I wrote this for my persuasive essay in my Honors English 10 class:
“To say that CO2 is the primary cause of temperature change is like saying that lung cancer causes smoking” said Dr. Bob Carter (Beck 6). Carter, a global warming skeptic, believes that the rise in carbon dioxide and temperature levels are independent of each other, contrary to popular belief. Global warming is nothing more than a media scam to fool the masses. The media makes global warming seem like a major catastrophe when it is nothing more than a natural occurrence. Global warming cannot be solved with money or protocols, no matter how strict and harsh they may be.
“Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares…From 1895 until the 1930’s, the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s, they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s, they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the…fourth attempt to promote…climate change fears during the last 100 years” (Haugen 1). The media always has and always will have a great influence over the population. People believe what the media has to say, no matter how biased or wrong it may be. The media currently advocates that global warming should be our number one priority. However, that is not the case. The media has been extremely biased in informing the people on global warming. “[In mid-September 2006], the vice president of London’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism” (Haugen 1). In other words, the London government was telling media sources to only put out information that told how bad global warming is to its readers. This shows how biased the media can be with its information. Only providing one opinion on a subject is not what the media should be about. They should be an unbiased source for people to get their news from. People are not able to fully understand global warming because they do not have all the facts about it. The media only tells readers about studies that are pro-global warming when they should be showing stories that are for and against the issue. “If we have runaway global warming as the alarmists have told us, our temperatures would be climbing and instead they're cooling. We now have almost 500 scientists who have spoken out in the last year calling this global warming a scam” said John Coleman in a March 5, 2008 interview with radio personality Glenn Beck. Coleman is a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel. Coleman frequently speaks out against global warming and believes it’s a scam. He is one of the many scientists that are trying to show that not all scientists that support the global warming theory and that there are other opinions.
However, there is no arguing that global warming does not exist. There is an argument in how bad it is and what should be done about it. Global warming should not be everyone’s greatest concern because it’s not as big of a deal as it seems to be. In the last 100 years, the temperature has risen 0.74 degrees (+/- 0.18 degree) Celsius (Beck 4). The temperature change is not nearly as bad as it is presented. Sure, it is warming, but it’s also cooling, all at a constantly changing pace. “For example, if we go back just a few hundred thousand years and we go to Antarctica…the warm period in Antarctica was 5 degrees warmer than today and…the planet went about its business as usual and nothing particularly untoward happened,” said Carter in an interview with Glenn Beck on March 3, 2008. Carter shows that global warming has happened in the past and has not had severe devastation to the world. Temperature change will not affect the world as greatly as it is said to.
Furthermore, the costs to stop global warming are also a reason why this is a fight not worth fighting. According to the United Nations International Panel on Climate Control (UN IPCC) projections, it would cost the world $2.4 to $26.5 trillion to lower the temperature just two degrees Celsius (Beck, 21). In other words, it would cost a lot of money for little result. This money would be much better suited in helping fight AIDS, hunger, or other dire situations. America’s economy currently has a huge deficit. The United States cannot afford to solve global warming, even if that were possible.
In addition, the Kyoto Protocol is an agreement between countries around the world that is trying to cut greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries. Basically, Kyoto is an attempt to stop global warming. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United States all are countries that are part of this agreement. Yet some countries, such as Australia and the United States, stick with this protocol, though they do not support it (Kyoto). The Kyoto Protocol also is costing billions of dollars to these countries. “These enormous sums [$180 billion a year] would delay the globe’s expected rate of heating over the next century by just five percent. Assuming Kyoto is allowed to expire in 2012, its total effect will have been to delay…global warming by an estimated one week” (Kay 1). If global warming will only be delayed a week, there is no point in continuing Kyoto and trying to stop global warming. The world cannot afford billions, even trillions, of dollars because these countries already have huge deficits built up. Kyoto is another pointless attempt to stop something that cannot be stopped. Kyoto’s money would be much better suited funding something that actually needs to be helped, like cancer research or world hunger.
The question now is what should be done about global warming? How should the world fight back against global warming? The answer is to simply do nothing. The world should not waste its money on fighting a pointless battle. All the effort that would go into it would be a waste. Once global warming is better researched, the world can decide what needs to be done about it. There is so much that is unknown about the climate so we cannot begin to fight it. The world is too focused on global warming and should turn its interests elsewhere. Global warming will not necessarily be a bad thing to the world. According to an article by John Reilly, global warming will help famines and food shortages in areas. “This trend [climate change] may…exacerbate famine potential in some areas. Many local production changes may create a global picture of sufficient food” (Reilly 106). Global warming will help food production by increasing its time to be grown and its quantity at the end of the season. If global warming will help the world in the long run, why should there be an effort to put an end to it?
