Paper#3 vs. Paper#2 Reflection

Paper #3 is rightfully considered more difficult than Paper #2.  Paper #2 was an analysis of related ads, whereas Paper #3 was  a position paper.  Paper #2 was relatively straight forward; pick three related ads analyze and compare.  For Paper #2 we had a list of questions that we could use for every ad and then we had to compare and contrast them.  Basically the same thing three times over and a conclusion.  Paper #3 on the other hand was a whole other kettle of fish.  In Paper #3 we had a bunch of different details and components that we had to include, all supporting our singular position.  Paper #3 required evidence and counterarguments.  Paper #3 was thus more complicated than Paper #2, requiring more attention and individually contemplated components.  Whereas Paper #2 had a certain amount of overlap among the three body paragraphs.  While Paper #2 had a straight forward format, (at least the way I wrote it), intro, one body paragraph per ad, and a conclusion, Paper #3 on the other hand was more flexible.  Paper #3 had an indeterminate number of body paragraphs, at least partially due to an indeterminate quantity of evidence gathered, counterarguments, and length and detail of each.  As you should now see Paper #3 was notably more complicated than Paper #2 as it required a more in-depth composition.

Analyses of Peers' Papers (#3)

Amy Plastow's:
1 .What is the claim?
a. Recycling is important.
b.Thesis is clearly stated in final sentence of introduction.

2.What support does the writer offer for the claim?
a. Supportive reasons are: It will postpone Earth's "end" by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it will save resources.
b.Evidence: Recycling reduces pollution output (Conserve Energy Future).  2,400 pounds less CO2 is put into the atmosphere if you recycle half your annual recyclables (Brennon).  Buring waste puts off a lot of CO2 and CFC (CEF).  One of the author's friends says that in Connecticut there are machines that will give you a receipt with money for aluminum cans.
c. I find these reasons plausible and sufficient.

3. How evenhandedly does the writer present the issues?
a. Counterarguements are considered and refuted with more evidence.
b. One is plain refuted the other is given a considered response full of cited evidence.
c.The counterarguements are treated respectfully with a tad of dismission for the "global warming is a myth" idea.
d.The author works more in specifics then generalizations.

4. What authorities or sources of outside information does the writer use?
a. Cited sources are used to emphasize points where applicable and as the bodies of paragraphs in other areas.
b.Most of them are credible though the personal interview is of course questionable, people are inately flawed and our language is given to miscommunication, that said this particular quote is likely a secure primary source.
c. I don't know if they are current, besides the interview which was this year, as no copyright is provided.

5. How does the writer address you as the reader?
a.The writer does not assume readers will know anything about the topic at hand.
b. The writing is inclusive of the reader.
c. I share the authors beliefs that recycling is important and related to global warming.

Emily Fletcher's:
1. What is the claim?
a. The main point is that art should be kept in school.
b. Clearly stated thesis in final sentence of intro.

2. What support does the writer offer for the claim?
a. Reasons: art promotes brain development and a balanced person/life.
b. Evidence, facts and statistics
c. Reasons plausible and sufficient.

3. How evenhandedly does the writer present the issues?
a. Counterarguments are considered.
b. Opposing positions are considered and lead into facts with all the backing of fully acclaimed credible sources and logos appealing solutions.
c. Other arguments are are treated reasonably and squashed firmly.  If a higher word count was allowed more time could be profitably spent on them.
d. I saw no sign of excessive sweeping generalizations.

4. What authorities or sources of outside information does the writer use?
a. Cited sources are used both to refute counter arguments and to support the author's position.
b. I find the sources credible though the one from the fine arts division is suspect to bias.
c. The oldest source with a date shown is from 2009.  Therefore I consider them current.

5. How does the writer address you as the reader?
a. I do not believe that the writer makes unreasonable assumptions and she certainly provides enough information to inform her readers of the situation, barring lack of evidence that this is a real problem, that could be considered an assumption of reader knowledge.
b. I do not recall any inclusive language.
c. I do share the author's position on this topic.  Though I have no personal knowledge of the problem.  Art should be kept in schools.

