Will Malson

GW Kritikal 1AC

Page 1 of 5

One of the most unfortunate catastrophes of the late 20th and of the 21st century so far has been the remarkable rejection of scientific fact. The most notorious of these is the great fallacy of human-caused climate change. Governmental policy aside, the most atrocious aspect of this issue is that people are actively indoctrinating others into the faulty view that humans are the cause of global warming and that global warming will result in the extinction of the species. It is to escape from these logical entrapments that we stand Resolved: That the USFG should significantly reform its environmental policy. Moreover, we stand resolved: that the public should significantly reform their views and discourse concerning global warming. It is our opinion that the public's discourse of global warming is not only scientifically inaccurate, but is inherently dangerous as well. This begs the criterion for the round – what should you judge the round based on? As the public’s perspective on climate change is the issue, so should be the measuring stick: at the end of the round, you should vote for the team that provides the most enlightened discourse surrounding climate change – essentially, the team that has the most real-world impact, as opposed to a hypothetical policy change. The leads us to propose the following changes to your, or the public’s, view on climate change in:

Section 1: Reformation.
1. First, the fallacy of human-caused global warming must be recognized for what it is – a fallacy. 2. Second, the assumption that global warming is a dangerous phenomenon must not only be rejected, but shown how it is completely unfounded. 3. Third and finally, we must prepare ourselves for the future – a reform in our discourse is not only prudent, but necessary – we must acknowledge the impending discursive “battle” against the spread of propaganda from not only policymakers but also scientists.

Will Malson

GW Kritikal 1AC These proposed reforms lead us into:

Page 2 of 5

Section 2: Justifications.
Our justifications will correspond with the three proposed reforms.

Justification 1 is human-caused global warming is a fallacy. While most people consider carbon dioxide emissions to be the source of global warming, they fail to consider what is now emerging as possibly the sole cause of natural climate change: the sun! Sallie Baliunas [astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University. Senior scientist and chair of the Science Advisory Board at the George C. Marshall Institute, and past contributing editor to World Climate Report. Her awards include the Newton-LacyPierce Prize of the American Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckmann Awards for Scientific Freedom, and the Bok Prize from Harvard University. The author of over 200 scientific articles, Dr. Baliunas served as technical consultant for a science-fiction television series, Gene Roddenberry's Earth Final Conflict. Her research interests include solar variability, magnetohydrodynamics of the sun and sunlike stars, expoplanets, and the use of laser electro-optics for the correction of turbulence due to the earth's atmosphere in astronomical images], the following is abridged from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on February 5, 2002, at a seminar co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series, “The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming”, March 2002, http://www.calvinwlew.com/hillsdale/newimprimis/2002/march/default.htm (HEG) Finally, it should be mentioned that in looking for natural factors influencing the climate, a new area of research centers on the effects of the sun. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun's changing energy output. Although the causes of the sun's changing particle, magnetic and energy outputs are uncertain -- as are the responses of the climate to solar changes -- the correlation is pronounced. It explains especially well the early twentieth century temperature increase, which, as we have seen, could not have had much human contribution. [See Chart 5, illustrating the change over four centuries of the Sunspot Number, which is representative of the surface area coverage of the sun by strong magnetic fields. The low magnetism of the seventeenth century, a period called the Maunder Minimum, coincides with the coldest century of the last millennium, and there is sustained high magnetism in the latter twentieth century. See also Chart 6, showing that changes in the sun's magnetism -- as evidenced by the changing length of the 22-year or Hale Polarity Cycle (dotted line) -closely correlates with changes in Northern Hemisphere land temperature (solid line). The sun's shorter magnetic cycles are more intense, suggesting a brighter sun during longer cycles. Lags or leads between the two curves that are shorter than 20 years are not significant, owing to the 22-year time frame of the proxy of brightness change. In this chart, the record of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere land temperature substitutes for global temperature, which is unavailable back to 1700.]

Will Malson

GW Kritikal 1AC Justification 2 is climate change will not ‘kill us all’.

Page 3 of 5

The public perception is that climate change, or global warming, if it were to “happen”, or reach some unknown peak that of course it will reach if we don’t act now – would kill us all; BUT – this is not supported by the actual scientific evidence! In fact, historically, a warmer climate is natural and would benefit mankind. Joseph L. Bast [President and CEO of The Heartland Institute (a nonprofit, nonpartisan center for public policy research), Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee, State Policy Network, 1991-1997. Board of Advisors, Advocates for Self-Government, 2003 - current. Board of Advisors, Illinois Policy Institute, 2004 - current. Board of Advisors, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, 2005 - current. Board of Directors, American Conservative Union, 2007 - current. Honors: 1996 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism (with coauthors), Elected to the Board of Directors of American Conservative Union in 2007], “Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam”, Published by The Heartland Institute, February 1, 2003, http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecws/news/global_warming_is_a_scam.pdf (HEG) 5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer and marked "a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations," observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. "There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today."

Will Malson

GW Kritikal 1AC Justification 3 is preparation for the future

Page 4 of 5

Imagine you are in Japan in the 1950s – amidst the conflict, your entire village is undergoing a shortage of bread. Would you believe a poster that said otherwise? “Don’t let anyone tell you there’s a shortage of bread: there isn’t.” How unconvincing. And yet, it seems this is all it takes to persuade the minds of people today. However, it is not entirely the public’s fault: Scientists are actually actively creating misleading examples of increasing climate change Patrick J. Michaels [Ph.D. Climatology, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a retired Research Professor of
Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia. Former state climatologist for Virginia (1980-2007). He is the author of several books including: Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming, 1992, Satanic Gases, as coauthor 2002, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media, published by the Cato Institute, 2004, and Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming as editor and coauthor, 2005], “Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know”, Foreword, Pages 6-7, Publisher: Cato Institute (Edition Not Stated edition), January 25, 2009, ISBN-10: 1933995238, ISBN-13: 978-1933995236 (HEG)

Will Malson

GW Kritikal 1AC This leads us to the final section of the affirmative case:

Page 5 of 5

Section 3: Advantages
We will have two advantages.

Advantage 1 is public perception. If you’ll remember for a moment – what is the real purpose of debate? The purpose of debate is sharpen communication skills so that we might be effective communicators in the real-world – and that’s the key: in the real-world. Far too often people try to operate in the made-up-world – hypothetical government scenarios in which hypothetical Congresses pass hypothetical bills to solve for some realworld harm. However, we are different. We operate entirely in the real-world – whereas, normally, people try to push this imaginary world into the round, we bring back the actual purpose. This leads us to the advantage of public perception – our discourse, our contribution, or our enlightened discourse on climate change is key to alter the public perception – by voting affirmative you achieve this advantage in the real-world.

Advantage 2 is science restored. Public perception of global warming is one of fear and belief; science is actually withheld in order to excite people into this incorrect belief. Right now, as has been shown, science goes by the wayside, neglected, and sometimes passed over on purpose. President Barack Obama, in his inaugural address, said “We will restore science to its rightful place…” – however, it seems as if what has been “restored” is propaganda and faulty reasoning. Our case is essential – you should vote for the affirmative in order to enlighten the public discourse on the subject and to actually restore science to its proper place.