Hello Scholars,
Welcome to the Week 3 Post. I think that in the past few years the issue of human impact on the earth especially in the area of Carbon Emmissions has surrounded our Nation with a sense of urgency and sometimes fear. With our last weeks post on the topic of Al Gore's : THE INCONVIENENT TRUTH, I wanted to challenge our previous way of thinking by hearing an alternative point of view. Not everyone believes in Al Gore's Nobel Prize Winning piece. I'd like to introduce you to someone who has challenged the Al Gore way of thinking on global carbon emmissions. I realize that this may cause some of you to think about your beliefs on global warming but I guess thats the point. Post those thoughts and comments hear. I'm always interested in reading your thought provoking points of view.
Go to the following link and listen to Mr. Bjorn Lomborg discuss his controversal book COOL IT. just hit the play button underneath where is says "An hour with Bjorn Lomborg" (you don't have to listen to the whole thing.)
http://www.punditreview.com/2007/09/bj%c3%b8rn-lomborg-discusses-cool-it-on-pundit-review-radio/
Then read this excerpt for the book itself...
http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/sample/?PHPSESSID=750039748bac8714ded2a080458ae4b3
Have a Great Week!!!
Mr D.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Neither Al Gore's point of view or Mr. Bjorn Lomborg's are wrong. They just had diffrent perspectives on global warming. In the book COOL IT, he was stressing that people should stop panicking and do something about the issue. Many just sit around and complain when they can be doing something productive to help the planet. He said a benefit is that fewer people are dying of cold waves....but are dying of the heat waves. He asked,"Do we help people with heat related death, or cut CO2?" This which is nearly impossible, is a very difficult statement. How we spend our resources is very crucial too. Only so many people in the world really think about how much they use, and cut back. Most, take for granted. Global warming was going to happen sooner or later, we just helped speed the process up. The earth natually was warming up, and sooner or later it might just be hot all the time. But, we'll see into the future for that.
^^Kathryn Trumble
Fourth period
**kathryn**
Mr. Bjorn’s point of view was different than Al Gore's but in some ways they are the same. Such as the fact that they both felt strongly that we all can do something to stop Global Warming and we should do something instead of contributing to the already depleting ozone layer. As Mr. Bjorn’s discussion continues, he begins to express the words "cool it" .This to me means, we should take a second to stop panicking about the bad and start helping the good factors. He tells us that 200,000 people died from heat in the U.K. little do we know people are dying from the cold. About 25,000 cold deaths each year are in England and Wales. Over the past years of 1998-2000 we saw 47,000 cold deaths; so "chill out" and see that not only does the global warming heat kill us, the cold is just as bad.
Amanda Simpkins
Biology 3rd period
Well I think they are both right.. Mr. Bjorn said less people are dying off of cold waves then the heat waves.. I thinks hes more right.. we can save more people by CHILLING OUT as which he says instead of panicking about the problem. we should just take time and try and figure out an successful and better way of dealing with this global warming issue.
Andre William(king) Sammons
3rd Period Biology
Well I think they are both right.. Mr. Bjorn said less people are dying off of cold waves then the heat waves.. I thinks hes more right.. we can save more people by CHILLING OUT as which he says instead of panicking about the problem. we should just take time and try and figure out an successful and better way of dealing with this global warming issue.
Andre William(king) Sammons
3rd Period Biology
I preferred Mr. Lomborg's perspective because he offered practical solutions and reasons on how we can solve the global warming crisis. In my opinion I think that Al Gore did the movie and book to promote his personal celebrity due to his loss in the election against George Bush.
Nate Snowden
Biology 4th Period
I don't think that either of them would be wrong; because they're just voicing their own opinion on both matters. In Bjorn's book Cool It he explains the matters of people dying of the heat, and also of the cold. What should we do? This is the question that goes full circle through this excerpt. We have contributed to global warming whether we know it or not. Even the computer monitors we use everyday contribute to it. Just turning of the monitor could take about 2000 cars of the road. Global warming is a problem that has slapped us in the face, and im not sure we can turn this problem around so quickly. Tim will tell.
Billy Hawkins
Per.4
I think that neither of them are wrong. Yes, preventing global warming would do the world good, but what Bjorn says about the death rates due from heat waves compared to death rates due from cold waves is a factor too. We do speed up the natural process of global warming, which does cause some problems, and we are using up earth's resources. we should also think about all other life on earth, what the effects to them would be if we do or dont cut down CO2 emissions. It is a difficult decision on wether we should or not.
Zach Norman
4th Period Biology
I agree with Andre, I think if we relax and look at the situation calmly then it would be more effective than freaking out, that wouldn't get us anywhere. I agree with Bjorn and Al Gore.
