Heath/Malson
Anthropogenic GW = False.
Page 1 of 5
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~Tommy Smothers -The Openness ProjectIntroduction A catastrophe of the last decade has been the remarkable rejection of scientific fact. The most notorious of these dismissals of reason is the idea of manmade global warming. 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. Some advocates of this myth even tell us that species will become extinct, and eventually one day, maybe even humans. This sort of chicken little syndrome, one made without actual scientific proof that has scared multitudes of citizens, and wasted billions of tax dollars in research. It is to escape from this lie that we stand Resolved: That the USFG should significantly reform its environmental policy. Resolution Analysis: Now, to avoid any confusion in today’s round, we offer definitions of a few key terms. First off, what is an environmental policy? Environmental Policy is defined as “The official rules or regulations concerning the environment adopted, implemented, and enforced by some governmental agency.” This definition is from members from the University of Minnesota, Vassar College, and St. Cloud State University in the Book “Environmental Science: A Global Concern.” [William P. Cunningham (University of Minnesota), Mary Ann Cunningham (Vassar College), Barbara Woodworth Saigo (St. Cloud State University), The Text Book “Environmental Science: A Global Concern”, McRawHill (Online Learning Center) Glossary Page, Copyright 2003, http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_el.html] So how does this definition affect the resolution? To answer that, let’s substitute the word into the resolution. This gives us: Resolved: That the USFG should significantly reform its official rules or regulations concerning the environment (etc).
Heath/Malson
Anthropogenic GW = False.
Page 2 of 5
Observation 2: Plan Text Now, to make sure everyone is clear on what we the affirmative-team want to do in today’s debate round we offer the following plan: Agency & Enforcement: Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the EPA and any other necessary government organization. Mandates: 1. All domestic policies that are solely intended to reduce global warming or climate change in any way should be rescinded or amended to exclude such regulations or incentives. No Funding will be necessary. Timeline: Work to achieve the mandates will begin immediately. All Affirmative speeches may clarify the plan as needed.
Heath/Malson
Anthropogenic GW = False.
Page 3 of 5
Now that we know how we should see the resolution as, and what our proposed course of action is, we can begin showing you the judge why your vote should be for the affirmative team at the end of today’s round. Our first point is:
Current Funding of Global Warming Research: In a report by Joanne Nova July 21st, 2009, from the Science and Public Policy Institute, she reported “In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation.” [“CLIMATE MONEY” by Joanne Nova( author of “The Skeptics Handbook have been published, printed and distributed in the US, Australia, NZ and Sweden.” Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades and both the FH Faulding, and The Swan Brewery Prizes, at the University of Western Australia. She majored in Microbiology, Molecular Biology and doing honours research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communication from the ANU, and worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program at the Australian National University.), July 2st 2009 http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf]
MPX: Now you may ask yourself, “Why is this a bad thing? Why shouldn’t the government spend money on something that could potentially harm all of us?” Well the answer is simple. The reason the federal government is completely unmerited in their spending of billions and billions of tax dollars, is because that man made global warming is a farce. It does not exist. It is simply a myth.
Heath/Malson
Anthropogenic GW = False.
Page 4 of 5
Which is our next point:
Humans do not cause global warming. Humans not only don’t cause global warming, but there has been no increase in global temperature for the past 23 years. There hasn’t been any warming since satellite readings began 23 years ago 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) 2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01*C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, [and] are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
Advantage 1: This now bring us to the final, but most vital part of our case. The advantage. Now normally, when you watch a policy debate round, the advantages will be something like, “Millions of tax dollars saved” or “Cleaner environement”. But the problem with these advantages is obvious. They will not come true. After this debate round ends, the United States Federal Government will still be spending billions of dollars on global warming research. Sure, we offered a policy change, but we cannot physically enforce this change. Will and I are high schoolers. Not senators. That’s why the single advantage that we present today is very succinct and short, but very powerful. We believe that it is more important to begin changing the minds of the people concerning global warming, than rather to talk about some fictional positive effects our plan might have. Our advantage is “Truth”. It’s more important to show people that their government is wasting their tax dollars, than talk about the pretend world of debate. If you’ll remember for a moment – what is the real purpose of debate? The purpose of debate is sharpening 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 a hypothetical Congress passes hypothetical bills to solve for some realworld problems However, this round will be different. We the affirmative operate entirely in the real-world – whereas,
Heath/Malson
Anthropogenic GW = False.
Page 5 of 5
normally, people try to push an imaginary world into the round, we are trying to bring back the actual purpose of policy discussion. Our discourse, our contributions, our actions, how we react to our governments actions, how we see real world issues, and how we plan to solve them is key to altering the public perception concerning man-made Global Warming. Conclusion: But how can we start to cast truth on to this shadowy deception? Well it starts with the ballot. If you the judge vote affirmative, you are showing everyone in and out of this room that you do not agree with the way the government is spending your money. You don’t agree with the waste. The lie that is global warming. So it leaves you with a choice. Vote negative, and vote for the imaginary world. Or, vote affirmative, and actually start changing the way things are done in the political arena around us, not in the fairy-tale world of debate. We encourage you to vote for something we can all change. Vote affirmative. Vote for truth.