SIDE NOTE:
I'm not against recycling or anything like that. I believe its a good idea and can help to make the environment cleaner. I don't want to be seen as "anti-environment." That would be a ridiculous thought.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
if you dont mind me asking, what did you get on this essay as a grade?
I turn it in tomorrow, so I don't know yet
I'll post it when I find out
Tegan.
oh alright.
It's odd to read this since I just got through writing an AP synthesis on the topic which is completely a polar from your writing. I can't say I completely agree entirely with your paper, or mine for the matter.
Yeah, that would be weird to read both.
You have yours posted anywhere?
Tegan.
no, i dont have it posted anywhere. it was a class timed essay, so i turned it in then. When I get it back I'll try to type it up and post it, its a bit lengthy though.
That's it? Global Warming is a media hoax?
I reckon that'd be mighty nice writin' science fiction like them studio broadcasters.
The largest argument against that theory is that such a hoax would be a complete conflict of interest for our national news industry because they are in bed with their advertisers, the coal and gas industries.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Except for your wrong. It is controlled by the media. I don't see any reason for thinking otherwise.
Tegan.
Which seems to be incorrect?
My belief that climate change is occurring at a heightened rate?
OR
That each national media outlet (including PBS) is sponsored by oil and gas companies, which profit from human induced warming?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
I never said that each media outlet is not sponsored by oil and gas companies.
But when's the last time you've ever seen a story about people dying from cold? It happens all the time, but the news only features stories on people who die in the heat or anything to do with suffering in the heat.
I know how the media works.
Tegan.
i agree with the fact that global warming is a scam built up by the media,...."kansas city shuffle" (good movie),....the media is just trying to make us focus on one situation to keep us from focusing on whats really happening,...
but i do think that we should be more cautious of what we throw into the air,...were still polluting the air with thousand of gallons of cr@p,...and we should be aware of how thats affecting our ecosystem and the air we breathe.
What, if you don't mind, should we be focusing on?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Helping our economy and Iraq and issues other than global warming...
Tegan.
Our economy, the war and climate change form an inextricably linked web.
Every study and news report I've read about a green economy suggests that green collar jobs are the next wave of prosperity--something that will make up for shortfalls in the housing industry; have no fears, America could lead the world in manufacturing again.
And not only that-- the production and ingenuity of bright green technologies (look it up) will ween us of our addiction to foreign oil, which besides being a fossil fuel connected to climate change, has led to our unarguable "role" in the Middle East. The forecast says we'll be out of Iraq when we achieve energy independence.
Are you doing yer part to reduce (conservation) and reuse?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
I have been watching a few semi-trucks a day pass through Wyoming headed for Montana (or maybe Canada?) loaded with massively huge blades for wind turbines.
My understanding is that these are manufactured in Brazil.
Just because something is green is no reason to believe it would be manufactured in the USA. Among other things, environmentalists have driven up the cost of manufacturing to the point where it makes more sense to do it elsewhere.
Okay, this is an interesting argument. European companies currently take the cake on producing windmills, you're right. Fuhrlander, a German company recently made a claim in Butte, Montana. Only problem, like you've indicated, is that they were manufactured in Germany-- they're sent here to "assemble". Not exactly a green economy, right?
But when you're bringing a product or an idea to the marketplace, you don't exactly start by discussing its limitations. Don't say you're not in favor of revamping our economy so that we're not only consumers, so that we're actually producing something other than weapons...
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Environmentalists have also driven the demand for a new domestic manufacturing sector in this country.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
I studied under a leading climatologist last year (http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/ this guy; he is awesome), when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report came out. I'm not being an alarmist and don't appreciate your flippancy on my blog. You focus a lot on in this essay on the financial costs of climate change, but don't seem to consider the costs of fossil fuel or scarce resources, as well as the incalculable cost of losing polar bears and other animals living in cold habitats. You're making a lot of generalized statements but not looking at the issue: why would the media make this up?
Climate scientists have figured out that though we are in a natural warming cycle, the Earth is getting hotter than it should be. I believe it was the Stern report in Great Britain that estimated we could overhaul the world's energy production and end greenhouse gas emissions by spending the same amount of money that has been spent on the war in Iraq. We've spent over $500 billion in Iraq already (not trying to make a political statement here, just put things into perspective). I question the $2.6-26 trillion estimate range. The sheer size of that range makes it seem like a not very reliable estimate.
Besides, a lot of the activities human beings practice that cause climate change affect the environment in other ways. Ending the pollution caused by coal-burning power plants, reducing plastic waste, etc. would clean up nature and improve our quality of life anyway, so why not at least try to do the small things?
Is the Beck you're talking about Glenn Beck? He's not a scientist.
--------
ce.apocryphalpublishing.com
I did not contributed "flippancy" to your blog. If you don't want other imputs that don't agree with you, don't post it on here.
Polar bears are fine, jeez. They can swim well so they are able to save themselves. The world evolves.
The media only cares about viewers/readers. They want people to want to read what they have. That's why they publish this crap.
And spending $500 billion in Iraq is worth keeping terrorists from here because they could harm lives. Spending that money on global warming would be a waste.
If cutting coal-burning plants and reducing plastic is going to help the economy, I'm all for it. But if its just to help the environment, its not worth the effort.
Yes, it is Glenn Beck and I'm not using something he said. I'm using a fact from the UN's website, along with interviews that Beck had with climatologists, jeez..
Tegan.
"Spending that money on global warming would be a waste."
The sentence before this you were praising a war for saving (American civilian) lives. I assume you've heard that the polar ice caps are melting at an increasing rate and the impact of previously terrestrial ice could have a devastating impact on coastal populations. So why isn't reducing our ecological footprint a good idea? Why aren't you talking about preserving the lives of these coastal dwellers?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
God, this isn't even about that. You don't have valid points, and you seem to like putting words in people's mouths.
I do care about the ecological footprint, but not in a sense that it is everyone's main concern. I don't believe that billions and trillions of dollars should be spent on something that is not worth the effort.
Plus, in Glenn Beck's book, An Inconvient Truth, he shows a map of what houses on the Florida coastline would be gone and Rosie O'Donnell is right in the ocean.
Tegan.
Don't get nasty, sister. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I merely asked a question.
I don't understand your "plus" argument...
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Yet you did.
And its just a thought, not an argument.
Tegan.
And quite a progressive thought, too. If I understand you right, it's just fine for people who you don't agree with to suffer... but you know, I thought I'd ask for clarification before I interjected, because you've made it a point to trash my reputation b/c I'm trying to think constructively.
But please, let's get passed personal bullshit and stick to the issue. Do you believe our economy, the war and our ability to sustain gaia are not inextricably linked?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Sorry to make you think I was trashing your rep; it was the heat of the moment.
And I don't know if I think those are linked. I haven't been completely informed on gaia so I don't want to have an opinion without knowing.
dún do bheal
You'll want to do yer own research of course, but I thought I'd link you to the basics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Yet you did.
And its just a thought, not an argument.
Tegan.
"You're making a lot of generalized statements but not looking at the issue: why would the media make this up?"
Well said.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
I assume this is the essay referenced in your most recent blog? Here's what can see that would make your argument stronger. First, your quotes need a little finessing. Instead of just plunking a quote down at the start of a paragraph, try introducing it with some words of your own. It may seem redundant, but it provides context for the reader. Then afterward, write what the quote means for your argument and how it applies. (you did a pretty good job on the last part..just the intros were lacking, really). Then, in addition to the evidence for your argument, you should discuss the opposing ideologies, and explain why you reject them. That makes your argument seem much more airtight, even if it isn't. In a persuasive essay, it is all about the reader's perception.
Otherwise, not too bad, whether I agree with your premise or not. ;)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Thanks for the input! This could help when we have to turn these essays into speeches...
Tegan.
I like to get English teachery sometimes. ;)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Man made global warming is a theory that is based on computer models that DON"T WORK. The models are garbage! The models have not predicted the past accurately and there is no evidence that those models can predict anything in the future accuruately either.
We have just gone through a decade of steadily increasing carbon dioxide, but contrary to the predictions of the computer models, NO warming. The models were wrong! After NAFTA revised its historic tempurature records downwards it turned out that the warming which culminated in the hot year of 1998 was very similar to the warm decade of the 1930's which was before there were significant outputs of man-made carbon dioxide. The 1930s were slightly warmer.
Now, after 10 years of no warming, the scientists are telling us that the oceans have shifted into a new phase and that there will be another 10 to 20 year period of NO warming and perhaps some cooling.
Ocean Currents May Cool the Climate for a Decade
Of course the scientists are spinning this like mad and trying to say that global warming will resume 10 or 20 years from now after this new ocean current runs its course.
But WTF should we believe them? WTF was wrong with their computer models that they just figured out about this new ocean current last week? If there climate models were any good at all why could they not foresee this current shift and its impact on the climate for a decade? There models are totally worthless.
If there models were wrong tor the last 10 years AND they could NOT predict that the earth was going to cool for the next 10 years then WHY should anybody believe that there models can predict anything that is going to happen 20 years from now?
