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.

p.100 Thinking about the Text

1.If it had been necessary to convince me of her view point Katherine Spriggs would have done so. As it happens I already agree with the topic, that said I appreciate the points she makes and the evidence that she uses to back up her points. The examples of how polyculture farms can work, such as the pigs plowing blueberries, are especially useful; especially when one considers that monoculture farms are wasting resources trying to make up for the fact that they don't do those things. Spriggs' explanation of how adversely the current system effects the environment solidly establishes the importance of her topic.

2.She considers the argument that small farms are not as efficient as large farms and refutes it by pointing out that it really depends on the efficiency you are looking for; small farms are more efficient when it comes to “total output of all crops per acre” as opposed to “output of one crop per acre.” She addresses the possibility of growing more food in the U.S. having a greater negative impact on the environment then our current system as the U.S. uses more advanced technology then the 3^rd world nations we import food from, by offering the statistics that the American diet is only 13% imported.

3.The fact that scientists predict that by 2030 the glaciers of Glacier National Park will be purely history is especially convincing to me, because of the following points: it is very appropriate background info, it is a crystal clear indication of why it matters, it is both good reasoning and evidence, it may appeal to whatever values a vaguely environmentally conscious person has left.

4.The photographs that Spriggs' includes give us a look into the portions of the world she is talking about. The photo of gourds in the farmers market show shopping locally in a pleasant light, encouraging people to visit there and shop locally. The opposing photos of a small polyculture farm and a large monoculture farm show us the stark reality of their differences, the former has a human for scale and neat rows of identifiable plants laid out neatly in the dirt, whereas the latter is on a such a scale that a human would be a speck and the plants are little more than a uniform green carpet of strict mechanized gloom. The photo of trucks trucking on down the road amid the forest green brings home the environmental impact of transporting food that is imported from somewhere else.

Ælfhild Wiklund's Annotation

for

Characteristic

features of

position papers

Analysis of “What is Threatening Polarbears article?”

The website endangeredpolarbear.com has an article entitled “What is Threatening Polar Bears?.” The article explains how humans are damaging our planet in such a manner as to destroy the polar bears' habitat. The article uses facts, such as the nature of the Greenhouse Effect, to support its viewpoint.

Copy of text from:

http://www.endangeredpolarbear.com/polar-bear-threats.html

What is Threatening Polar Bears?

 Appropriate  Polar bears live in a very specific habitat.  They need the cold, snow and ice of  the polar regions.  That is why   background    they are called "polar bears" and not "summer  bears."  Polar bears have very few natural threats in the polar   information.  region.  Polar  bears are on the top of the food chain and there are no other animals in the  north that will                              threaten the polar bears.  So why are the polar bears now on the  threatened/endangered species  list?

                 Polar bears are not threatened because of other animals or because they are  being hunted too much.                 Appeal to  Polar bears are threatened as a direct effect on how we as humans treat the earth and the environment.            readers values. People have begun to take the Earth for granted.  They have treated it as thought it is indestructible.  When if                       fact, the earth is destructible, and we are destroying it.   

                           Polar bears live in the arctic, and like many other places on earth, the  has had scientists who are learning                        about what is happening to  that specific region of the earth.  The scientists have been doing deep core .                           This is where they drill a hole down into the ice and pull out a core of  ice.   In this core of ice the scientists can                       get very specific information about the weather, the atmosphere, and the temperature for a specific                                         time period.  These core tests can determine facts from 420,000 years.
                         The deep core tests have revealed facts about the CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere.  There is a               Evidence. natural up and down range that the levels have, these levels have never gone over 300 parts per million, that                         is until recent years.  Now what does this mean?  It means that some of the carbon dioxide that used                                         to leave the Earth's atmosphere is now remaining inside the atmosphere.  The carbon  dioxide that is                               remaining on earth, also known as greenhouse gases, is raising  the earth's temperature, causing the                                 "Greenhouse Effect."

                   Now you may wonder what all of this has to do with the polar bears.  The polar bears live in a very                                  sensitive environment.   The  arctic region is made of snow and ice.  Snow and ice is what the polar bears                           depend on for their survival.  The "Greenhouse Effect" warms the earth, and therefore, melts the precious snow                               and ice that the polar bears need for survival.
                     So it is easy to deduce from this, that we, humans, are the cause of the polar bears being threatened.  We are An explicit         slowly killing the planet and most of us are oblivious to it.  Global warming can be slowed down, the polar    opinion is stated  bears do have  a chance.

Characteristic Features not found:

A response to what others have said or done.

A clear indication of why the topic matters.

Attention to more than one point of view.

