Ay mates! I’m sure that all of you have had an excellent time since the last time, especially those who have paid me a visit at my bar. Locals and tourists alike have been swarming due to the extremely hot weather that we’ve been having lately. When I say hot, I mean it’s been scorching, and not even the ocean water can cool you off. Anyhow, couple of locals and I started to talk about how hot it was and we got to talking about global warming. I’m sure you’ve heard about global warming in the news but maybe didn’t quite understand what it was, but knew that it had something to do with the earth heating up. You’d probably thought so what, it’s just getting hotter I can deal with that, but global warming has many consequences, my friend. To that end, I would like to share something with you that that I found rather interesting.
I was thumbing through yet another Nature magazine, when I came across an editorial discussing global warming entitled, Light at the End of the Tunnel. After reading it, I was bothered by what the author was implying. I thought what a load of crap. I must say that the article had been written well as far as grammatical structure is concerned, the content however was an entirely different matter.
Although the argument of the editorial seemed to be somewhat unclear, I interpreted it to be somewhere along the lines of how now that policy makers have acknowledged that global warming is a major threat to society as we know it, coming up with a solution comes with its own risks. To make his argument concrete, the author further explains that policy makers agreeing there is a problem the plan of action that they are taking in order to deal with global warming aren’t enough, and that many fail to realize that it will take significant monetary commitment to make a change. I was quick to dismiss the author’s argument. My decision to do so was primarily based on two factors, one is that the author clearly contradicts himself; the latter being that author doesn’t provide concrete evidence to back his argument, but rather his opinion. I mean how can one articulate how policy makers weren’t doing anything about global warming because they couldn’t seem to acknowledge it was a problem and then criticize them in the very next paragraph by stating that the steps that they are taking isn’t nearly enough? It is as though the author is forgetting that in his introductory paragraph he merely stated that policy makers have just came to the consensus that there is a problem, a consensus that has come after years even decades of debate.
My stance on the issue is as follows, despite the slow response of policy makers in acknowledging that global warming is indeed a major issue, now that they have done so, we need to focus on supporting them and whatever steps they take towards the problem regardless of how big or small they may be, because a little can go a long way.
Before I continue however, allow me to take a moment for those who may be confused about global warming, allow me to explain. Global warming is essentially when fossil fuels and other gases are emitted into the environment and destroy what is known as the green house effect, which is a layer of gases that acts like a shield. The destruction of the green house effect essentially allows more sunlight and heat to penetrate the earth heating up glaciers, causing them to melt. The water from the glaciers can throw the pattern of the ocean off, which can have many effects, such as causing horrendous weather.
Now that you have a better understanding of global warming, I’m sure that it has become very clear to you that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with immediately, yet efficiently. Firstly, the editorial’s claim that policy makers aren’t doing enough to help solve global warming is absurd. One would think that the author would express some appreciation that policy makers are doing anything at all considering that the last twenty years have been wasted just talking about it. The author even mentioned ways that policy makers are indeed taking steps to help. The editorial even states that such steps are being pushed through rather quickly. To this end, something is always better than nothing. Some critics may feel as though what policy makers are doing is not enough. However, I feel as though critics feel as though policy makers aren’t taking steps quickly enough, rather than doing enough. After all, due to so much criticism by policy makers, research on how to stop or at least slow down global warming was rather limited. But now with policy makers on the same page as environmentalists, things seem to be looking up for advocates of global warming and soon rather than later, perhaps large scale plans will be put into effect.
As for the other claim that the author makes about policy makers not wanting to spend the extra money in trying to solve the problem can easily be refuted by doing a simple google search. After conducting a little research myself, I found that policy makers aren’t afraid to invest today in order to save tomorrow. It’s relatively easy for people to talk about making changes for the better, but few are able to put their money where their mouth is. The state of California is not one of those types. California is one of the first in the United States to actually pass legislature reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions as well as other heat trapping gases. Due to California’s steps of action against global warming, other states are following suit as well as many other countries. (Global Warming & California, par. 6)
There you have it mates, an editorial that has been refuted by the great Desmond. With that said, I caution those of you who may write editorials. Furthermore, may I suggest that when writing an editorial one considers all facts, as well as back your argument with sound facts rather than your opinion. Being able to show your readers facts rather than your opinion not only makes your argument creditable, but also makes it more persuasive. Well, until next time, take care, and if you get thirsty, be sure to stop in and see me at my bar!