I would put more faith in a fortune cookie!
These guys are clowns! Global warming is being used to manipulate a gullible population. Some people will believe anything! People see some propaganda in a couple of movies and somehow that makes it true.
Well said. I agree-I don't see how they can predict global warming when they don't even have the technology to do so.
Tegan.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192
I think you may really dig this for two reasons. Predictions were being made in the 1950s and shux, they were fairly accurate. And two, you may want to look at this global dimming theory and do yer own research. It adds another unfortunate card in the deck of global climate systems.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
The facts are, (which is agreed upon by many scientists and climatologists ) that 1. the earth is cooling, 2. all recorded climate changes have been natural, 3. there is NO proof whatsoever showing humans have impacted the climate. Even if we wanted to, humans could not affect the climate. Also putting money towards fighting global warming is like throwning it away, the amount of money put to research and such would easily outwhiegh the jobs created in doing so. Also, we have enough fossil fuel to last more than 500 years. As for our getting that from other countries, its the same dumbass enviormentalists that prevent us from drilling for our own oil that say we have to do somthing about dependency on foreign nations,. To add to what was said earlier, it has been calculated that it would take a computer approx 1000xs more powerful than is now used to accuratly predict future climate changes.
Agreed!
Do you have links to anything about the computers? I'm trying to find more info for my speech...
dún do bheal
I toured NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) in the mid 1980s. They had THREE awesome CRAY Supercomputers sitting in the room where they analyzed all the incoming computer data from remote weather sensors all over America.
They said they had enough computing power to accurately predict the weather a week AFTER it happened.
The climate is harder then weather because you are working with far more nebulous variables then wind, tempurature, humidity and air pressure and you are trying to predict much farther into the future. My guess is that it is not possible.
I'll check out their website, if they have one, and find out stuff about those...
A week after... that made me 'lol'
dún do bheal
What did you think of David Keith?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
A skilled propagandist
I'd like to borrow a line that I saw today: "I'm pretty sure that, had I been drinking something, I would have just snorted it out my nose." So you believe that global dimming is a crazed theory too?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Aw shucks ... they thought the world was warming in the 1950s. Funny that he mentions that and uses it as evidence that they have known about the "problem" for 50 years BUT FAILS to mention that in the 1970s they were predicting a new ICE AGE. That is a technique called "Deception by Omission", It is a classic propaganda techniques and that guy was very good at it.
He did it again with CO2. He showed us the alarming graph of rising CO2 concentrations. He failed to show us the graph that shows that temperatures have been flat with no noticeable warming since 1998. And he failed to show us the graph that show that the 1930s were just as warm as the 1990s. If he had shown us that graph it would have been plain that MMGW is a bunch of alarmist huey based on computers models that don't work. It would have put him out of work and it would have thrown a monkey wrench in his real plans which are to impose socialist world government.
I'll give him credit for mentioning nukes as a key part of the solution. He does that knowing that his minions like you will do everything possible to keep that from happening.
He did it again when he failed to mention that the arctic ice cap has melted before and that polar bears were in existence and that they survived that warm period. Enough of the poor polar bear nonsense!
And he did it again when he showed declining ice in the artic ice cap but failed to mention that the ice mass in the Antartic is growing.
At the end of the day, global warming is just a fear mongering scam designed to manipulate and decieve people into accepting a socialist world government. And low and behold, that is how his talk concluded
As I said, well executed propaganda. Not much different from the propaganda in algore's movie except perhaps less sensationalist.
So many things to respond to. Oh phewy! You've put a wrinkle in our plans to dominate the world! How dare you? I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids and that... polar bear that survived "that warming period."
I've heard theories like yours before, unfortunately. You know it well. The idea that what environmentalists are after isn't a clean, safe, consumer market that values the Earth we live in just as much as making a profit-- but rather a new world order and, don't say this too loudly: POWER!!!!
Except when I heard it before it was explained to me by this complete nutcase who made a concession that Climate Change is man-made, which utterly surprised me. I mean, he had just spilled his liver out making a case that the warming of Earth's climate was strictly political.
Luckily he brought me back to Earth with his WHY argument. He proceeded to explain a Falwell-esque scenario--basically climate change was brought on by our sins, thus man-made and whatnot. Don't you just love it?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
haha you quoted me :-P
well, here's another one of mine you may be interested in using one day:
"if I had boots, I'd be shakin' in them."
read my blogs!
ProU
Not ProU
Some mistakes can't be undone/ it'll never be like it was/ and wishing for it only makes it worse
Rocky Votolato
I'm glad there are people like you who are able to take talking points from the Myron Ebell's and the Senator Inhofe's of this world, who recieve much of their contributions from the fossil fuels industry, to create this sort of muddied picture of reality.
