You are on page 1of 13

CASECase

Extinction claims are overblown. James T. Bennett 2010 Eminent Scholar and William P. Snavely Professor of Political Economy and
Public Policy at George Mason University, and Director of The John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy The Chicken Littles of Big Science; or, Here Come the Killer Asteroids! The Doomsday Lobby: Hype and Panic from Sputniks, Martians, and Marauding Meteors Springerlink The largest conceivable impact is from a body 5 or more kilometers in diameter. It would bring, they say, the end of the world as we know it, as the fires and flooding and blocking of sunlight would plunge the Earth into blackness and death and result in mass mortality, mass extinctions. 118 One cannot read of this hell without a shiver, and without thinking that perhaps we ought to give the defenders of Earth whatever they want, damn the cost. That the authors project such an event to occur once every 10 30 million years gets sort of lost in the sheer terror that the description evokes. And yet no matter how often Garshnek, Morrison, and Burkle insist that the NEO threat can be considered a public health threat, they are forced to concede that an impact threat may not be immediately apparent since a moderatetomajor impact has not occurred within human history or memory. 119 Well, yes, that does pose an obstacle to taking this threat seriously. The authors may insist that doing nothing is a selfish attitude reeking of let it be a problem for future generations to deal with, but there are many, many, many future generations packed into 30 million years. Skeptics of an enhanced Earth protection plan, they charge, are failing to ask themselves if human civilization [is] worth saving. If everything we have been a part of in our lifetime and historically evolved from [is] worth preserving? 120 If you would vote against, say, doubling the NEO detection budget, or adding asteroid-impact evacuation planning to the portfolio of the Department of Homeland Security, you are indifferent to the entirety of human history, human culture, human creation. You are a first-class boor.

There evidence is biased to generate funding


Veverka 3 (Joe, professor of astronomy at Cornell University, Great Impact Debates Much Ado About Nothing? 2/17 http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_debate&task=detail&id=378) Joe Veverka: Regarding the advocacy groups I mentioned, there are at least three different, well-established advocacy groups whose future and welfare depends on focusing the public's attention on the "threat from space."
(The term "advocacy group" is a polite one. A much more accurate but cruder term can be found in Jean Giraudoux's play 'The Mad Women of Chaillot.') The first advocacy group is the media. If all else fails, stories

about comets and asteroids destroying New York or Tokyo sell newspapers and magazines and make for popular TV fodder. Second, there is a strong advocacy group among astronomers. They want more resources devoted to studying comets and asteroids. Publicizing the "threat from space" has certainly proven an effective means for generating government support for the study of NEOs. Finally, there is an evolving engineering/industrial/military advocacy group that promulgates the "threat from space" because members of this group want public support to build and provide the defenses that will shield us from this "peril."

No risk of extinction by asteroids DAVID MORRISON 2010 Director, Carl Sagan Center for Study of Life in the Universe, SETI Institute
Senior Scientist, NASA Ames Research Center Impacts and Evolution: Protecting Earth from Asteroids http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/1540404.pdf The survey results have already transformed our understanding of the impact risk. For asteroids with diameter of 5 km or more, which is roughly the threshold for an extinction event, our knowledge is complete today. Astronomers have already assured us that we are not due for an extinction-level impact from an asteroid within the next century. Barring a very unlikely strike by a large comet, we are not about to go the way of the dinosaurs. Thus, the rest of this paper focuses on the more frequent impacts by
asteroids with diameters from 5 km down to the atmospheric cut-off at about 50 m diameter, spanning the range from global catastrophic disasters at the top end down to local endurable disasters at the lower end of the energy range.

We ve already mapped the sky and concluded that there s no big asteroid on a collision course
Brooks 8 (Michael, New Scientist, don t panic, 7-26, lexis) How about cosmic threats? Though the danger from asteroid impacts remains, we are getting close to charting all the potential world-destroying rocks. "We now know there is no asteroid out there remotely like the one that ended the Cretaceous period," says David Morrison, NASA's leading expert on asteroid threats. "We are not going to go the way of the dinosaurs."

