Will Malson WraithLeader 2NC Page 1 of 6

Roadmap is T-EP (1), T2-sig (2), warming (3-6).

T-EP

1. Fail alert - my interp was right there: "Aff action must equal the phrase."

2. He doesn't meet -
a) Baumert says c&t is an EP instrument, not carbon tax.
b) Baumert says carbon tax is an environmental tax.

3. c/i is ftl.
a) causes topic explosion -
1. If EP is ANY course of action taken (etc) then we could have cases that change policy
concerning toxic golf balls (oh, wait.)
2. And, this means that Aff can just create policies instead of reforming existing EPs. I
could literally create anything I felt like creating.
b) unfair research burden - now I have to research every environmental problem instead of every
environmental policy? That ain't cool. That's key to predictability, which is next.
c) AT: RTP his interp:
1. I have one too.
2. Just because climate change is an E-problem doesn't mean it's under the topic. Toxic
golf balls may be an E-problem but isn't under the topic; even if GW is the main E-
problem people think of, you still can't go outside the res.
3. Anyone can access the article I quoted too. And, your source is far less credible, and is
open to anyone who wants to edit it. Check it: http://tinyurl.com/yaeg3c4

4. Baumert says carbon tax is an E-tax, not EP.

5. Voter: evaluate T in a vacuum. If he's not T, vote neg. Example of Marx: Karl Marx stressed the
economy as key to the country. We don’t reject that statement because Marx said it. We evaluate the
statement in a vacuum; it’s true, so we accept it and move on. It doesn’t matter what else he said in this
context.

6. I don't have to prove abuse at all; look at disads etc, there's not necessarily any abuse but it's still a
voter. T isn't a question of theory, it's a question of definites. Either you own a 72" plasmas tv with HD
Packers v. Ravens on and 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround Sound with two subwoofers or you don't.
Will Malson WraithLeader 2NC Page 2 of 6

T-sig

Usually all violations etc brought up in the 1NC, but this is based off of something new that he said in
the 2AC. His responses #1, 10, & 12 sum up his position that a carbon tax can be implemented under the
current framework and that there's nothing drastically new that needs to happen in order for this to be
enforced (which screams, "run T").

A. Interp:

Our interp of the resolution is that the aff has to significantly reform the USFG’s environmental policy:
significantly is defined as “sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy”
(Oxford American Dictionaries)

B. Standard:

Our standard, or why our interpretation of the resolution should be used, is contextuality: For example,
if you wanted to reform your house, all you would have to do is move some furniture around. However,
if you wanted to significantly reform your house, you wouldn’t call moving some furniture around a
significant reform. In order to call it a significant reformation, it would have to be sufficiently great or
important to be worthy of attention, noteworthy in its reform.

C. Violation

If it can be completely done under the current framework, there's no reason to prefer aff over
squo. First, the framework is there. Second, attitudinal inherency is on my side. Third, the only reform
necessary is to pass the tax. Fourth, substitution: he has to make a noteworthy reform in EP to be T. The
reform is adding on a tax - it's like adding a new visa to the system - we have so many already, one more
isn't that significant a reform. A new tax isn't a sig reform either.
You could call his case a minor repair: a minor repair does something simplistic like increase
funding (like to nasa for sbsp), increase enforcement (like border patrol immigration year), or in this
case, increase taxes.

D. Voters

Cross-apply my first voter, and here's another for context:

No affirmative.
A minor repair is negative ground. The affirmative team has employed a negative strategy and therefore
is an additional negative team – since we’re both negative, you should still check that negative box at
the end of the round.
Will Malson WraithLeader 2NC Page 3 of 6

Warming - my points correspond to his.

1. Bast claims no warming in the past 23 years from 2003; factor in the increase in GHGs. We have no
warming but an increase in GHGs. IPCC projections don't matter if we have the empirical data. He
claims to but hasn't shown it so far.

2. Robinson et al-
a) take what he said in context - we need raw data to know if there's warming or not.
b) he does have warrant, remember the 3000 years? He says alluding to "masses of empirical
data" is okay, so do that for my card too.
c) correlation not causation - look at point C of my 1NC. There's no warrant to any of his claims
about climate change. More on this later.