Paper #3 Final Draft

Position paper (#3)

November/December 2015

Eng. 101

Professor Begert

Anthropogenic Climate Disorder

Ælfhild Wiklund

Some call it Global Warming; some call it Global Climate Change: neither of those titles address the whole issue.  The chaos that is currently wrought in the climate of our planet certainly matches the “warming” and “climate change” descriptors, but it is not a complete description.  While the commonly used titles address the result they fail to consider the cause; smoke without fire.  A more accurate name for the phenomenon we are experiencing is Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Climate Disorder, note the important part here is the “anthropogenic.”  Anthropogenic means that humans are the cause.  Should we not then be part of the solution?  I believe that we, the members of the species Homo sapiens, should hold ourselves responsible for our actions and put forth effort to the best of our capabilities to change our active role in Anthropogenic Climate Disorder from cause, to solution.

Before you try to brush me off as just another English student who needed a topic, please, hear me out.  I am a student of science; I have taken environmental science and gotten down on my knees in the mud to plant trees.  I have done research on this topic many times throughout my years of schooling.  I am doing my best to make our world a better place.  I don't expend this effort because I want to be personally acknowledged.  I do so because I want our world to be a better place, for generations to come, if not for me.  This subject is strongly connected to my areas of interest and study.  I have watched the graphs of the arctic ice extent change; I have watched the cliffs fall; I encourage you to do your best: to save them all.  To give you an idea of my sources I suggest you check out the graphs at nsidc.org.  The 2012 Arctic sea ice extent is particularly illuminating.

I hope that none of you will refute that our climate is indeed changing.  The signs of change are everywhere.  Spring flowers such as rhododendrons and crocuses are budding and even blooming in November.  The snow-pack last year was so low that the Olympic Mountains appeared bare last summer.  Our garden's dynamics showed a trend towards hot weather plants (the sunflowers and corn grew tall).  I would like to point out that, while this increasing heat does mean that colder regions will grow plants previously confined to the tropics, the tropics in turn have no such replacements.  

The purpose of this paper is to establish the anthropogenic part of Anthropogenic Climate Disorder and to encourage my fellow sentient humans to do something about it.  On the Free Critical Thinking site the "Anthropogenic Global Warming theory" article opens with, "The UK Met Office describes the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis as follows: 'It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change.  The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term.'"  The use of the word "alarming" emphasizes how dire the situation truly is, and as you see they too consider it anthropogenic. Another nice quote I found is by Stefan Rahmstorf in a chapter entitled Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts in which anthropogenic climate change is defined in two ways, first, "anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to significant global warming"(35).  Second, "human activities already have noticeably changed global climate"(35).  In the wikipedia article on the global warming controversy it is explained that none of the national or international scientific bodies deny anthropogenic climate change and, indeed, the ones who do not agree are affiliated with mining.  The implication I find therein to be that the only bodies to refuse to acknowledge it are those who would be adversely effected by its admittance.

Now I know about the question "why," and I know that the answers, “Because I said so,” and “Because this wonderfully accredited source says so,” are not very palatable.  So while I offer yet another credible source, this time it gives you facts rather than mere opinion.  Last year I attended a series of lectures at my local library from the guest speaker, Paul Loubere, who has a PhD in oceanography and geology, and he is (or was) Presidential Research Professor in the Dept. of Geology and Environmental Geoscience.  Professor Loubere explained a number of things that indicate that Global Warming is indeed caused by humans.  The troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, since the troposphere is lower and is also the layer where the CO₂ gathers, this is quantifiable evidence that is best explained by the supposition that the CO₂ emissions of our industrial age are at fault.  Warmer night-time temperatures also point to the trapping of heat by greenhouse gases, of which CO₂ is a significant member.  He specifically said that CO₂ is much better at absorbing outgoing infrared, than incoming energy.  When Paul Loubere gave the lecture considering the El Nino/La Nina patterns he actually said that the climate is no longer following the expected patterns (which he had explained to us).  He went so far as to say, “Sort of like something different is going on here,” he also called it both “intriguing” and “surprising.”  I have seen some of this information elsewhere and never have I come across anything that refutes it.

