Is this a good conclusion for an essay?

Question

The essay is against the idea that man is causing global warming. This is what I had in mind for the end.

Whether global warming is man made or not I think that nature will take care of itself and resolve its own problems, it already has for millions of years! The world will continue to spin one day at a time regardless of us. We can choose to worry and fret about what will happen or we can continue living our daily lives and let nature go through its natural cycles.

Is this good what do you think?

This isnt the whole essay just the end. Ive allready discussed the other important topics.

im not saying we are all going to die! Im saying this is a normal cycle not somthing to worry about! In the 70s they said there was global cooling, now theres global warming? Its just a cycle the earth goes through. The orbital system of earth is so complex that no one understands it. One change in the movments of the celestial bodys, even a milimeter, could drastically change the earths weather patters and temperatures. Global warming is just a orbital cycle the earth goes through every couple hundred years. Hell we havnt even been able to accuratly measure temperature or weather conditions on earth very long. Only for about 200 years have we been able to. Even then, fine measurements only became possible in the 40s or 50s. So im not saying we are all gunna die. Im not being selfish and not thinking about the future generations. Im only thinking for myself unlike many people who have been brain washed by libs and their agendas. Think for yourselves for once people. Do some research!

Answer 1

The first comma should be a semi-colon. "Nature" is better capitalized, and, if you are going to anthropomorphize nature, note that custom accords her a feminine gender; thus: "her natural cycles". Having personified nature, you might then prefer "follow" to "through".

As a piece of text, this is quite grammatical, and stylistically unobjectionable.

On the content side, I might beg to differ. Yes, the world will continue to spin, and Life will - almost certainly - go on. The point is that SMALL changes in the weather could be absolutely devastating to human civilization and economy. Remember the events of "The Day After Tomorrow"? O.K., that's a fictional account, but it is worth bearing in mind, that the events that reduce the US to the status of a banana republic would have relatively little impact on global life as a whole.

So, yes we can take a Pollyanna approach to global warming. This is usually the approach taken by people who have never imagined what such scenarios entail. In any case, we are not just "letting nature go ahead with her natural cycles". I thought that was the whole point made by the environmentalists. We are polluting the planet, and destroying significant sections of the life which depends on her. Today, there are over 6 billion people on the face of the globe - only just over a hundred years ago, there were but one billion, and it took 500 million years to get to that figure. And at least 3 billion of the current population are becoming more affluent and leaving a bigger footprint on the planet.

You know, only a few years ago there was a CFC crisis, when it was determined that this chemical was building up over the Antarctic and destroying the ozone layer. As a result, CFC's were banned, and it appears that the Ozone Hole is now on the mend. This is a clear and unambiguous example of how human activity can affect life, and in very detrimental ways. It is also a clear example of how rational and civilized human decisions, taken upon scientific evidence, and in collaboration with many nations, can achieve an outcome that is right for the planet and right for humans.

Now, would you have advised everyone to just sit back and let Nature go on with its "natural cycles" when it came to the vote for or against CFCs?

Nature has wonderful feedback mechanisms that help to even out biological stresses. That is part of the Gaia hypothesis. But there is nothing magical about those processes. They can be overwhelmed. Something like that happened on Venus - a runaway greenhouse effect - and turned it into the poisonous hell of eternal cyclones driving sulphuric rain that it is today.

We are no longer Neolithic Man, subject to nature and living at her whim. Now, man has become so strong, that his presence threatens to harm those very "natural cycles" you mention. So now, surely, it is time for man to become the steward and not just the exploiter of Nature. What else is science good for if it cannot guide us in this quest? And what more important or noble quest can there be for us in this time?

Answer 2

Ok.

The conclusion is kind of a way to throw all of your main ideas back into the face of the reader before you let them go. Pretend they're idiots and they've already forgot the very few basics of your argument. I'm sure you have plenty of reasons during the BODY of the essay, why you think man is NOT responsible for global warming, right? Did you do a bit of research to see what professionals argue against man being the cause? I actually don't know many. But say one reason is that scientist have never dealt with this issue before, so they aren't even really sure what they're looking at. And say another is that, like you said, mother nature is always deteriorating, and it's still managed to continue onward. You will want to repeat those few reasons you mentioned earlier in you paper in the conclusion. Also, for some reason when I first read it I didn't like the use of the exclaimation point, but that really doesn't matter at all.

By the way, my example and what I'm saying is probably totally incorrect (I did no research) but use your judgement. Remember to insert in any additional "reasons" that man is NOT responsible for global warming that you wrote in earlier paragraphs. It ties up the paper better.

Ex.

Clearly, the issue of Global warming is controversial. The fact that scientists are constantly puzzled by the new data suggests that global warming may not even exist to begin with. Whether global warming is man made or not, mother nature may be able to take care of itself and resolve its own problems - it already has for millions of years. The world will continue to spin one day at a time regardless of us. We can choose to worry and fret about what will happen or we can continue living our daily lives and let nature go through its natural cycles, as we each go through our own.


Thrown together, I don't know. Best of Luck!

Answer 3

you be attentive to there are 3 significant areas of an essay, suited? The introduction comes first. Then the main suitable physique or argument comes next. Then the top comes final. nicely, once you think of roughly those 3 areas, do no longer attempt to do them in the order they're often written in an essay. Do the main suitable physique first on account this is the place you write each and every of the significant belongings you desire to tell people. Then bypass lower back and do the introduction and end because of the fact the intro and end the two rely on what you have put in the main suitable physique. right this is the way it is going: in the introduction, you tell THEM WHAT you will tell THEM. So this is going to say something like, "in this essay i'll stipulate the thank you to place in writing a great essay." in the main suitable physique, you tell IT TO THEM. So it could have an entire load of paragraphs approximately the thank you to place in writing a great essay. in the top, you tell THEM WHAT you have merely informed THEM. So this is going to say something like, "in this essay I even have stated the three maximum suitable technique for writing a great essay. in case you carry on with those classes nicely, you will get an A grade each and every time." I even have performed 5 tiers in my life and that i've got used this easy define for virtually each and every essay I ever wrote. sturdy success.

Answer 4

Never refer to yourself when writing a paper, so do not use the words "I", "me", or "just". All in all, not that bad of a conclusion for your opinion on the topic.

In addition, you need a comma after the word "not" in the first sentence.

Answer 5

It is okay...but it doesn't really address the idea that man is not the cause of global warming.

Answer 6

Your first sentence contains a run-on. Don't switch from "I" to "we". I don't agree with what you are saying here, but it is an OK paragraph.

Answer 7

It is the most rational conclusion I've seen yet.

Answer 8

yes. well it depends upon how ur teacher taught u the format. but it looks good to me

Answer 9

Sounds good to me.

Answer 10

since mother nature has been slaughtered and the rivers are filled with mud....