NASA doesn t have enough resources to build alternative deflection


Boyle 7 (Alan, winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award, member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, and staff writer for MSNBC.com, Dueling Over Asteroids, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/97410.aspx) NASA sees it a different way, however. The report said the gravity tractor concept and similar techniques would be the "most expensive" ways to divert an asteroid: "In general, the slow push systems were found to be at a very low technology readiness level and would require significant development methods," it said.
Schweickart said NASA must have "misunderstood or mischaracterized" the gravity tractor concept. And he worried that the report may make things tougher for researchers working on kinder, gentler ways to head off killer asteroids. "It

may be harder to continue with that research," he said. "The irony is that NASA ought to be doing that research. "But beyond that, there is also the
issue that people are beginning to wrestle with this question on a much larger basis internationally," he said. "The idea that the only way you can protect Earth from these things is to compromise all your principles about nonproliferation would be shocking to anybody else. Almost anytime the United States is going to say anything about this, eyebrows are going to go up." Schweickart already has written a 13-page retort to the report, as well as a letter to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin asking him to reconsider the agency's policy. Both are available from the B612 Foundation press page as Word documents. Schweickart is also calling on NASA to release more of the background analysis that went into the final report. "I just felt that it was inappropriate that this stand unchallenged - not only unchallenged, but unsupported," he said. He feared that his anti-nuclear stand might make him "persona non grata" in NASA circles - but astronomer Donald Yeomans, the head of NASA's Near Earth Object Program Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said Schweickart's idea of combining kinetic impactors with gravity tractors had merit. "That's an interesting concept if you wanted to do non-nuclear," Yeomans told me. He pointed out that the NASA report was merely aimed at outlining the viable options for dealing with potentially threatening NEOs, and that the nuclear standoff explosion would be a "viable option for almost anything." (NASA isn't crazy about planting a nuke right on a NEO, a la "Armageddon," because of the risk of breaking the object into hazardous pieces.) The kinetic impactor, perhaps combined with a gravity tractor or monitoring device, would be the most straightforward way to head off a NEO threat - and would probably be preferred for the smaller-scale threats. "You really don't have one technique that fits all - except for this standoff blast, perhaps - but I don't think anyone is comfortable with this nuclear option," Yeomans said. "I think nuclear is there and available, but it's sort of a last resort. That's my own opinion. ... It's politically a tough sell, and it gives most people the willies." One thing that nearly everyone agrees on is the need to devote more resources to hunting NEOs in the 460-foot-and-up range. The NASA report suggested two options for complying with Congress' requirements: either building a new ground-based telescope facility dedicated to the asteroid search, or putting a new infrared telescope into a Venus-like orbit. Unfortunately, NASA

says it can't afford either

option for the time being.

US not key other nations are developing non-nuc

There verscheer 1996 cars says we need to track these astroinds ivin if there decades away wnd that time frame doesn t matter. This is not true if we die we should not waste money on these. There is no point in

EXT 1 NO ASTEROID RISK


Err Neg Aff authors exaggerate Bennett, 10
[James, Eminent Scholar and William P. Snavely Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy at George Mason University, and Director of The John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, The Chicken Littles of Big Science; or, Here Come the Killer Asteroids! THE DOOMSDAY LOBBY 2010, 139-185, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6685-8_6]

We should here acknowledge, without necessarily casting aspersions on any of the papers discussed in this chapter, the tendency of scientific journals to publish sexy articles. (Sexy, at least, by the decidedly unsexy standards of scientific journals.) Writing in the
Public Library of Science, Neal S. Young of the National Institutes of Health, John P.A. Ioannidis of the Biomedical Research Institute in Greece, and Omar Al-Ubaydli of George Mason University applied what economists call the winner s curse of auction theory to scientific publishing. Just as the winner in, say, an auction of oil drilling rights is the firm that has made the highest estimation often overestimation of a reserve s size and capacity, so those papers that are selected for publication in the elite journals of science are often those with the most extreme, spectacular results. 63 These papers may make headlines in the mainstream press, which leads to greater political pressure to fund projects and programs congruent with these extreme findings. As The Economist put it in an article presenting the argument of Young, Ioannidis, and Al-Ubaydli, Hundreds of thousands of scientific researchers are hired, promoted and funded according not only to how much work they produce, but also where it gets published.