Now some of you are going to point out that it is too late to stop Global Climate Disorder, anthropogenic, or otherwise; things will keep changing, and we can't halt it now.  This is all true.  That said, I would like to point out that while we can't stop it we can certainly make it worse and are doing so by our current actions.  Every molecule of CO₂ that we add to the atmosphere increases the amount of energy trapped by the collective greenhouse gases.  Every degree the ocean warms increases the chance of some aquatic life form going extinct.  We may not be able to stop the progression of global warming or the other climatic chaos, much less counteract the damage all ready done.  However, if we reduce the amount of pollutants that we are actively contributing to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the acidity of the ocean, we can slow it down and reduce the harm that has yet to be inflicted.

I know that there is a temptation to think that one individual doesn't make that much of a powerful impact, to say: “Well it is just this once,” “Everyone else does what difference does it make if I do?” “It's not like the actions of one person make a difference.”  But the actions of one person do make a difference.  Societies, nations, and the global population, are made up of individuals, millions of “one person”(s).  Yes if only one person does something it won't make that big a difference in an isolated situation, but we are not isolated; we live in communities and spread our opinions about the internet. By taking action ourselves we can inspire others to copy us.  If every individual refuses to do something because it won't make a difference then they will full-fill their own prophecy, and nothing will happen.  However, if an individual does make a move then that action can have a ripple effect.  If every individual does something then it will certainly have an effect, but it is still a case of individuals taking action.  Taking things into their own hands.

You know the saying “You should leave things better then you found them.” well should that not apply to things on a larger scale then tidying up your work space or picking up trash, say, a global scale?  We are responsible as a species for the disorder in our climate, and we owe it to future generations to do our best to take the edge off it and not make it worse.  Do you want to be remembered as part of the age of humanity that destroyed the world as we know it?  Because that is precisely where we are headed.  I, personally, don't worry too much about reputation, but I suspect most of us would much rather that our descendants grew up knowing that we did everything in our power to make the world a better place for them to live.  Would you rather be seen as a couch potato that abandoned your duty to your world and family or as a hero that marched against the polluting trends; someone who fought: carpooling, recycling, planting trees, campaigning for awareness of truly cross species and borders issues, avoiding disposable products (reuse cups, dishes, forks, take your own carryout dish to restaurants), bicycling, walking on your own two evolved feet.  Fight the good fight, against the tyranny of indifference, self imposed ignorance, and peer pressure.  Take charge of your destiny, save the world from yourself and your fellow humans. Admit, it is Anthropogenic Climate Disorder!

Works cited:

"Anthropogenic Global Warming theory" Free Critical Thinking.  Free University. Web 19 Nov. 2015

Rahmstorf, Stefan. "Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts." piks-potsdam.de Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Research Web 19 Nov. 2015

"global warming controversy" wikipedia Web 19 Nov. 2015

Loubere, Paul. "Climate Change" Jefferson County Library, WA, Port Hadlock. Feb. 2015

Paper #3 Rough Draft

Position paper (#3)

November 2015

Eng. 101

Professor Begert

Anthropogenic Climate Disorder

Ælfhild Wiklund

Some call it Global Warming; some call it Global Climate Change: neither of those titles address the whole issue. The chaos that is currently wrought in the climate of our planet certainly matches the “warming” and “climate change” descriptors, but it is not a complete description, for while it addresses the result it fails to consider the cause; smoke without fire. A more accurate name for the phenomenon we are experiencing is Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Climate Disorder: the important part here is the “anthropogenic”. Anthropogenic means that humans are the cause. Should we not then be part of the solution? I believe that we, the members of the species Homo sapiens, should hold ourselves responsible for our actions, and put forth effort to the best of our capabilities to change our active role in Anthropogenic Climate Disorder from cause, to solution.