I believe that by including a response to what others have said or done and by paying attention to more than one point of view they could have composed a worthy counter-argument which would have addressed concerns that would be converts to their position might have. Such as, there is nothing we can do, or why should we care about a nasty ferocious bear? Not that I think that way but I know that some people do.

Brain storm for position paper

Anthropogenic climate disorder.

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 believe there is nothing they can do.

Pygmy kayaks get you closer to the water in style.

 Running Start is preferable to AP classes.

School holidays should be evenly divided throughout the year.

Dragons are the most advanced magical creature.

Paranormal fantasy is inferior to fairytales or sword and sorcery.

Humans are incredibly destructive creatures.

People should dress as they please, fashion is ridiculous.

In Class Video Analyses

In Class Video Analyses

We all chose three different videos.

Someone dies in every video.

Pathos:

All use emotional appeals of people who were close with the victim(s) like their parents.

Sad music which hits your emotions

They all had close ups.

Logos:

They all involved driving accidents and the driver doing something they shouldn’t be doing.

The statistics of their age, being in their late teens, appeals to logic.

In one of the videos there was a doctor speaking.

Ethos:

They all built up the victim’s character and the credibility of the speakers.

To identify the relationship the speakers had with the victims they had labels.

Summary and Analysis of “Distracted Driving” Video

Ælfhild Wiklund

    The “Distracted Driving” video, by the Childrens' Hospital London Health Sciences Center, trauma program, is a youtube video about the effects of the momentary distraction of Joshua Lewis Field on himself and his associates. An illfated grab for his cell phone cost him his life. He was a comic person and his loss was a great blow to all who knew him. In the video his associates seek to prevent others from repeating his mistake.

    The video uses a variety of emotional appeals: melancholy background music, the sorrow drenched voices of those who knew him, first hand anecdotes, tears. The anecdotes appealed to ethos by building our image of the victim (who also happened to be the perpetrator) and the labels on each speaker established their credibility: mother, friend, doctor. The harsh reality of his death, the numbers 1991-2009, all appeal to logic, we don't want that to be us after all. Some of the anecdotes appealed to our emotions in a more abstract manner, such as impromptu parties at work, which made clear just how much people would miss him. Others could almost be seen as a logical appeal, fragments of home videos and the fact that he was going into the video industry when he got older, but didn't make it; we can recognize that if we made his mistake our plans could be cut short, linking very directly to the logical appeal of, I don't want to die.

In Class Lab 11/10

Peace Sign Buttons

                The first button suggests just peace symbol and fancy writing. The second basically says that peace is love not war, also that there is no love in war. The first button says “Peace”. The second button says “Make Love Not War”. They both have a universal peace sign. People wore these buttons in protest to the wars going on in the 60’s. The button on the left is more relaxed with its wavy font, the one on the right is saying you should do this. It is more bold and specified, also, it is stricter and sharp, and clear cut lines.

Symbols of Patriotism--- USA, Great Britain, and France

                They are suggesting that patriotism comes in different forms. America has a Bald Eagle with an American Flag. Great Britain has a Bulldog and the national flag. Lastly, France has a motto, Liberte (freedom), Egalite (equality), Fraternite (fraternity/brotherhood).  The first image on the left is sharp, with the lines of the flag to the outline of the bird with the black background, it shows how severe and strong the USA is. The eagle represents freedom because birds can go anywhere, they are limitless. Great Britain’s flag in this picture looks like it expands forever. The dog standing atop of it has a proud and big stance. France, the picture to the right might be a little contradictory because there is a security camera in the picture, when the quote contains the word “freedom”.   

THESIS: Every nation has something to represent it that stands for the nation's pride. These three images convey this in the manner explained below.

The bald eagle represents to American citizens strength and bravery. In the image the eagle is integrated with the flag signifying that it has become part of the nation. The bulldog looks like it is guarding the flag which is a symbol of the nation, discouraging enemies from challenging them. France's motto is showing its strength by being written in stone.

In Class Lab 11/10 Tim Wise

What ARGUMENTS does the author make? He has a stance as whether or not we should use the N-word as white people. His position is that white people should not use that word, it is none or our business. Yes by answering these questions we will be analyzing.

How persuasive do you find the argument? It is very persuasive, Tim Wise gives a lot of examples and he is very informed with his argument. He also wrote a book and during the video he would quote some lines from it. None of Tim’s assumptions are questionable, he seems credible. His white friend didn’t understand why he couldn’t use that word even though his friends (black or white) used that word. It like his analogy with your mom, you can say whatever you want about your own mom but no one else dares or you will be very upset. “His Jewish grandfather can make jokes about Jews, but the local Christian church cannot”.