It is certainly impressive how this sort of sentiment is actually compared to peer-reviewed science and the findings of the IPCC (the pre-eminent conglomeration of the peer-reviewed).
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Oh wow, why do you keep adding pointless comments to this?
I'm not distorting reality, I'm showing it.
I've pointed out facts from those sources because they seem to be good sources. I cannot help that what they have found has supported my argument.
Honestly, I have heard no good arguments from you. I'd appriciate it if you came up with a decent one before replying.
dún do bheal
He just pointed out a conflict of interest in your sources, so it is a VERY relevant point. You may be missing the point, but that doesn't make GU's point irrelevant.
You put your opinion out there. Now it is your readers' turn. If you can't take the heat, it's not your readers who need to leave the kitchen..
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Okay... I don't agree with his points and I rebutted them...
I did not just say crap about GU
dún do bheal
Well said, EW. It's interesting how cemented some people's beliefs are; so deeply ingrained that they will not do their own research or hear another perspective. I mean, from what I've read and heard, climate change and humans are bound together. And yet I'm interested in hearing the other side.
I'll be taking a course my freshman year in college called sociology and forestry-- which I've heard is a dissection of different beliefs about the forest and its importance. From loggers to log-huggers.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I have no idea what you're talking about; I have done my own research.
My beliefs are cemented because I have good reason for them to be.
I don't understand why you believe you are superior to others because you certainly come off that way.
dún do bheal
Those who define reality win. You win. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
What?
dún do bheal
I'm not going to explain. You'll have to think for yerselff
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Okay, well I'm not going to look at your link. I'm done with this conversation. Frankly at this point, I could care less about what you have to say.
dún do bheal
Well said. That proves my little experiment.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Okay...
dún do bheal
One other thing, I've never quoted Ebell or Inhofe or others like them so I have no idea what you are talking about. You're trying to make a point that's not there.
dún do bheal
I wasn't going to mention it, but now that you've thrown in a red herring-- my initial comment today was not directed at your writing, but another user's (thisismyusername). Nevermind.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
Oh alright. Sorry for the confusion.
dún do bheal
By the way, my teacher gave me a 78/100 on this paper. I think it deserves better than a "C"
dún do bheal
You got punished for not regurgitating the liberal propaganda. The educational establishment was actually grading themselves. They did a poor job of brainwashing you.
There is a website somewhere that allows college students to rate their teachers. I spent some time on that a couple of years ago when I was helping my daughter pick a college. It is shocking to realize how often this stuff goes on and how vindictive liberal professors can be when students try to swim against the liberal current.
Liberal kids don't notice because since they are liberal and 98% of the professors are liberal, they seldom find themselves bucking the group-think.
How would you have graded this paper, Jack?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Probably better than a "C".
One of the biggest complaints most colleges have about entering freshmen is that they can't write. Yet, with grade inflation, it is not common for these same kids who can't write to be earning A's in highschool English. The essay is mechanically quite good. I've hired college graduates who could not write an essay at this level.
The essay did not contain a single spelling error and it had no grammer errors that I could detect. Punctuation and sentence construction were all good and the paragraphs were appropriate. Most of the sentences were concise and I did not encounter a single bad run-on. Transitions from paragraph to paragraph were a little stilted with overuse of "howevers, furthermores, in additions".
It had a clearly defined thesis, supporting paragraphs that developed the thesis, identified and rebutted counter arguments and provided supporting facts. The conclusion didn't quite adequately restate or support the opening thesis, but did summarize the arguments and convincingly tied the argument together. The assignment was to write a pursuasive essay and this essay was responsive to that assignment.
I did detect a factual error. The United States is not part of the Kyoto Protocol although we have done a better job of reducing our carbon emmissions then most of the countries that are part of it. I also think that with a little more research the author could have found even more convincing facts in support of his argument. For example 32,000 scientists have recently signed a document which rebutts man-made global warming.
I also think the paper would have been a little more clear if the words "man made" had been inserted in front of global warming in a few places. I think the author has assumed that they are implied but without them the author seems to be arguing simultaneously that global warming is a scam that isn't real and that global warming is really happening. I'm sure what is meant is that man made global warming is a scam even though the earth has had a temporary normal warming cycle unrelated to human activity.
Given the standard of the day where kids who can't write are routinely given A's in highschool English, I would have given this paper at least a strong B. He got punished and a vindictive liberal damaged his chances at getting into the college of his choice.
Thank you! Glad to hear that my paper deserves better...
dún do bheal