Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impact Defense File



Download 2.71 Mb.
Page90/230
Date28.01.2017
Size2.71 Mb.
#9494
1   ...   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   ...   230

Ext #2 – Nuclear War



And, our impact turns yours – nuclear war means genocide

Lippman, 1998 (Matthew, Counsel for Bosnia and Herzegovina in its Suit Against Yugoslavia in the ICJ – International Lawyer, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. Law 415, l/n)

In July 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons which, intra alia, addressed whether the deployment of atomic armaments contravened the Genocide Convention. 545 The majority noted that the number of deaths resulting from the use of nuclear weapons would be "enormous" and that the victims, "in certain cases" may include persons of a particular national, ethnic, racial, or ethnic group. 546 The intention to destroy such groups "could be inferred from the fact that the user of the nuclear weapon . . . omitted to take account of the well-known effect of the use of such weapons." 547 The Court then cautioned that the intent to commit [*503] genocide could not be solely inferred from the resort to such weapons and that "due account of the circumstances specific to each case" must be considered. 548 Judge Weeramantry, in his dissenting opinion, argued that decisionmakers deploying nuclear weapons must be presumed to comprehend the resulting catastrophic circumstances. 549 The ability of nuclear weapons to "wipe out blocks of population ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions" leaves "no doubt that the weapon targets, in whole or in part, the national group of the State at which it is directed." 550 Nuremberg held that the extermination of a civilian population, in whole or in part, is a crime against humanity -- "this is precisely what a nuclear weapon achieves." 551 In summary, the majority opinion concluded that when employed with the necessary intent the use of nuclear weapons would constitute genocide. The requisite intent ordinarily must be independently established, but could be implied from circumstances such as the unannounced and massive first-strike targeting of cities or population centers. 552 Judge Weeramantry, on the other hand, argued that the resulting damage made the use of nuclear arms inherently genocidal; the requisite intent could be implied from the act of launching such weapons. 553 The World Court judgment was significant in suggesting that under the appropriate circumstances a genocidal intent may be implied and need not be independently established. Judge Weeramantry extended this argument, contending that the deployment of nuclear weapons was inherently genocidal. He argued that it was unnecessary to independently establish the requisite intent -- an individual deploying nuclear armaments must comprehend that the attack will result in the mass extermination of a national group. 554



AT: Global Warming Impacts

(__) Even if we stop greenhouse gas emissions, warming is inevitable



Longley 8 (Robert, “ Global Warming Inevitable This Century, NSF Study Finds” http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/climatetochange.htm)

Despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and a greater increase in sea level are inevitable during this century, according to a new study performed by a team of climate modelers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. Indeed, say the researchers, whose work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), globally averaged surface air temperatures would still rise one degree Fahrenheit (about a half degree Celsius) by the year 2100, even if no more greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. And the resulting transfer of heat into the oceans would cause global sea levels to rise another 4 inches (11 centimeters) from thermal expansion alone. The team's findings are published in this week's issue of the journal "Science." “This study is another in a series that employs increasingly sophisticated simulation techniques to understand the complex interactions of the Earth,” says Cliff Jacobs of NSF’s atmospheric sciences division. “These studies often yield results that are not revealed by simpler approaches and highlight unintended consequences of external factors interacting with Earth’s natural systems.
(__) Warming is slow—their impact is on the scale of centuries
(__) Warming is natural- satellites prove

Spencer 08 (Roy Spencer, Ph.D, report to congress, “ NASA’s Spencer Tells Congress Global Warming Is Not a Crisis,” http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23930/NASAs_Spencer_Tells_Congress_Global_Warming_Is_Not_a_Crisis.html, 10/9/8)

Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks”—instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all 20 computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.) If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end—if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now.


(__) Apocalyptic warming scenarios are exaggerated

"Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr 01/24/2005 “How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear”



http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html

The pattern is always the same. The significance of individual events is turned into material suitable for media presentation and is then cleverly dramatized. When the outlook for the future is discussed, the scenario that predicts the highest growth rates for greenhouse gas emissions -- which, of course, comes with the most dramatic climatic consequences -- is always selected from among all possible scenarios. Those predicting significantly smaller increases in greenhouse gas levels are not mentioned. Every prediction has to trump the last. Melting Antarctic ice is one of the current horror scenarios du jour. Who benefits from this? The assumption is made that fear compels people to act, but we forget that it also produces a rather short-lived reaction. Climate change, on the other hand, requires a long-term response. The impact on the public may be "better" in the short term, thereby also positively affecting reputations and research funding. But to ensure that the entire system continues to function in the long term, each new claim about the future of our climate and of the planet must be just a little more dramatic than the last. It's difficult to attract the public's attention to the climate-related extinction of animal species following reports on apocalyptic heat waves. The only kind of news that can trump these kinds of reports would be something on the order of a reversal of the Gulf Stream. All of this leads to a spiral of exaggeration. Each individual step in this process may seem harmless, but on the whole, the knowledge imparted to the public about climate, climatic fluctuations, climate shift and climatic effects is dramatically distorted.


(__) Adaptation sovles the impact – empirically proven

Michaels ‘7 (Patrick, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Environmental Sciences @ UVA, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Global Warming: No Urgent Danger; No Quick Fix”, 8-21, http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8651)

We certainly adapted to 0.8 C temperature change quite well in the 20th century, as life expectancy doubled and some crop yields quintupled. And who knows what new and miraculously efficient power sources will develop in the next hundred years. The stories about the ocean rising 20 feet as massive amounts of ice slide off of Greenland by 2100 are also fiction. For the entire half century from 1915 through 1965, Greenland was significantly warmer than it has been for the last decade. There was no disaster. More important, there's a large body of evidence that for much of the period from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago, at least the Eurasian Arctic was 2.5 C to 7 C warmer than now in the summer, when ice melts. Greenland's ice didn't disappear then, either. Then there is the topic of interest this time of year — hurricanes. Will hurricanes become stronger or more frequent because of warming? My own work suggests that late in the 21st century there might be an increase in strong storms, but that it will be very hard to detect because of year-to-year variability. Right now, after accounting for increasing coastal population and property values, there is no increase in damages caused by these killers. The biggest of them all was the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. If it occurred today, it would easily cause twice as much damage as 2005's vaunted Hurricane Katrina. So let's get real and give the politically incorrect answers to global warming's inconvenient questions. Global warming is real, but it does not portend immediate disaster, and there's currently no suite of technologies that can do much about it. The obvious solution is to forgo costs today on ineffective attempts to stop it, and to save our money for investment in future technologies and inevitable adaptation.


Download 2.71 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   ...   230




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page