Global Warming Research Headline Animator
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Thesis Statement Brainstorm
Research Notebook Assignment
For your final research project, are you staying with the topic you chose for your short three-source research essay? If so, what information are you looking for to expand the material you have so far? Will you take the topic in a new direction? If not, what is your new topic?
I am going to stick with my topic, Global Warming. My research thus far has shown that there seems to be a political influence, at least in the U.S., in the media censorship of scientific data. My new research question is essentially the same “Should we try to prevent global warming, using Kyoto protocol-like methods?” However, I am now aware of the bias towards climate change when evaluating sources.
Make notes on these questions as you decide on a topic:
- Do you like the topic enough to spend many days and nights, week after week, working on it?
- Does the topic lead to questions requiring analysis or argumentation skills?
- Does the topic require source material expected in college-level research (e.g., scholarly articles and books)?
- Can the topic be presented in an engaging way for and audience of English 102 readers?
- Is the topic manageable--not too broad or too narrow?
- Is the topic clear, without any confusing or unnecessarily general terms?
My paper aims to clear up misconceptions through posing a question. By synthesizing my research (getting both sides of the story), throwing in dash of government conspiracy, I will present the topic in a manner suitable for the college atmosphere. At this point, I have yet to grasp much about global warming besides that there are two factions; both directly opposed to each other’s viewpoints. I will have to ask you personally for some advice about this. I originally intended to argue that we should attempt to prevent global warming, but the stories from both sides of the sea are invariably clashing.
Do you have ideas for your research question? If so, write about them. If not, explain what problems you are having in developing a research question. Do you have ideas for a hypothesis? If so, write about them. If not, explain what problems you are having in developing a hypothesis.
As previously stated, my problem with “What question I should ask?” is that I am unaware of the whole situation. I have read around 10 articles and skimmed a book, and the overall feel I have for my topic is that of conflict. The moment you look up “Global Warming” in the Opposing Viewpoints database, you instantly see the conflict. The very titles of articles themselves conflict, and the contents lead farther down the rabbit hole of confusion. Where is the truth? I am leaning towards an informative style, exposing both sides of the story, and letting the reader decide for themselves their own conclusion. I will discuss this with you in class, presuming you have not dropped me yet (I’ have been absent for nearly two weeks, if not more, due to a slight case of insomnia, which has been addressed with holistic therapies).
Explain the purpose for writing that is implied in your research questions and hypothesis.
I want to inform readers about the two opposing factions. I aim to highlight the effects these disputes have on media influence, common sense, political influence, scientific integrity, and affirmative action. In each area, there are two extremes. Major media outlets adamantly abide by a lemming-like metaphysical code defined by authority. Our common sense partially derives from media we experience. There is a political influence specifically geared at suppressing information pertaining to climate change. Thus, the scientific community has bottled up, due to the backlash at semantically misinterpreted claims (articles that cite scientific data, written assuming we play a role in climate change, and we can avert the negative consequences). Because “science” cannot ineffably prove the earth is warming due to human behavior, affirmative action lacks.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Research Question Proposal + Class Notes for 2/06
My question: How does government influence the bias, if any, towards global warming? Has the IPCC dramatically exaggerated research results? Are U.S. government think tanks influencing the opposing view point within the scientific community?
There seems to be two teams, one "green", and one "scientific". The green team proposes that humans have affected global warming, and by implementing the Kyoto protocol, we can avert dire consequences.
The science team (it's just a label, not saying the green team doesn't have scientists) proposes that we really don't know much about climatology. Technology is not advanced enough to adequately determine whether or not we have in fact attributed to global warming, or if it is a natural process of the earth, and whether or not it will have adverse consequences. Furthermore, they don't really know if we can advert these consequences, if any, regardless of whether or not we have contributed
My research aims to take information from both teams, outline it, and form an objective opinion. There is a lot of conflicting opinions, and data has seemingly been manipulated. My paper aims to clear this mess up, for two reasons: I want an A, and I want the truth.
Research Question Exercise:
Forming a Research Question
SUBJECT: Global Warming
NARROWED SUBJECT: The common sense of Global Warming.
TOPIC/RESEARCH QUESTION:
Does the government influence the media’s position about climate change?
Purpose: Analyze.
Hypothesis: Various government committees and thinks tanks, all over the world, affect the public’s opinions about climate change.
TOPIC/RESEARCH QUESTION:
What’s the actual scientific conclusion about global warming, besides opinions and media influence?
Purpose: Informative.
Hypothesis: We have exhausted the tools of science assessing global warming, coming to the conclusion that there is much left to theory and speculation.
TOPIC/RESEARCH QUESTION:
Should the government put into motion functions such as the
Purpose: Persuade.
Hypothesis: Regardless of whether or not there is undeniable proof that we’re causing or contributing to global warming, we should prepare. At the very least, prepare to prepare.
Class Notes:
Evaluating Books: The following list should be examined when determining whether or not to use a book in a research paper.
- Date
- Currency
- Intro/Conclusion
- Index
- Table of Contents
- Glossary
- References (Is the writer of his/her own opinion?)
- Author's bio.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Two Sources down, 1 to go
I have to write a paper for my English 102 class, and I chose to write about global warming. Like most people, I ascribe to a certain set of beliefs that lead me to much bias. I'm shedding those types of habits, and have learned to be more scientific, and logical, in my thinking and forming of beliefs.
See, before, I believed global warming was caused by the evil illuminati government, everything was a conspiracy theory, and the matrix is reality. While it wasn't that bad, my point is that the sub-niche culture I'm into (uncommon/suppressed/not widely accepted knowledge) comes with a lot of extra beliefs.
These beliefs spill over into topics such as government, climate change, schooling, and many other areas of life. To make a long story short, it's assumed by many people that global warming is caused by our uses of energy, and that political, corporate, and national agendas, prevent us from making a positive change.
This isn't entirely the case. I am not surprised when oil tycoons suppress information and politicians use climate change as a powerful force. What is surprising is that I, and most people, are ignorant about many things.
I need three sources to prove my hypothesis, and my paper will be written as an argument.
I have two of my three sources that I need for my first research paper assignment.
- Too costly to fix climate change: A very interesting source about the actual cost, the sacrifice we'd have to make, if we want to attempt and stop or deter the climate change.
- Fuel for thought (PDF): About alternative energy sources. Fuel from grass or corn is apparently not an option, but the hope for alternative energy is there.
Right now the flow of my paper is looking like:
Global warming myths > the reality > solutions (aren't there yet but there's hope) > ???? (still need a third source)
You can download the two sources I have so far (Fuel for thought & Too costly to fix climate change). They're both very interesting and informative reads, meant for the general public.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Ten companies named stragglers on global warming
Taken from:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/BUSINESS/702130322/1003
Ten companies named stragglers on global warming
Published: Tuesday, February 13, 2007
By Alan Zibel
WASHINGTON -- Shareholder activists named 10 U.S. companies as the top laggards in their industries in responding to global warming, arguing they have failed to plan for the possibility of new greenhouse gas regulations that could cost them money.
A list to be released today by Ceres, an environmental investment group, criticizes energy firms such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, and even retailer Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., accusing them of failing to adequately address the industrial causes -- and consequences -- of climate change.
Oil and gas producers and utilities emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that gets trapped in the atmosphere and, most scientists believe, contributes to global warming.
Ceres says the companies on its list are either not adequately prepared for possible new restrictions on carbon emissions, or not planning for how changing weather patterns and rising sea levels might affect their operations.
The effort to spotlight these companies comes as a growing number of businesses and politicians are calling for a national policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Some investors are even starting to speak out against corporate proponents of carbon constraints.
The Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund based in Potomac, Md., has placed a resolution before General Electric Co. shareholders, criticizing that company for advocating limits on greenhouse gases and arguing that those regulations would harm economic growth and demand for GE products.
Ceres' effort is backed by religious and socially responsible investors and a municipal pension funds in New York, Connecticut and North Carolina and a major union.
"We're trying to push these companies as much as possible to just look at what I view (as) very fundamental issues of profitability," said Richard Moore, North Carolina's state treasurer, who manages more than $70 billion in public pension funds and government debt.
According to Ceres, the number of shareholder resolutions filed with U.S. companies on global warming issues has grown from 25 in 2004 to 42 filed this year. Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, said the resolutions are "not about theatrics at annual meetings," but about concern for long-term business prospects.
Also named on the list were coal producer Massey Energy Co., insurance firm ACE Ltd. and utility TXU Corp.
TXU was criticized by the investors' group for its proposal to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas.
Lisa Singleton, a spokeswoman for TXU, said her company is working to develop cleaner energy technologies. "We believe strongly that technology will be the solution," she said.
Companies outside the energy industry such as Bed Bath & Beyond also made the list because, they have been "unresponsive" to requests that they make public their emission reduction and energy efficiency goals, the activist shareholders said.