Before you try to brush me off as just another English student who needed a topic, please, hear me out. I am a student of science, I have taken environmental science and gotten down on my knees in the mud to plant trees. I have done research on this topic many times throughout my years of schooling. I am an honest person of our noble country, doing my best to make this a better place. I don't expend this effort because I want to be personally acknowledged, I do so because I want our world to be a better place, if not for me then for generations to come. I have watched the graphs of the arctic ice extent change; I have watched the cliffs fall; I encourage you to do your best: to save them all. This subject is strongly connected to my area of interest and study. To give you an idea of my sources I suggest you check out the graphs at nsidc.org. The 2012 Arctic sea ice extent is particularly illuminating.

I hope that none of you will refute that our climate is indeed changing; the signs of change are everywhere: spring flowers such as rhododendrons and crocuses are budding and even blooming in November, the snow-pack last year was so low that the Olympic Mountains appeared bare last summer, our garden's dynamics showed a trend towards hot weather plants (the sunflowers and corn grew tall). I would like to point out that while this increasing heat does mean that colder regions will grow plants previously confined to the tropics the tropics in turn have no such replacements. The purpose of this paper however is to establish the anthropogenic part of Anthropogenic Climate Disorder and to encourage my fellow sentient humans to do something about it. A credible source's use of the word "alarming" emphasizes how dire the situation truly is and as you see they consider it anthropogenic. On the Free Critical Thinking site the "Anthropogenic Global Warming theory" article opens with,"The UK Met Office describes the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis as follows: 'It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term.'" Another nice quote I found is by Stefan Rahmstorf in a chapter entitled Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts in which anthropogenic climate change is defined in two ways, first, "anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to significant global warming"(35). And second, "human activities already have noticeably changed global climate"(35). In the wikipedia article on the global warming controversy it is explained that none of the national or international scientific bodies deny anthropogenic climate change and indeed ones who do not agree are affiliated with mining. The implication I find therein to be that the only bodies to deny it are those who would be adversely effected by its admittance.

Now I know about the question why and I know that the answer, “because I said so” or “because this wonderfully accredited source says so”, is not very palatable: so I have yet another credible source, but this time I offer you some facts my source had to share. Last year I attended a series of lectures at my local library from the guest speaker Paul Loubere who has a PhD in oceanography and geology, and he is (or was) Presidential Research Professor in the Dept. of Geology and Environmental Geoscience.   Professor Loubere explained a number of things that indicate that Global Warming is indeed caused by humans:the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, since the troposphere is lower and is also the layer where the CO₂ gathers this is quantifiable evidence that is best explained by the supposition that the CO₂ emissions of our industrial age are at fault; warmer night time temperatures also point to the trapping of heat by greenhouse gases of which CO₂ is a significant member; he specifically said that CO₂ is much better at absorbing outgoing infrared than incoming energy. When Paul Loubere gave the lecture considering the El Nino/La Nina patterns he actually said that the climate is no longer following the expected patterns which he had explained to us, he went so far as to say, “Sort of like something different is going on here” he called it both “intriguing” and “surprising.” I have seen some of this information elsewhere and never have I come across anything that refutes it.

Now some of you are going to point out that it is too late to stop Global Climate Disorder, anthropogenic or otherwise: things will keep changing, and we can't halt it now.  This is all true.  That said I would like to point out that while we can't stop it we can certainly make it worse and are doing so by our current actions. Every molecule of CO₂ that we add to the atmosphere increases the amount of energy trapped by the collective greenhouse gases. Every degree the ocean warms increases the chance of some aquatic life going extinct. We may not be able to stop the progression of global warming and the other climatic chaos, much less counteract the damage all ready done, but we can slow it down and reduce the harm that has yet to be inflicted if we reduce the amount of pollutants that we are actively contributing to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the acidity of the ocean.