Column inches in journals such as Nature and Science are coveted; authors understand full well that studies with spectacular results are more likely to be published than are those that will not lead to a wire story. The problem, though, is that these flashy papers with dramatic results often turn out to be false. 64 In a 2005 paper in the Journal of the American
Medical Association, Dr. Ioannidis found that of the 49 most-cited papers on the effectiveness of medical interventions, published in highly visible journals in 1990 2004 a quarter of the randomised trials and five of six nonrandomised studies had already been contradicted or found to have been exaggerated by 2005. Thus, those who pay the price of the winner s curse in scientific research are those, whether sick patients or beggared taxpayers, who are forced to either submit to or fund specious science, medical or otherwise. The trio of authors call the implications of this finding dire, pointing to a 2008 158 6 The Chicken Littles of Big Science; or, Here Come the Killer Asteroids! paper in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that almost all trials of anti-depressant medicines that had had positive results had been published, while almost all trials of anti-depressants that had come up with negative results remained either unpublished or were published with the results presented so that they would appear positive. Young, Ioannidis, and Al-Ubaydli conclude that science is hard work with limited rewards and only occasional successes. Its interest and importance should speak for themselves, without hyperbole. Elite journals, conscious of the need to attract attention and stay relevant, cutting edge, and avoid the curse of stodginess, are prone to publish gross exaggeration and findings of dubious merit. When lawmakers and grant-givers take their cues from these journals, as they do, those tax dollars ostensibly devoted to the pursuit of pure science and the application of scientific research are diverted down unprofitable, even impossible channels. The charlatans make names for themselves, projects of questionable merit grow fat on

the public purse, and the disconnect between what is real and what subsidy-seekers tell us is real gets ever wider. 65 The matter, or

manipulation, of odds in regards to a collision between a space rock and Earth would do Jimmy the Greek proud.
As Michael B. Gerrard writes in Risk Analysis in an article assessing the relative allocation of public funds to hazardous waste site cleanup and

Asteroids and comets are the ultimate example of a low-probability/highconsequence event: no one in recorded human history is confirmed to have ever died from one. Gerrard writes that
protection against killer comets and asteroids, several billion people will die as the result of an impact at some time in the coming half million years, although that half-million year timeframe is considerably shorter than the generally accepted extinction-event period. 66 The expected deaths

from a collision with an asteroid of, say, one kilometer or more in diameter are so huge that by jacking up the tiny possibility of such an event even a little bit the annual death rate of this never-beforeexperienced disaster exceeds deaths in plane crashes, earthquakes, and other actual real live dangers. Death rates from outlandish or unusual causes are fairly steady across the years. About 120 Americans die in airplane crashes annually, and about 90 more die of lightning strikes. Perhaps five might

die in garage-door opener accidents. The total number of deaths in any given year by asteroid or meteor impact is zero holding constant since the dawn of recorded time

You overexaggerate by a factor of 10,000 Bennett, 10


[James, Eminent Scholar and William P. Snavely Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy at George Mason University, and Director of The John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, The Chicken Littles of Big Science; or, Here Come the Killer Asteroids! THE DOOMSDAY LOBBY 2010, 139-185, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6685-8_6]

The closest thing to an impact even distantly related to the catastrophic occurred just over a century ago. In
June 1908, in an event that is central (because seemingly unique in modern times) to the killer asteroid/comet lobby, the so-called Tunguska asteroid, 70 yards (60 meters) in length, exploded about 8 kilometers above the ground in remote Siberia. Its explosion unleashed 20 or more megatons of energy and flattened about 2,000 square kilometers of forest. 30 No human casualties were reported, as this was an unpopulated spot in Siberia. Sharon Begley of Newsweek once quoted John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists as saying that a Tunguska-sized rock from outer space could kill 70,000 people if it hit in rural American and 300,000 if it struck an urban area. 31 Maybe. Although it helps to remember that a Tunguska-sized rock did hit the Earth a century ago, and its

human death toll was a nice round

number: zero. Does Tunguska have antecedents? As Gregg Easterbrook elucidated in the Atlantic Monthly, geophysicist Dallas Abbott of
Columbia University has argued that space rocks of, respectively, 3 5 kilometers and 300 meters struck the Indian Ocean around 2800 B.C. and the Gulf of Carpentaria in 536 A.D. 32 The latter led to poor harvests and cold summers for two years, while the former may have unleashed a planetary flood. Abbott s evidence is a crater 18 miles in diameter at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, the impact from which she believes a 600-foot-high tsunami wracked incredible devastation. It should be noted, as the New York Times did, that Most astronomers doubt that any large comets or asteroids have crashed into the Earth in the last 10,000 years. Abbott and what she calls her band of misfits in the Holocene Impact Working Group take a decidedly minority view of the matter, and while that does not mean that they are wrong, it does mean that their alternative estimation of the frequency of 10-Megaton-size impacts once every 1,000 or so years as opposed to the more generally accepted once every million years should be viewed with great skepticism. 33 (Easterbrook, ignoring the majority of scientists who dispute Abbott s contentions, concludes that Our solar system appears to be a far more dangerous place than was previously believed. ) Easterbrook is a fine science writer but his piece contains certain telltale phrases (100-kilometers asteroids are planet killers and NASA s asteroid and comet-hunting efforts are underfunded ) that point to an expensive conclusion. He takes up the cause of Dallas Abbott, who complains that The NASA people don t want to believe me. They won t even listen. Consider this quote: After noting that scientists estimate that a assessment of the risk is. Ailor s answer: a one-in-10 chance per century. 3

dangerous object strikes the Earth every


a think tank for the Air Force, what his

300,000 to one million years, Easterbrook asks William Ailor of The Aerospace Corporation,

SKFTA GoodEconomy
SKFTA benefits the economy creating jobs, increasing U.S. exports, strengthening partnership with South Korea, and improve market access
Bruce Klingner 10(Bruce Klingner is the Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia at The Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center Obama Should Approve Korea Trade Agreement Novemember 10 http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/ 2010/11/Obama-Should-Approve-Korea-Trade-Agreement)

The trade agreement would reduce trade barriers by eliminating tariffs, establish rules for foreign investmentincluding intellectual property rightsand improve market access. As a result, implementing the FTA would increase U.S. exports, create new American jobs and economic growth, level the playing field for U.S. businesses, and strengthen Washingtons partnership with South Korea. No wonder that during the period of U.S. public comment on the KORUS, 91 percent of the comments favored KORUS ratification.[1] The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that U.S. exports would increase $10 11 billion annually, while imports would increase $6 billion as a result of the agreement.
And those estimates do not include the benefits arising from the reduction of tariffs in the services industries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that approving the KORUS FTA

would lead to an increase of 250,000 jobs, while a failure to enact the agreement would lead to a loss of $35 billion in exports and 345,000 jobs. The Korean market is now the fifth
largest for U.S. agricultural exports, valued at $3.9 billion in 2009. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that the FTA would create $1.8 billion in additional U.S. agricultural salesa 46 percent increase.[2]

Will Pass Korea


SKFTA will pass in Koreaits popular with the Korean government Yonhap News Agency 6/3
(Yonhap News Agency, 6/3/11, Cabinet approves new version of KORUS FTA ratification bill, 6/25/11, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/06/03/82/0301000000AEN20110603001400315F.HTML, MLK) The deal, known as the KORUS Cabinet ministers

FTA, has yet to be ratified by parliaments of both countries. Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik urged to do their best to win an early parliamentary passage of the deal. "The KORUS FTA is an inevitable choice for our country's economic growth and reform, and is a win-win strategy designed to boost cooperative ties between the two countries,"
Kim said during a special Cabinet meeting called to approve the new ratification bill. "The government should do its best to fully explain economic and security benefits of the deal to the people and persuade some opponents, including opposition parties, so the bill can pass the National Assembly quickly," he said.

South Korea Will pass SKFTA after the US does Malcolm 6/18
(Andrew Malcolm, political blogger for the L.A. Times, June 18, 2011, Weekly remarks: GOP's John Hoeven says trade pacts would spur new jobs; Obama salutes Father's Day, LA Times Blog, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/john-hoeven-trade-treaties-would-spur-new-jobs-obama-hails-fathers-.html] President Lee said he believes

Korean lawmakers will approve the free trade agreement, but theyre waiting for America to lead the way. They want and expect us to lead the way because - to South Korea and nations around the world America has always been a beacon of liberty and opportunity. Nearly everyone we spoke with in Korea -- on the street or the meeting room - expressed their deep appreciation to the United States, and especially to our military and our veterans. Theyre keenly aware
that U.S. service members sacrificed so much to give them a free society and a free-market economy where they could pursue their dreams.

NUKE WAR

Relations and good foreign policy with Libya are key to preventing terrorism and nuclear war Zunes 11 [Thursday 24 February 2011, Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, Relations Indicates US Must Tread Carefully as Uprising Continues, http://www.truth-out.org/history-us-libya-relations-indicates-us-must-tread-carefully-uprisingcontinues68033] The crimes committed over the years by Gaddafi's Libya, while frequently exaggerated and not always unique, were and are still very real. Similarly, the double standards used to rationalize foreign policy are certainly not an unusual phenomenon in US diplomatic history, or in the foreign policies of any great power. Indeed, in recent decades, the United States has ignored killings of many thousands of unarmed opponents by such allied regimes in Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Indonesia and Iraq, among others. Libya's most serious offenses, in the eyes of US policymakers, have not been in the areas of human rights, terrorism, nuclear ambitions, subversion or conquest, but in daring to challenge American hegemony in the Middle East. Serving as an impediment to such American ambitions gives these regimes credibility and legitimacy they would not otherwise receive from large numbers of Middle Eastern peoples resentful of such foreign domination, thereby strengthening these regimes' rule at home, as well as their influence throughout the Middle East and beyond.