On The Web: www.ceres.org
The least we owe future generations is to try
From:
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/8493/2007-02-13.html
Letter: Global Warming
The least we owe future generations is to try
February 13th, 2007
It is good news that global warming is finally getting the attention it deserves. However, the joy of the increased attention is partially overshadowed by the intentionally misleading information and reasoning present in the debate. Two recent columns, “Global Warming Consensus is a Myth” and “Global Warming in the Spotlight: Politics, agendas and the press” (CT, Jan. 31,Feb. 8) constitute illustrations of this problem.
To begin with, let’s state some facts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organization formed by World Meteorological Organization United Nations Environment Programme. In the most recent report, which will be published later this year after six years of work, more than 800 leading climate scientists and some 2,500 expert reviewers have contributed to the most comprehensive report on climate change up to date. So far, only the summary has been released in order to offer an overview of the findings. In contradiction to what was stated in “Global Warming in the spotlight,” the summary is written by participating scientists, not bureaucrats. The Fraser Institute, which recently released a document criticizing the IPCC report and its conclusions, is not an actual scientific institute, but a right-wing Canadian-based think tank receiving funds from several corporations, including Exxon Mobile. The scientists of the Fraser institute consist of a mixed group of people where some have connections to various fossil fuel corporations, and others are not even working in fields related to climatology (for more information and hreferences, see www.desmogblog.com). The think tank American Enterprise Institute, as recently disclosed by the British newspaper, The Guardian, offers a $10,000 reward for any scientists criticizing the IPCC report. It should leave no doubt who should be considered more credible, the over 800 scientists behind the IPCC report or the 61 authors of the document by the Fraser Institute.
One common misunderstanding is that IPCC is not open to deviating views. In fact, one of the strengths of the IPCC reports are that they tend to be on the conservative side and are carefully formulated to express the least common denominator in the research community. Another misapprehension of the IPCC report is that it does not discuss natural explanation such as increased intensity of the sun radiation. As a matter of fact, variations in the sun activity as well the orbit of earth are discussed but dismissed as explanations of the recent global warming.
The IPCC report summary, which can be found at www.ipcc.ch, states that the global warming measured over the last century to at least 90 percent certainty is induced by human activity where emission of carbon dioxide is the most significant contributor. It predicts a future global warming ranging from approximately four degrees to ten degrees Fahrenheit if the current trend of increasing emissions continues. On a planet already under stress due to a growing population and an ever-increasing extraction of natural resources, a raise of the temperature of such magnitude will impose very severe consequences.
Instead of arguing about an issue already settled within the scientific community, as well as outside the U.S, collective actions to decrease human impact need to be taken immediately. As one of only two nations, the U.S has not signed the Kyoto agreement, which maps out a route for decreasing emissions. As the country with the highest emissions, both in total terms and per-capita, an agreement without the U.S lacks the strength it would need. Equally important, the ignorance of the U.S gives signals to raising industrial nations such as China and India that climate change need not to be taken seriously.
Different future scenarios are shortly discussed in the IPCC summary report, demonstrating it is not too late to take action on climate change. In the thorough “Stern Review” written for the British government, renowned economist Sir Nicholas Stern shows that the cost of acting today is substantially lower than suffering severe future consequences of a passive climate policy. Sustainable development, of which global warming is one aspect, is not called the greatest challenge of our time for no reason. Despite the difficulties, the least we owe future generations is to try our best.
Arvid Puranen
Senior, Mathematics
The turning point on global warming
By John McCain and Joe Lieberman , February 13, 2007
THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.
In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.
Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.
To confront this challenge, we have reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The bill, which has growing bipartisan support, would harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming.
Wall Street analysts and industry executives have predicted the eventual enactment of a bill such as this for some time. Late last month, a group of prominent industrial leaders, including two executives of coal-intensive electric power companies and a major oil company, urged Congress and the president to enact measures that align with the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. Perhaps the inevitable is now imminent. We must seize the initiative.
How can Congress close the deal to prevent catastrophic global warming while it still has the chance? In the same way it has enacted every other major environmental law in the past 30 years.
Congress must listen to the companies that will be governed by the new climate law. After all, they are the ones who will develop and deploy the advanced energy technologies that will solve this problem. While intransigent firms should not be allowed to weaken the legislation, lawmakers must be open to a good-faith business perspective that can help solve this urgent global problem. As the bill reflects, lawmakers must also have the courage to promote safe climate-friendly nuclear energy.
Finally, Congress must move forward in a bipartisan fashion. Democrats will not enact a strong new climate law without the help and support of their Republican colleagues. Working in a bi-partisan fashion, Congress will enact a law that curbs global warming even as it strengthens the economy.
The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.
John McCain is a Republican senator of Arizona. Joe Lieberman is an independent senator of Connecticut.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.