What is the authors STANCE? Tim is very biased. Any argument is biased in its own way. Since Tim is from the south, he knows the community and how they can use the N-word or certain phrases that have a negative effect on certain communities. Tim Wise does consider the opposing views, he talks about how some white people think they are helping the black community by saying it. Tim acknowledged other viewpoints but he only cited his own.

Does the publisher bring a certain stance to the work? The book publisher(s) had to have agreed with Tim and his stance in some way.

Do you recognize ideas you’ve run across in other sources? We know that as white people we don’t have the right to say the N-word.

Does this source support or challenge your own position?  We agree with his

What can you tell about the intended AUDIENCE and PURPOSE?  The audience is mainly white people. The purpose is to convince white people that they have no right to use that word. We are members of the audience addressed. The main purpose is to argue a certain point.

Summary of p. 269-284

Arguments are everywhere.  Everyday we deal with arguments morning through night and they play an important role.  We make arguments on many levels: from the minor arguments on what to wear each day to magnificent essays purporting your views on global affairs.  In essence, arguments play a crucial role in rhetorical communication.

(exercise on p.70)
I recently wrote an e-mail to a fellow student advocating a boating program we had both participated in and lamenting the lack of students this year.  I made clear that we needed more people and that the person was welcome.  I also responded to the person's reason for not taking the class (she didn't have the class time totally free) by pointing out that it is a flexible program that would welcome her at whatever times she could join us.

(exercise on p.69)
The show of multiple types of people embraces more than just the "white bread american" types which reaches out to a wider group of people (and supports a black president).  The video did this with more than just color though, it did it with age and style too.  The combining of mediums connects to us on multiple levels, with the complexity of supporting words and the compelling compilation of images.  The combination of mediums strives to reach as much of the receptive portions of our brains as it can, even including music which is supposed to be very stimulating to the brain.  The sign language is a nice touch, which again ads to the all welcoming feel of the video.  From white children to black gray beards, from sleek singers to average guitar players this video encompasses a wide range of human types.  While personally I found the overlapping voices a bit confusing the message definitely comes across and I can see how some people to see it as a magnifying method for the intensity of the display.  The visual text even connects to those of us who learn by reading.  All in all an excellent example of reaching out through multiple mediums at once.

Taking Stock -- English 101

Taking Stock -- English 101

Take stock of what you've written and learned by writing out answers to these questions: 

1.        How did you go about analyzing the text? What methods did you use—and which ones were most helpful?

I considered the motives and appeals of the ad and advertising agency.  I found it particularly helpful to consider the viewers reaction.

2.       How did you go about drafting your essay?

I started with a thesis and then  worked my way through paragraph by paragraph from intro to conclusion.

3.       How well did you organize your written analysis? What, if anything, could you do to make it easier to read?

I think I did a good job of organizing it and honestly can't think of a thing that would make it easier to read.

4.       Did you provide sufficient evidence to support your analysis?

I drew evidence directly from the ad in direct support of my analysis and I think it was enough.

5.       What did you do especially well?

I think that I did an especially good job of identifying the audience and explaining my view.

6.       What could still be improved?

It is possible that I could have done a better job of picking and explaining my evidence.

7.       Did you use any visuals, and if so, what did they add? Could you have shown the same thing with words?

I used the images of the ads I was analyzing, and while I could have shown it with words, and did in places,  the ads provided primary source evidence.

8.       How did other readers' responses influence your writing?

My visit to the writing tutoring center improved my punctuation.

9.       What would you do differently next time?

Next time I would use better punctuation the first time since I have a better idea how.

10.   Are you pleased with your analysis? What did it teach you about the text you analyzed? Did it make you want to study more works by the same writer or artist?

I am pleased by my analysis.  I learned a lot about how the ads were structured.  And no  I have no real interest in looking at other ads.

11.   What are the transferrable  skills you can take from this into other writing situations?

The specific analyzation questions for works such as these.

Textual Analysis Paper: Three Ads for Threatened Species

Ælfhild Wiklund

All over the world species are dying. Many people are working to prevent these extinctions and one of the things they do is publish advertisements to raise awareness and money. In my search for a worthy cause to study, I came across three ads; it was their differences as much as their similarities that drew me in, and I chose to share them with you. First the ad of the panda mask, which evokes guilt and pity for its cause. Second the ad of the selfies three, which addresses a modern crowd. Third, but not least, is the whale of words: who stands a grim silent echo of what could be. To compare and contrast is my goal, and the time and place is now. I have gathered a trio of ads, for assorted threatened species, that use multiple methods to reach a varied audience to raise awareness of their woes and to convince people to help their cause.