2NC Uniqueness Wall


Obamas top priority is tradecongressional approval is likely
Pace, 6/28/11 (Pace, Julie. Senior Aerospace Analyst at Vision Analytics, Inc., Business Manager at Vision Analytics, Inc., 6/28/11. Forbes.com, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/06/28/general-us-us-trade_8539735.html) WASHINGTON -- The White House and congressional lawmakers neared a breakthrough in the long-stalled effort to finalize coveted free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama - pacts President Barack Obama has hailed as a boon for the U.S. economy. Key lawmakers from both parties agreed Tuesday to work on an agreement to extend aid for American workers displaced by foreign trade. The White House, acknowledging concerns from labor unions, had threatened to hold up passage of the pacts unless the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, or TAA, was renewed. The Senate Finance Committee will begin considering the trade agreements and the assistance program on Thursday. Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., plans to include TAA in the legislation on the Korea deal, the largest and most sought after of the three agreements. But some top Republicans balked at that move. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said it was a "highly partisan decision" that "risks support for this critical jobcreating trade pact in the name of a welfare program of questionable benefit at a time when our nation is broke." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he would oppose any trade deal in which the worker assistance program was embedded. The White House has long called for the worker assistance program to be passed alongside the trade deals. The program was expanded two years ago as part of Obama's stimulus package to include aid for more displaced workers, but the expansion expired in February. Baucus said his proposal - which makes TAA benefits available to service as well as manufacturing industries, provides money for retraining and makes affordable health care available - would be extended through the end of 2013.

Obama frequently cites passage of the three trade deals as an economic imperative for the U.S. He has touted the pacts as an opportunity to open up overseas markets to U.S. companies and make American products more attractive in the global marketplace.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday: "Now is the time to move forward with TAA and with the Korea, Colombia and Panama trade agreements." The pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce also urged lawmakers to move quickly to

pass the pacts. "I urge members of both parties to seize a reasonable compromise and move the trade agenda forward. The time to act is now," Chamber president Tom Donohue said in a statement.
The U.S. signed the trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia in 2007 under President George W. Bush. But the then-Democratic-led Congress never brought the agreements up for vote, giving the Obama administration time to renegotiate areas it found objectionable. U.S. trade officials spent months negotiating outstanding issues on the pacts, reaching an

agreement with South Korea in December. The pact would support up to 70,000 U.S. jobs, according to the administration. Deals were struck this spring with Panama and Colombia, though all three agreements need congressional approval before they can be implemented.
Blue Dogs are unsatisfied with spending for asteroid deflection DailyKos 2009
[GOP no longer believes in gravity after a big gust of wind, http://thisbluemarble.com/archive/index.php/t-17299.html, 6/25/11 JB Blue Dog Mike Ross mentioned his concerns: Many of us Blue

Dogs are concerned. We shouldn't be rushing into more massive spending when we already have spent so much this year. If instead we have a trigger set to go off if the asteroid is within a thousand miles of earth, we can make sure we aren't wasting any more money. Senator Baucus is also apprehensive, instead advocating a contract for campaign contributor, Deflect Industries: We're moving too fast without considering the costs. Providing

subsidies to private based asteroid deflection companies is the way to go. Recently started companies like Deflect Industries could do a
much better job at deflecting asteroids than the government can.

Asteroid Defense is unpopular Too expensive Nochols 2011


Jun 3rd 11. And if a star should fall from the sky(I'm a writer, scholar, and researcher in the Chicago area. I have an M.A. in Writing from DePaul University. What do I write? Science fiction mostly. What do I research? Rhetoric and composition theory...as well as other unpopular things. )(http://strangehorizons.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-if-star-should-fall-from-sky.html)TT But that brings up another point. Are

we even capable of detecting an approaching object in enough time? An asteroid similar in size There is currently a debate over just how affective our means are of detecting Near Earth Objects (NEO). An unavoidable factor in all of this is money. It takes a considerable budget to create and maintain an asteroid defense and our political leaders would hard pressed to sell this to a populace in need of jobs and healthcare. Sure, the big picture is one that threatens the entire human race, but most people are concerned only with their tunnel vision versions of realityas I have lamented many a time.
to 2009 VA came close to Earth in November of 2009. It was detected about fifteen hours before the approach.

Spending in the squo does not help the economy it just doesn t add up