3. I agree with him here for the most part - let's look at the past and at the raw data that we have.

4. Drastic global warming, if it were to happen, would be devastating - but that's not what's happening
now. The author's indications apply only if global warming is drastic (like it isn't).

5. Humans destroying the world? Deforestation leading to global warming? I hate to be relying on this,
but there's no proof.

6. Sea levels? Ice melting? Sorry.

(1/2) Rising sea levels are pretty much normal. Singer 2k

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer [Expertise: Global climate change and the greenhouse effect, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, acid rain, air
pollution, importance and future of the U.S. space program, energy resources and U.S. energy policy. Internationally known for his work on energy and
environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone
and was principal investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict that population growth
would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas. Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (a non-profit policy
research group he founded in 1990), Singer is also distinguished professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous
government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70);
founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite
Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62). Singer has received numerous awards
for his research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce
Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary
Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmospheres. He frequently testifies before Congress. Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a
Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Is There an Optimum Level of
Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), and Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989). Singer has also
published more than 400 technical papers in scientific, economic, and public policy journals, as well as numerous editorial essays and articles in The Wall
Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and other publications. His latest
book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, was published in late 1997 through the Independent Institute] before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change, “National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC):
Climate Change Impacts on the United States”, Published at The National Center for Public Policy Research, Global Warming Information Center [A
project of the John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs of The National Center for Public Policy Research], July 18, 2000,
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html (HEG)

3. Sea Level Rise: Controlled by Nature not Humans The most widely feared and also most
misunderstood consequence of a hypothetical greenhouse warming is an accelerated rise in sea levels.
But several facts contradict this conventional view: a) Global average sea level has risen about 400 feet
(120 meters) in the past 15,000 years, as a result of the end of the Ice Age. The initial rapid rise of about
200 cm (80 inches) per century gradually changed to a slower rise of 15-20 cm (6-8 in)/cy about 7500
years ago, once the large ice masses covering North America and North Europe had melted away. But the slow melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Will Malson WraithLeader 2NC Page 4 of 6

This means that the world is stuck

continued and will continue, barring another ice age, until it has melted away in about 6000 years. b)
with a sea level rise of about 18 cm (7 in)/cy, just what was observed during the past century. And there
is nothing we can do about it, any more than we can stop the ocean tides. c) Careful analysis shows that the warming of
the early 1900s actually slowed this ongoing SL rise [4], likely because of increased ice accumulation in the Antarctic. The bottom line: Currently available
scientific evidence does not support any of the results of the NACC, which should therefore be viewed merely as a "what if" exercise, similar to the one
conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1993 [5]. Such exercises deserve only a modest amount of effort and money; one should not
shortchange the serious research required for atmospheric and ocean observations, and for developing better climate models. The NACC should definitely
NOT be used to justify irrational and unscientific energy and environmental policies, including the economically damaging Kyoto Protocol. These policy
recommendations are especially appropriate during the coming presidential campaigns and debates.

(2/2) Gore was wrong: Man-Bear-Pig and drastic Antarctic melting are both false. Harris 06
Tom Harris [Canadian mechanical engineer, executive director International Climate Science Coalition, former executive director of the Natural Resources
Stewardship Project], “Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe: "The Inconvenient
Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists”, June 12, 2006, http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm (HEG)

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in
marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers
collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to
the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to
prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If
the water is deep enough icebergs will form." Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical
Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the
Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this
part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low
pressure systems." But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result,
Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and
Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl»n
A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario
concludes. The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years.
in the foreseeable future. Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in
the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The
survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October
during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the
warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology." Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by
University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed
fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl»n. Dr. Dick Morgan,
former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some
decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there
was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly
above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal
conditions since 2001."

7. That's a pretty strong statement. However, there are other things that contribute to natural global
warming. Sun example.