I know that there is a temptation to think that one individual doesn't make that much of an overall powerful impact and say: “Well it is just this once.”, “Everyone else does what difference does it make if I do?”, “It's not like the actions of one person make a difference.” But the actions of one person do make a difference. Societies, nations and yes the global population is made up of individuals, millions of “one person”(s). Yes if only one person does something it won't make that big a difference in an isolated situation, but we are not isolated; we live in communities and spread our opinions about the internet. By taking action ourselves we can inspire others to copy us. If every individual refuses to do something because it won't make a difference then they will full-fill their own prophecy, and nothing will happen. However if an individual does make a move then that action can have a ripple effect. If every individual does something then it will certainly have an effect, but it is still a case of individuals taking action: taking things into their own hands.

You know the saying “You should leave things better then you found them.” well should that not apply to things on a larger scale then tidying up your work space or picking up trash, say a global scale. We are responsible as a species for the disorder in our climate, and we owe it to future generations to do our best to take the edge off it and not make it worse. Do you want to be remembered as part of the age of humanity that destroyed the world as we know it? Because that is precisely where we are headed. I, personally, don't worry too much about reputation, but I suspect most of us would much rather that our descendants grew up knowing that we did everything in our power to make the world a better place for them to live. Would you rather be seen as a couch potato that abandoned your duty to your world and family, or as a hero that marched against the polluting trends, someone who fought by: carpooling, recycling, planting trees, campaigning for awareness of truly cross species and borders issues, avoiding disposable products (reuse cups, dishes, forks, take your own carryout dish to restaurants), bicycling, walking on your own two evolved feet. Fight the good fight, against the tyranny of indifference, self imposed ignorance and peer pressure. Take charge of your destiny, to save the world, from yourself and your fellow humans. Admit, it is Anthropogenic Climate Disorder!

Works cited:

"Anthropogenic Global Warming theory" Free Critical Thinking.  Free University. Web 19 Nov. 2015

Rahmstorf, Stefan. "Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts." piks-potsdam.de Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Research Web 19 Nov. 2015

"global warming controversy" wikipedia Web 19 Nov. 2015

Loubere, Paul "Climate Change" Jefferson County Library, WA, Port Hadlock. Feb. 2015

Anthropogenic climate disorder: quotes, paraphrase

Quotation with no page numbers:

    On the Free Critical Thinking the "Anthropogenic Global Warming theory" article opens with, "The UK Met Office describes the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis as follows: 'It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change.  The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term.'"


Paired quotation with page numbers:

According to Stefan Rahmstorf in a chapter entitled Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts anthropogenic climate change is defined in two ways, first, "anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to significant global warming"(35).  And second, "human activities already have noticeably changed global climate"(35)


Paraphrase with no page numbers:

In the wikipedia article on the global warming controversy it is explained that none of the national or international scientific bodies deny anthropogenic climate change and indeed ones who do not agree are affiliated with mining

Works cited:
"Anthropogenic Global Warming theory" Free Critical Thinking.  Free University. Web 19 Nov. 2015

Rahmstorf, Stefan. "Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts." piks-potsdam.de Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Research Web 19 Nov. 2015

"global warming controversy" wikipedia Web 19 Nov. 2015



Extra stuff:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
.  The implication I find therein to be that the only bodies to deny it are those who would be adversely effected by its admittance.

Paraphrase with no page numbers.


http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf
.  Future and past they are a lovely way of defining things.

Paired quotation with page numbers.



http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/climate-change/123-anthropogenic-global-warming-theory
  A credible source's use of the word "alarming" emphasises how dire the situation truly is.

Quotation with no page numbers:

Similarities and Differences in Spriggs Essay

Similarities and Differences in Spriggs Essay

Similarities

·         All three articles state positions clearly

·         All articles similar to Spriggs’ essay include appropriate background information

·         All articles have authoritative tones which is similar to Spriggs.

·         All articles appeal to the readers values (pathos).