“Climate Change What is it.” Climate Change Kids Site. 23 October 2006. 15 February 15, 2007.
“Global Warming and California.” California Solutions for Global Warming. 15 February 2007.
“Light at the End of the Tunnel.” Nature. 08 February 2007. 15 February 2007.
I was thumbing through yet another Nature magazine, when I came across an editorial discussing global warming entitled, Light at the End of the Tunnel. After reading it, I was bothered by what the author was implying. I thought what a load of crap. I must say that the article had been written well as far as grammatical structure is concerned, the content however was an entirely different matter.
Although the argument of the editorial seemed to be somewhat unclear, I interpreted it to be somewhere along the lines of how now that policy makers have acknowledged that global warming is a major threat to society as we know it, coming up with a solution comes with its own risks. To make his argument concrete, the author further explains that policy makers agreeing there is a problem the plan of action that they are taking in order to deal with global warming aren’t enough, and that many fail to realize that it will take significant monetary commitment to make a change. I was quick to dismiss the author’s argument. My decision to do so was primarily based on two factors, one is that the author clearly contradicts himself; the latter being that author doesn’t provide concrete evidence to back his argument, but rather his opinion. I mean how can one articulate how policy makers weren’t doing anything about global warming because they couldn’t seem to acknowledge it was a problem and then criticize them in the very next paragraph by stating that the steps that they are taking isn’t nearly enough? It is as though the author is forgetting that in his introductory paragraph he merely stated that policy makers have just came to the consensus that there is a problem, a consensus that has come after years even decades of debate.
My stance on the issue is as follows, despite the slow response of policy makers in acknowledging that global warming is indeed a major issue, now that they have done so, we need to focus on supporting them and whatever steps they take towards the problem regardless of how big or small they may be, because a little can go a long way.
Before I continue however, allow me to take a moment for those who may be confused about global warming, allow me to explain. Global warming is essentially when fossil fuels and other gases are emitted into the environment and destroy what is known as the green house effect, which is a layer of gases that acts like a shield. The destruction of the green house effect essentially allows more sunlight and heat to penetrate the earth heating up glaciers, causing them to melt. The water from the glaciers can throw the pattern of the ocean off, which can have many effects, such as causing horrendous weather.
Now that you have a better understanding of global warming, I’m sure that it has become very clear to you that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with immediately, yet efficiently. Firstly, the editorial’s claim that policy makers aren’t doing enough to help solve global warming is absurd. One would think that the author would express some appreciation that policy makers are doing anything at all considering that the last twenty years have been wasted just talking about it. The author even mentioned ways that policy makers are indeed taking steps to help. The editorial even states that such steps are being pushed through rather quickly. To this end, something is always better than nothing. Some critics may feel as though what policy makers are doing is not enough. However, I feel as though critics feel as though policy makers aren’t taking steps quickly enough, rather than doing enough. After all, due to so much criticism by policy makers, research on how to stop or at least slow down global warming was rather limited. But now with policy makers on the same page as environmentalists, things seem to be looking up for advocates of global warming and soon rather than later, perhaps large scale plans will be put into effect.
As for the other claim that the author makes about policy makers not wanting to spend the extra money in trying to solve the problem can easily be refuted by doing a simple google search. After conducting a little research myself, I found that policy makers aren’t afraid to invest today in order to save tomorrow. It’s relatively easy for people to talk about making changes for the better, but few are able to put their money where their mouth is. The state of California is not one of those types. California is one of the first in the United States to actually pass legislature reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions as well as other heat trapping gases. Due to California’s steps of action against global warming, other states are following suit as well as many other countries. (Global Warming & California, par. 6)
There you have it mates, an editorial that has been refuted by the great Desmond. With that said, I caution those of you who may write editorials. Furthermore, may I suggest that when writing an editorial one considers all facts, as well as back your argument with sound facts rather than your opinion. Being able to show your readers facts rather than your opinion not only makes your argument creditable, but also makes it more persuasive. Well, until next time, take care, and if you get thirsty, be sure to stop in and see me at my bar!
“Climate Change What is it.” Climate Change Kids Site. 23 October 2006. 15 February 15, 2007.
“Global Warming and California.” California Solutions for Global Warming. 15 February 2007.
“Light at the End of the Tunnel.” Nature. 08 February 2007. 15 February 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment