Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to help students apply lessons from history -specifically the intensity of perspectives on opposite sides of historical issues combined with the consequences of action and inaction on these issues - to the modern world by using current debate over what if any impact people have upon our environment and what if anything we can or should do.
#1 – The video from you tube presents a sound case. I have not found any credible information to refute it at this time. However……………
Consider:
Cost $ -- There is a range of cost that should be analyzed in detail for feasibility. Utilizing graphical representations derived from mathematical models we could estimate the degree of financial burden the average person would inherit based upon equal distribution of the burden with respect to annual income. (Nasty Math – however, FYI, we could do this!) It would not in my opinion be reasonable to demand laws that inflicted financial burdens upon corporations, or individual taxpayers. (Taxes, updated equipment for compliance via deadline, other things that cost money to change, ect.) Extreme measures could cause the worst case scenario of financial catastrophe defined in column “A” to occur, however, the truth table that was viewed in the You Tube movie only dealt with worst case scenario. If a truth table was constructed that incorporated data generated from the use of statistical analysis, then it would be apparent that the harms to society vs. the environmental harms / benefits could converge. (If anyone actually cares I will help them construct this… If anyone cares to contact me outside of this blog site please either stop by the honors bubble at the top of the ramp and make an appointment, or e-mail me. kendyl@quik.com)
Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The book "Propaganda and Persuasion" defines propaganda as "the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda -- source of definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda -- another site for information!
Wikipedia is a free, open content, community-built encyclopedia with thousands of articles on topics from A to Z. Available in dozens of languages. http://www.wikipedia.org/ -- source of definition
FYI: This site is great for an overview of most topics, please be aware that anyone can edit, or add to this site. It is non-authoritative, and should never be used as an authoritative source in any research paper. However, in general it is great for starting information. I do want to advise y’all that I have experienced this flaw first hand when conducting research for an honors project in biology. I was looking up information on cancer types that affect females, and wikipedia had a link to a porn site. This is non relevant to the discussion of global warming; however, this information is feasible for conducting research and should not be ignored.
if we put alot of money into global warming and none of it is true then we wasted we could of used on something else. but if we dont put any money into it and it is true then are children and their children could suffer greatly for our stupidity.
Considering that this topic is so controversial, I don't believe that any of the original sources unbiased. I don't believe it's necessarily anyone's fault, it's just difficult to keep one's opinion away from something you believe. In the video for example, the guy didn't directly say to do something about global warming regardless, but by the end of the video, i knew what he believed. In the end I believe that in such controversial issues, it is going to be very difficult, maybe even impossible to change someone's mind about it.
I teach US History at a modest sized Community College in Texas. My BA and MA degrees are from the University of Houston Clear Lake and I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in History from Texas A&M University. Vist my homepage at:
http://www.brazosport.edu/~starrant/
4 comments:
#1 – The video from you tube presents a sound case. I have not found any credible information to refute it at this time. However……………
Consider:
Cost $ -- There is a range of cost that should be analyzed in detail for feasibility. Utilizing graphical representations derived from mathematical models we could estimate the degree of financial burden the average person would inherit based upon equal distribution of the burden with respect to annual income. (Nasty Math – however, FYI, we could do this!) It would not in my opinion be reasonable to demand laws that inflicted financial burdens upon corporations, or individual taxpayers. (Taxes, updated equipment for compliance via deadline, other things that cost money to change, ect.) Extreme measures could cause the worst case scenario of financial catastrophe defined in column “A” to occur, however, the truth table that was viewed in the You Tube movie only dealt with worst case scenario. If a truth table was constructed that incorporated data generated from the use of statistical analysis, then it would be apparent that the harms to society vs. the environmental harms / benefits could converge. (If anyone actually cares I will help them construct this… If anyone cares to contact me outside of this blog site please either stop by the honors bubble at the top of the ramp and make an appointment, or e-mail me. kendyl@quik.com)
Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture. The book "Propaganda and Persuasion" defines propaganda as "the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda -- source of definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda -- another site for information!
Wikipedia is a free, open content, community-built encyclopedia with thousands of articles on topics from A to Z. Available in dozens of languages.
http://www.wikipedia.org/ -- source of definition
FYI: This site is great for an overview of most topics, please be aware that anyone can edit, or add to this site. It is non-authoritative, and should never be used as an authoritative source in any research paper. However, in general it is great for starting information. I do want to advise y’all that I have experienced this flaw first hand when conducting research for an honors project in biology. I was looking up information on cancer types that affect females, and wikipedia had a link to a porn site. This is non relevant to the discussion of global warming; however, this information is feasible for conducting research and should not be ignored.
if we put alot of money into global warming and none of it is true then we wasted we could of used on something else. but if we dont put any money into it and it is true then are children and their children could suffer greatly for our stupidity.
Considering that this topic is so controversial, I don't believe that any of the original sources unbiased. I don't believe it's necessarily anyone's fault, it's just difficult to keep one's opinion away from something you believe.
In the video for example, the guy didn't directly say to do something about global warming regardless, but by the end of the video, i knew what he believed.
In the end I believe that in such controversial issues, it is going to be very difficult, maybe even impossible to change someone's mind about it.
Post a Comment