I have a paper to write for geology class on global warming. What stance should I take?

Question

My teacher says "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore was another attempt for political gain and that we are in an Ice Age currently. What should I say in my paper?

Answer 1

Proactive...global warming is a serious threat,and people need to realize that.
The way it looks, nobody will do a thing until they are swimming for their lives when the polar ice caps melt.
Go watch "An Inconvenient Truth"
Awesome crash course on global warming..
On the other hand if you agree with your teacher, you are more likey to get a good grade....let your conscience (and your teacher's political inclination) decide!

Answer 2

The truth is that many geoscientists consider the Earth to be in an Ice Age right now because the Earth typically doesn't show evidence of ice, even at the polar regions. That makes your teacher right. Also, Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, yet he speaks with certainty about global warming that no scientist would, for scientists like to speak about the probability of something occurring. If you take the Earth's history as a whole, we are in a rare period of "Global Cooling". 11,000 years ago there was 2 miles of ice on top of Wisconsin, so global warming must start from that point, and the only thing that can be argued would be has global warming increased due to burning of fossil fuels. If you are going to support global warming, you should put it in that context. A topic sentence may be, "Although the Earth has been warming up since the Wisconsonian Stage of the Pleistocene 11,000 years ago, the burning of fossil fuels starting at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has increased that rate of warming."

Answer 3

I would support global warming. As far as political gain, Al Gore has been involved in environmental issues for years and years. This is not a new fad that he has latched onto for political gain. In fact, I think it has worked against him in his political life because industry and conservatives feel threatened by having to think about making any changes.

If you go the the website for "An Inconvenient Truth" you can get access to the graphs and data used on the program. Just be sure that you write your paper in a nonconfrontational manner since you already know that your teacher has the opposing view. Present facts and arguments based on facts.

However, to write the best paper you should choose the point of view that you actually believe. If you don't know what to believe, read a few extra articles during your research and keep a couple of lists - for and against. Then make up your own mind.

Answer 4

(not too good in english)
yes we are entering an ice age,
i've watched it in national geographic,
its because of a catastrophe happened 75,000 yrs ago,
its a volcanic erruption from indonesia, the mt. toba.

suppose that we get some global warming and more polar ice melts, what then? The melting ice could dilute the salt water, which will not sink and the conveyor belt will stop. When it stops, it will no longer bring warm water toward the poles. Without the warm water, the polar areas will get colder and that will stop the ice from melting. It will also freeze out more water, re-starting the sinking of salt water and starting the conveyor belt again. Darn clever, isn't it? This mechanism has been postulated to be responsible for short sharp periods of cold. One of these ice ages started 13,000 years ago and lasted for a mere 1,500 years. At the end of this, global temperatures rose suddenly by a spectacular 7 degrees C. Changes of as little as 1 or 2 degrees C. were believed to be responsible for the Little Ice Age that occurred about 750 years ago.

More spectacular drops in temperature have been attributed to the eruption of Mt.Toba in Sumatra, 73,500 years ago. In a year or less, temperatures may have dropped 3 to 5 degrees C. globally, and as much as 15 degrees in northern regions.

Answer 5

This will be a great experience. You can show your teacher they're wrong. I can only hope that that was their point; not to take stuff in school as absolute truth without proof.

Point out that Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with the science that supports global warming. Then focus on the science.

There's a completely overwhelming amount of scientific data showing that it's real and caused mostly by man.

Short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The best summary of the data:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The data is why scientists know it's mostly us and not the sun, volcanoes, etc. The data is why the vast majority of scientists think it's real. Proof.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

What's going to happen if we don't start doing something about it now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6538779,00.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

These people are convinced by the science, in spite of their political beliefs. Point out that they're hardly fans of Al Gore.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

“With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to take action.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

Answer 6

Is it a requirement that you take either a pro or con position?
Why don't you present the strongest arguments on both sides? If you're free to choose any style you want, write the paper as a "conversation" between two people, one convinced that global warming is an immediate threat and the other taking the position that your teacher apparently does (which frankly amazes and alarms me-------but that's not relevant here!).

Good luck!

Answer 7

I suggest looking at the data, not opinions. Al Gore isn't the only one saying these things, there's a lot of data behind him, gathered by many many scientists.

I suggest the IPCC report, even in short point form looks well helpful.

Also you can take the stand that no matter what, we can make the technology to offset climate change, and we can offer climate stability to the planet.

Also you can take the stand, that our cities are filled with smog, and people are dying from it, and it's costing a lot of tax dollars to treat them. Our health is degenerating because of toxic air basically, it seems more important with this human touch.

Or you could assess what it would mean for people in third world countries if it continues, how their landscape changes because of it.

Answer 8

That it's BS drummed up by the extreme left wing liberal democrats and the communist Green Party to scare people into thinking the world is going to hell in a handbasket. How come every time one of these global 'scares' come to the forefront, the Democrats are spearheading the push to tell everybody about it? Every decade or so they come up with some new environmental tragedy bandwagon that only serves to gain them notice, and what better way to turn the world's attention to their campaign than by pretending to be environmentally conscious and responsible, and making capitalist industry and free market society the scourge of all existence and the downfall of modern man? If Global Warming really was such a major problem, why is there so much evidence AGAINST it's existence? Why also was the idea of global warming first talked about over a decade ago, just before democrat Bill Clinton was elected, but then almost as quickly, the topic dissappeared from the political forefront, only to reappear as soon as a Republican was elected to the presidency? As much as the Democrat Al Gore would like us to believe there is an enormous amount of scientific evidence to support Global Warming, the fact remains there's just as much evidence against it. I agree with your teacher, that it's merely another attempt for political gain, and I also offer my congratulations to you for finding the one teacher who is not a bedwetting liberal democrat. Good luck!

Answer 9

Why take any particular stance at all?

I think that the total argument for pro and con are exceedingly interesting.

And since both sides already have their minds made up - you might as well be - as objective like that Great Author and Novelist John Toland was!

That way both sides will look upon you with open minds and eyes!

Otherwise you may make many enemies accordingly.

You can always give them the facts both pro and con - and let them decide!

Answer 10

Man.....your teacher running for office??
The topic is global warming not what Al Gores' "attempt" was.

You should write what your take is on the subject, and not what your teacher is preaching.

There are plenty of pros and cons on the subject; Google away !