Megan Cutler
3rd per. Bio
I believe that neither Al Gore or Bjorn's opinions are wrong. They agree on some points but disagree on others, which is normal to have different perspectives, but to COOL IT. Lots of people are complaining or making a big deal out of global warming but no one wants to do anything about it. Climate change is a natural process, but we (humans) are speeding up the process. It doesn't mean we should blame someone, it just means we should find a resolution. However i don't believe that we should use lots of money on research and development, instead we should use it on doing something like helping people. Whether the weather goes up or down it will still cost a lot, so calmly talk it out and help people and it will turn out better. People always want to see the bad side of things but if they looked into it they could probably find positive things as well or make things work out to be positive. Who knows, maybe things will work out.
Yahira Guzman
Biology Honors, 3rd period
i think both al gore and mr. bjorn are right, they just both got to sides of the truth its getting hotter and its getting colder. and i think we should help people with heat related death,and CO2. but yea i think both of them are righ.
michael kohn
4th class
9/21/08
To me i am thinking that neither of them are wrong. Yes, preventing global warming would do the world good, but what Bjorn says about the death rates due from heat waves compared to death rates due from cold waves is a factor too.we can save more people by "chillin out" as which he says instead of panicking about the problem. we should just take the time and try and figure out more successful and better ways of dealing with this global warming issue.
i think that both of these mens views on the subject have some truth and some ignorance. Al gore believes we are the main caise to global warming. Mr. Bjorn thinks that there is a bigger force at work than just us. so i think that both men are right but should come together nad think about what is going on in the world
I think that both people and groupes of people have have some very important pionts.
Lomborg did have reasonable facts and opinions on global warming as well as Al Gore. Al Gore is stressing the fact that the heat will drive us to a meltdown and Lomborg looks as it as less people will die from cold weather. Lomborg also stated that it wasnt our biggest prioriety to try and stop it from happening when Al Gore wants to do something about it right away. Lomborg is embracing the fact that people will die less from cold, but he doesnt stress the fact that many parts of land throughout the world will be overflooded. But Lomborg is also right about it shouldn't be our biggest prioriety when Gore wants to spend all the money on trying to stop it which will just put people into another Great Depression. i found both outlooks to be interesting and informing on the worlds doomed future.
I kond of see his point in wat he was saying, but we still need to find a way so that even more people can kive if possible all ot them. No one should have to die but it is people who are causing the problem. So if we really want to see a change then we need to all come together find the best solution and try it out!
Yes i think Both of them are a 100% Right. They both got really strong points about Global Warming. I mean Bjorn Lomborg talk death do forom Hot weather.. If we could stop Global Warming that would be nice..
Shamorya Talton
In Bjorn Lomborg's book, he argues that while many people are concerned about rising temperatures, there are almost seven times more deaths due to extreme cold than there is due to extreme heat. He also believes that people should stop complaining about global warming if they are not going to do anything about it. He states that scientific evidence suggests that an increase in temperature would result in the deaths of 2000 more people due to heat, but in turn, would result in a decrease of 20000deaths due to the cold. I believe more in his views about global warming more than i believe Al Gore's.
Billy Harris
4th Period
I am using tooney's username because I cant remember mine.
Scientists have discovered two new species of salamanders from the mountainous Costa Rica-Panama border region. The findings, published by David B. Wake, Jay M. Savage, and James Hanken in the journal Copeia, push the number of salamanders known in the region to 24, making it a hotspot in terms of salamander biodiversity.
Both species are small, slender salamanders that belong to the Bolitoglossa genus and apparently live in tropical montane forest habitat.
I belive that nethier of them are wrong in what they think or believe. Both of them have great points and ideas. Al gore is pushing the change of global warming to be almost instant but that certitnly wont work. Mr. Bjorn makes a good point in that yes global warming isnt the biggest problem right now but it does need to be fixed over time. This is to much of a controversial topic to really take a side and have many facts to rely on.
Gregory sawyer
4th biology
wombis!
i think both al gore and bjorn see the effects that humans are having on the earth and its ozone, and i think that both global warming and cooling are going to happen its just that one will set the other in motion
per 4
jon kight
I agree with Bjorn Lomborg. More people are dying from cold weather than heat waves. There have been 25,000 to 50,000 annual deaths due to the cold weather for just one country while there has been only 35,000 in the past. The number of people dying from heat waves is as high as 200,000 whereas the number for cold weather is 1.5 million. This is a huge difference. Although the rates are lower for heat waves we should still concentrate on solving the global warming issue but we should also concentrate on lowering the death count due to cold weather.
Cassie Sands
Third Period
I believe that both of these "scientists" have great outlooks on what we can do about the issue of global warming. al Gore who i think had a better understanding of global warming prevention but i do like Bjorns theory of just cooling it (stop going insane about the situation)and get up and do something about so i guess i really think that they both had great points of veiws just a little different opinions about how to handle the situation and also about how to deliver it to the public. So in my opinion both of their theorys were great!!!
Post a Comment