;
and, in general, academic excellence and minority access are mutually exclusive. All of these myths were debunked recently in
a May 25, 2006, article in The New York Times describing the NSF-funded Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of
Maryland, Baltimore County. The program was cited as a model illustrating that a vibrant, well- structured science

program can produce large numbers of underrepresented minority students who excel and remain in
STEM fields. Competition from other fields. Mark Loveland, Education Programs Coordinator at the National Academy of
Sciences Koshland Science Museum, remarked that surveys demonstrate that professional careers other than basic science or
ocean sciences such as law, medicine and businessdo a better job recruiting and promoting minorities and women into their
careers, and offer more compelling economic and other tangible benefits. Mr. Loveland asked Dr. Vergun what might

attract a bright, eager, competent minority or female student to pursue a career in academic research
or sciences, especially in the ocean sciences, versus more lucrative fields. Dr. Vergun responded by saying what
makes the difference is someone who cares and an exciting, engaging experience that opens
opportunities in a world about which students have no idea. Our students rarely hear anything about
the marine sciences until college, and most colleges and universities dont have marine science undergraduate degree
programs.

Impacts/ breadth, precision,

limits

Breadth Good
Broad and interdisciplinary ocean education is key
Watson-Wright 12
(Wendy, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, Ocean in
Focus: Science and Education for Sustainable Development, in: Copejans,
E. et al. (Ed.) (2012). First conference on ocean literacy in Europe: Book of
abstracts. Bruges, Belgium, 12 October 2012. VLIZ Special Publication, 60:
pp. 14)
The United Nations declared 2005-2014 the decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD). ESD provides a coherent and holistic
vision of the role and purpose of education within our fragile, fast
changing world. For UNESCO and its Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (IOC), ESD is the best framework for addressing environmental
challenges by systematically engaging with the three foundations of sustainable
development - the environmental, social and economic pillars - as well as by
highlighting the scientific, cultural and ethical dimensions. ESD offers not only an
overarching frame of reference but also an approach that is enriched by the
contributions of many other disciplines. Education is key to development
challenges such as the threat to human security, and is central to reshaping our knowledge, understanding, values and attitudes to take the future of
the planet actively into account.
To address ocean and environmental challenges more progress is needed on
many fronts: producing less greenhouse gases, inventing new green
technologies, and changing our behaviour. Progress is also needed in

providing education and public awareness to create informed

citizens. The need for educating and learning about the ocean and
global change is urgent and should be interdisciplinary and
holistic, integrating scientific, social, gender, economic, cultural
and ethical dimensions as well as incorporating local, traditional
and indigenous knowledge perspectives and practices. Ocean and
environmental education should be part of an education for
sustainable development that helps people to develop the attitudes
and knowledge to make informed decisions for the benefit of
themselves and others, now and in the future.

Precision Good
Definitional precision is a precondition for effective
policymaking.
Resnick 1 Evan Resnick, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at
Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in
Political Science from Columbia University, 2001 (Defining engagement,
Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to
Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)

In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a

precondition for effective policymaking. Decisionmakers who invoke
critical terms in an erratic, ad hoc fashion risk alienating their
constituencies. They also risk exacerbating misperceptions and hostility
among those the policies target. Scholars who commit the same error
undercut their ability to conduct valuable empirical research. Hence,
if scholars and policymakers fail rigorously to define "engagement," they
undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.

Limits Good
And limits are key to educational and competitive debate
broad topics force endless hours of research thats
impossible to maintain with a life outside of debate.
Rowland 84 ~ Robert C., Baylor University, Topic Selection in Debate,
American Forensics in Perspective, Ed. Parson

The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic
selection is the decline in participation in the National Debate Tournament
(NDT) policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction with
academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are
oriented toward debating the national policy debate proposition, so-called
NDT programs, are diminishing in scope and size.4 This decline in policy
debate is tied, many in the work group believe, to excessively broad topics.
The most obvious characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is
extreme breath. A resolution calling for regulation of land use literally and
figuratively covers a lot of ground. Naitonal debate topics have not always
been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular
policy change.5 The move from narrow to broad topics has had, according to
some, the effect of limiting the number of students who participate in policy
debate. First, the breadth of the topics has all but destroyed novice
debate. Paul Gaske argues that because the stock issues of policy debate are
clearly defined, it is superior to value debate as a means of introducing
students to the debate process.6 Despite this advantage of policy debate,
Gaske belives that NDT debate is not the best vehicle for teaching beginners.
The problem is that broad policy topics terrify novice debaters, especially
those who lack high school debate experience. They are unable to cope with
the breadth of the topic and experience negophobia,7 the fear of debating
negative. As a consequence, the educational advantages associated with
teaching novices through policy debate are lost: Yet all of these benefits fly
out the window as rookies in their formative stage quickly experience
humiliation at being caugh without evidence or substantive awareness of the
issues that confront them at a tournament.8 The ultimate result is that fewer
novices participate in NDT, thus lessening the educational value of the
activity and limiting the number of debaters or eventually participate in more
advanced divisions of policy debate. In addition to noting the effect on
novices, participants argued that broad topics also discourage experienced
debaters from continued participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is that
it takes so much times and effort to be competitive on a broad topic
that students who are concerned with doing more than just debate
are forced out of the activity.9 Gaske notes, that broad topics discourage
participation because of insufficient time to do requisite research .10 The
final effect may be that entire programs either cease functioning or shift to
value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable research burdens. Boman

supports this point: It is this expanding necessity of evidence , and thereby

research, which has created a competitive imbalance between institutions
that participate in academic debate.11 In this view, it is the competitive
imbalance resulting from the use of broad topics that has led some small
schools to cancel their programs.