One should work against global warming and avoid extinction from it, even if it is non-anthropogenic

==Burden== --> My opponent concedes in his last speech that yes, the burden is to prove success in the desired goal. Because the resolution does state active verbs which imply an outcome. ==On-face Negation== --> As my opponent makes clear in his last speech and which was first introduced in the 1st round was: "This debate presumes that it is happening, that it would eventually cause extinction of the human species " You can negate right now. As I've pointed out and he has agreed to in the burden, success is a prerequisite standard for affirming the resolution. However, since he himself has stated that extinction from this global warming scenario is inevitable, ten he does not meet the burden he has accepted. ==NC== 1. Singer Evidence He tries to mitigate this evidence by stating that there is severe glob warming now, not moderate. --> No warrant to this. As the evidence itself points out, the global warming now is moderate (refer to last sentence of evidence) He then brings up the Industrial Revolution --> Evidence already takes the I.R. into account. Singer has measured the temperature increases and has compared them to other global warming scenarios He say the global warming we are discussing is catastrophic --> This links into the on-face negation argument. If it is that catastrophic its going to be inevitable anyway --> Prefer the current moderate scenario, it is more pertinent to today and it links into is science premise in the 1st round. 2. Stern Evidence He says not catastrophic --> Evidence links in anyway, IF your scenario were to come true in the future, the evidence points out nothing will solve the heating trend. This evidece presupposes any type of future global warming. --> XA on-face negation --> XA analyzing current global warming better 3. Lindzen Evidence --> He concedes He offers alternative - kill all cows --> no evidence or warrant provided that governments would stand or that, especially in the U.S. The meat industry is a huge lobby, e.g. McDonalds. Moreover, India wont kill off their cows, cows are holy to them ==Alternatives== 1.Solar powered shield --> Just logically this would create international competition, especially between the great powers the U.S., China, Russia and the EU. --> Source says its possible, but the end stages arent so clear cut 2. All proposals that have been mentioned --> Specifics would be nice --> Most viable alternatives involve reducing Co2, but XA all the NC evidence - C02 negligible, and global warming inevitable anyway 3. Kill off everything besides humans --> Not a viable alternative. Scenario still bound by practical considerations ==Voting Issues== 1. On-face negation. This is the most important point in the round. My opponent by accepting the burden has put himself in a double-bind. Either A) you accept the premise that the scenario is so catastrophic that extinction is going to happen eventually, meaning it is inevitable, therefore not linking to the burden. B) You reject the catastrophic scenario, and go with the evidence in the NC which would still make global warming inevitable and thus my opponent doesnt link to the burden. 2. No way pro has linked to even the BoP. His alternatives were brought up too late, and they are insufficiently warranted for you o accept they are viable alternative to combating global warming. At that point, default neg, ff didnt do a good enough job showing how he will be successful in his fight against global warming.