Similarities/Differences

·         Half of the group articles include responses to what others have said or done

·         A third of the group articles include clear indications of why the topic matters as does Spriggs.

·         A third of the group articles include evidence to their arguments which is similar to Spriggs’ essay.

·         A third of the group articles include more than one point of view which is similar to Spriggs’ essay.

·         Two thirds of the group articles address global issues which is similar to what Spriggs addresses. 

Developing Your Argument homework:

Anthropogenic climate disorder.

1.What are you trying to change?(position)

I am trying to change the views of the portion of the human populance that believes that the current climate disorder is not their responsibility and simultaneously give ammunition to those who believe as I do in the cold (or is that hot) facts that the current changes in climate are indeed anthropogenic and that we are responsible for doing our best to fix, or at least slow, it.

2.To whom are you writing? (Audience)
I am writing to the people who would abandon their responsibilities to our world because the lack the understanding of the gravity of the issue at hand; I am writing to those who fail to realize that they can and should make a difference; I am writing to those of like mind so they have an eloquently worded source of ammunition to convert others to our righteous cause.  To all the would be world savers out there: it isn't just fantasy characters who can save they world, so can we, with a bit more subtlety.

3.How do you appeal to their beliefs, values, etc?  (pathos)
I would make the case that we all share this planet, we owe it to future generations to keep our planet as functional as possible.  I would make the appeal to the more scientifically minded that you just don't experiment with your control group, of course they probably don't need convincing.  I would appeal to their sense of superiority, we, the top of the sentience chain, can do anything: including save our world from ourselves.  I would make emotional appeals related to endangered species, see:polar bears, clams...

4.Why should your audience believe you-who are you, and how can you best represent your persona as a writer?(ethos)
I am a student of science, I have taken environmental science and gotten down on my knees in the mud to plant trees.  I have done research on this topic many times.  I will name my sources: remember Paul Lobere!  I am an honest person of our fair country, low poverty still doing my best to make this a better place.  I have watched the graphs of the arctic, I have watched the cliffs fall, I encourage you to do your best, to save them all.  This is strongly connected to my area of interest and study.

5.What are at least 2 reasons the change should be made?
Because if we don't try it will only get worse, states will flood with no where to go, crops will fail because the wrong ones were sown.  Because it is our responsibility to fix the harm we have wrought upon this our home planet.

6.What is a good point that the other side makes about the issue?(concession-ethos)
It is too late to stop it, things will keep changing and we can't halt it now.

7.How would you answer that point? (rebuttal-ethos, logos)
In response I would like to point out that while we can't stop it we can certainly make it worse and are doing so by our current actions.

8.Is there another good point that can be made for the opposition? (concession-ethos)
One individual doesn't make that much of an overall powerful impact.

9.How would you answer that point? (rebuttal-ethos, logos)
Societies, nations and yes the global population is made up of individuals.  Yes if only one person does something it won't make that big a difference in an isolated situation; we are not isolated, we live in communities and spread our opinions about the internet; by taking action ourselves we can inspire others to copy us.  If every individual refuses to do something because it won't make a difference then they will fullfill their own prophecy, and nothing will happen.  However if an individual does make a move then that action can have a ripple affect; other individuals will do the same and it will spread.  If every individual does something then it will certainly have an effect, but it is still a case of individuals taking action: taking things into their own hands.

10.Who will benefit from this change-you? the audience? society? a well-deserving group?
Actually for my topic, all of the above and then some.  I have chosen a truly global issue that effects just about all life, as well as some major inorganics, on this planet.  While I suspect that it has absolutely no impact on convection currents, and some chemotrophes may be exempt (I am sure some of them will be effected,, after all the ocean's chemistry is changing) all known sentient life will certainly be strongly impacted.

Basicly:

Current climate change is anthropogenic and we are responsible for fixing it.

Audience: humans.

Purpose, convince humans that they are responsible for reducing pollution.

They should care because we all are stuck with this planet.  If we don't act it will only get worse faster.  They may believe there is nothing they can do.