I'm trying to start a research paper on global warming and I have to argue whether it's a hoax or is it really happening. I don't even have a title yet and the rough draft is due tomorrow. I need help asap.
Starting a Global Warming Research Paper. Is it a hoax or the reality?
There should be no doubts that global warming is a hoax to trick tax payers into paying even more taxes for the 'right' to breathe.
Forget the title. Also, don't listen to Rich.
When I say forget the title. I mean do no think of it until the very end of your work today.
Right now, search your school database for some great articles. Come to your own conclusions.
It is true that global warming would be happening with or without human activity, because it is natural. Yet, like any system with a lot of energy in it, the system in question is very volatile. That means that, like touching a coin as it spins, you can cause a big change with a small action.
Since the start of the industrial rev. carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is up 35%, nitrous oxide, 15% and methane has doubled. Any fifth grade science experiment can show you that adding more concentration of these to a greenhouse increases temperature even as the heat source remains constant.
The bottom line is that we are increasing the speed of warming, and that is scary because we know that many "positive feedback" mechanisms are in place. That means that even though warming is natural, emissions that trap heat and increase the speed of warming have the potential to create a bigger consequence than we might expect.
On one hand, you have95% of the scientific community agreeing that we need clean energy technology, and on the other hand you have Glen Beck and Rich Monte denying that it is a problem.
But Noam Chomsky, the most celebrated and cited scholar of the 20th century, made this remark (I'm paraphrasing): Consider the cost-benefit aspect... if the scientists are right, we might be making it so that humanity might destroy EVERYTHING we have by increasing the speed of warming. If Rush Limbaugh is right, all it means is that we did not really need to do all the clean energy stuff because of warmng -- but we do need to do the clean energy stuff anyway because we are going to run out of fossil fuels.
So maybe to someone like Rich it seems like a simple issue, but scholars know that complex issues require more analysis than one can accomplish during an episode of the Glen Beck show.
Anyway, here is some help. Search your library database (get a questia membership if you do not have a good school library database) for these terms:
"positive feedback" global warming
global warming controversy
"climate change" arguments
Search youtube for this: chomsky global warming
and also this: global warming experiment
You CAN skim the intro and conclusion of 5 or 6 articles today, and you CAN write a few sentences about the ideas you get. When you get an idea, write a paragraph to explain it. Maybe cite an article or quote it. No big deal. This is only a draft.
When I say forget the title. I mean do no think of it until the very end of your work today.
Right now, search your school database for some great articles. Come to your own conclusions.
It is true that global warming would be happening with or without human activity, because it is natural. Yet, like any system with a lot of energy in it, the system in question is very volatile. That means that, like touching a coin as it spins, you can cause a big change with a small action.
Since the start of the industrial rev. carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is up 35%, nitrous oxide, 15% and methane has doubled. Any fifth grade science experiment can show you that adding more concentration of these to a greenhouse increases temperature even as the heat source remains constant.
The bottom line is that we are increasing the speed of warming, and that is scary because we know that many "positive feedback" mechanisms are in place. That means that even though warming is natural, emissions that trap heat and increase the speed of warming have the potential to create a bigger consequence than we might expect.
On one hand, you have95% of the scientific community agreeing that we need clean energy technology, and on the other hand you have Glen Beck and Rich Monte denying that it is a problem.
But Noam Chomsky, the most celebrated and cited scholar of the 20th century, made this remark (I'm paraphrasing): Consider the cost-benefit aspect... if the scientists are right, we might be making it so that humanity might destroy EVERYTHING we have by increasing the speed of warming. If Rush Limbaugh is right, all it means is that we did not really need to do all the clean energy stuff because of warmng -- but we do need to do the clean energy stuff anyway because we are going to run out of fossil fuels.
So maybe to someone like Rich it seems like a simple issue, but scholars know that complex issues require more analysis than one can accomplish during an episode of the Glen Beck show.
Anyway, here is some help. Search your library database (get a questia membership if you do not have a good school library database) for these terms:
"positive feedback" global warming
global warming controversy
"climate change" arguments
Search youtube for this: chomsky global warming
and also this: global warming experiment
You CAN skim the intro and conclusion of 5 or 6 articles today, and you CAN write a few sentences about the ideas you get. When you get an idea, write a paragraph to explain it. Maybe cite an article or quote it. No big deal. This is only a draft.