This ad from the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) seeks support for bluefin tuna. It is aimed at people who eat tuna and people who love animals, especially pandas. Ideally it would reach people who belong to both groups. This audience is indicated by the text "Would you care more if I was a panda?" and the panda mask on the tuna. The implication of the ad is that the tuna deserve help as much as the pandas. Pandas are typically seen as peaceful cuddly bears which rouses peoples sympathies concerning their plight; this ad attempts to extend this to tuna. The purpose of this ad is to raise awareness of the danger to tuna, which, according to the site I found this ad on, is extinction due to over-fishing. The site says that WWF is using this campaign in an attempt to restrict the tuna catch in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean to less than 6,000 tonnes per year. To achieve their purpose they appeal to the viewers emotions through the comparison to pandas and to a lesser extent the aesthetics of the scene with the sun shining down through the school turning the sea to a lovely progression of blue shades emphasized by the darkening of the lower corners. They also use the “Would you care more if I was a panda?” plea to entwine this cause with your emotions and appeal to the sense of fairness in our ethical sides. Because, really, are tuna less deserving of our help because they aren't cute and cuddly? I certainly don't think so, especially when considering the long term effects, which could very well include the absence of tuna from the menu, forever. Such a possibility is not something that those of us who enjoy eating tuna are likely to condone, if we think that far. Also, simply by putting forth tuna as in need of our aid, they address the common value that we are responsible for our world and our peoples actions. In general this ad uses the stance of how things are today, and attempts to play off our sympathy for pandas and sense of fairness, to sway people to their side.

This ad was also put forth into the realm of internet by the World Wildlife Federation. This case is to raise awareness of multiple species on the brink of extinction. This ad is intended for modern Americans, particularly animal lovers, especially the modern generations who are obsessed with selfies. I concluded that based on the fact that the images are, by all appearances, selfies and the text "Don't let this be my #LastSelfie". While it is qualitative rather than quantitative I consider the pitiful pleading "puppy-eyes" expression all the animals wear further evidence from the ad; in this case proving that it is intended for animal lovers even those who don't see themselves that way as it appeals to our emotions. The purpose of this ad is to raise awareness of endangered species and to reach an audience that might otherwise ignore the plight. I say this of the modern generation because many Americans today are so steeped in the virtual realms online that they don't always understand the full significance of things in the real world. This ad puts things into perspective for those people as the idea that this is the animal's last selfie is tantamount to the animal's death, in this case that of the entire species. This ad shows the issue from a perspective rarely considered and persuades people in the new crowd to see the deadly truth many species today face.

It was the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) that published this elegant ad. It is my personal opinion that it would appeal to people who appreciate art, especially art found in nature; I believe this to be the case because of the artistic qualities of the ad: the water droplets of the splash spotlighted by sunbeams; the word “whale” shaped to represent a pose often taken by the creature it defines in art. Of course animal lovers are once again members of the intended audience, particularly those of an oceanic bent. The text, “Will only words remain?” gives a clear cut and depressing significance to the picture. The question combined with “Time is running out!” gives the viewers an impression of urgency and draws in animal activists and lovers. I believe the presence of the text “Visit IFAW.org” immediately after the main text is an intentional choice that is meant to, and probably does, draw more people to the site as the main text has lit the fire for action in their blood and lo an action is available. The purpose is in all likelyhood to raise awareness of the danger to whales and spread knowledge of IFAW, so that more people will support their cause, likely by giving them money. They work towards that purpose by presenting a pretty picture, with an eloquent message. The picture and query speak to our emotions. The words including IFAW appeal to our rational and ethical natures. It also addresses the belief that we are responsible for preserving the world. It appeals to the value that we must not let such a symbolic creature become nothing more than a historical symbol. This ad uses an approach that addresses what could be and addresses what some might consider a more refined audience than the selfie ad does. Again, however, it reaches out for help for the sake of species in dire need of our consideration.

All three ads promote the same worthy cause: to support animals in need of our constructive interference. But each goes about it in a different way. Where the tuna and whale ads use appealing aesthetics to address the normal audiences for their cause, the other ad uses a different approach seeking out allies among the modern technology worshiping crowd by speaking their language, remember “#LastSelfie.” Unlike the first two ads the whale ad replaces the animal in its image with text; this is precisely the opposite of the tuna ad which adds the panda mask and the selfie ad which superimposes text across the animals' faces. Of them all the tuna ad is the least urgent, relying instead on a softer emotional appeal. While the selfie ad drives home the point to its particular crowd the whale ad really sinks in the potential consequences for the rest of us, admittedly in a more sophisticated way. The ads overall address the danger of extinction to animals in a manner that appeals to a variety of audiences, though all address animal lovers and conservation activists. As you should now see there are many ways to achieve the same result and many audiences that can be reached if you show things from different perspectives. Long live the threatened heterotrophs!