(1/1) Changing energy output of the sun is responsible for warming, not humanity. Bauliunas 02
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-Lacy-Pierce 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 sun-like 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-
Will Malson WraithLeader 2NC Page 5 of 6

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)

in looking for natural factors influencing the climate, a new area of research
Finally, it should be mentioned that
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
changes in the sun's magnetism -- as evidenced by the changing length of the
century. See also Chart 6, showing that
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.]

8. False; couple it with nasa and heg - if there's no gw, then evaluate NBs.

9. He already said this in #2 sub-poinc C.

10. 100% "risk of solvency"? My point is that there's nothing to solve for.

11/12 - I asked in the 1NC for some warrants for these and never got them. Ignore them.

13. Evaluate data and empirics first:

(1/2) Empirics: a warmer climate is natural; humanity is not a variable in climate change. Bast 03
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)

Temperatures during
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
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. 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."

(2/2) Our evidence is better – satellites show overall global temperature is fairly constant. This is
more accurate when compared to localized temperature increases. Benoit 01
Gary Benoit [editor of The New American (John Birch Society-affiliated biweekly magazine whose mission is encapsulated by the slogan on its cover —
“That Freedom Shall Not Perish.”). He has been associated with the magazine since its inception in 1985 and has been editor for most of its existence.
Joined The John Birch Society while still a teenager in 1968 and has been a member ever since. He joined the staff in 1977 and over the years has held a
number of different positions in the organization including eastern manager of the Society’s Speakers Bureau, director of the Society’s Research
Department, national director of the Society’s tax reform program, and editor of The John Birch Society Bulletin. He graduated from the University of
Lowell (now the University of Massachusetts – Lowell) magna cum laude in physics in 1976 and worked one summer at a nuclear power plant while still in
college. But before graduating he decided he wanted to make the John Birch Society his career, believing that the Society provides the organized means for
preserving our freedoms. Benoit is qualified to speak on a variety of subjects including the fundamentals of Americanism, The John Birch Society, The New
Will Malson WraithLeader 2NC Page 6 of 6

American, the politics and science of global warming, and major media bias including how to read between the lines], “Myths and Meteorology”, July 30,
2001, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435624/posts, brackets added (HEG)
Facts, Not Fiction Scientific conclusions should be based on observable facts, not political agendas. Yet politics is driving the global warming debate.
"Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens,"
Dr. Lindzen lamented in his Wall Street Journal article. "This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible
practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions." Yet rational decisions can be made. All that is necessary is to separate the politics from the
science and examine the known facts: • Climate variability: The climate is constantly changing, not just season to season but year to year, century to century,
and millennium to millennium. In his Journal article, Dr. Lindzen pointed out that "two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from
a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global
cooling." During the global cooling scare of the 1970s, some observers even worried that the planet was on the verge of a new ice age. • The actual
temperature record: The global mean temperature is approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago. Based on surface readings, the
temperature rose prior to 1940, perhaps in response to the end of the little ice age, which lasted until the 19th century. From about 1940 until about 1975, the
temperature dropped, sparking the above-mentioned global cooling scare. More recently the temperature has been rising again, sparking concerns about
global warming. The accuracy of the surface temperature record must be kept in mind when evaluating trends measured in fractions of a degree. One
Atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer
significant problem is the extent to which the data may be skewed as a result of urbanization.
wrote in a letter that appeared in the May issue of Science: "The post-1940 global warming claimed by
the IPCC comes mainly from distant surface stations and from tropical sea surface readings, with both
data sets poorly controlled (in both quality and location)." On the other hand, "surface data from well-
controlled U.S. stations (after removing the urban ‘heat-island’ effects) show the warmest years as being
around 1940." In his testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee on July 18th of last year, Singer
bluntly stated: "The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible." Dr.
Singer, who established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served as its first director, is just one of
many scientists who believe that temperature data collected by weather satellites provides a far better
measuring stick than the surface readings. After all, the satellite data is truly global, and it is not skewed
by the urban heat effect. The satellite data from January 1979 (when this data first became available)
through May 2001 shows a warming trend of 0.038 degrees Celsius per decade — or less than four-
tenths of one degree per century. This minuscule rate of increase, which could change, is far less than
the dramatic increases in temperature the forecasters of doom have been warning against.