Anyone could make an argument and come up with facts to back up what they are saying. The question is; are their points good enough to allow others to believe in what they are saying. You could come up with a lot of facts, but they could be weak facts. It’s always better to have fewer strong facts than many weak ones. It’s the same as writing a blog for instance, you could write a million words about something, some things are easier than others, but you can always do it with repetition, and standing by what you are saying.

In the journal posting Volcano-Stimulated Rebound Of 2010 Salmon Run Challenges Anti-Science Environmentalism written by John Laumer, John is arguing that although both sides of a climate debate want a total defeat of science and humanism (Laumer 2010), climate change may be a good thing. He points out that when a volcano erupted over the Pacific ocean in August of 2008 there was a increase in salmon breeding. This he believes is one of the upsides to climate change. There also the argument about whether there is climate change going on or not, clearly Laumer is a believer. With his beliefs he looks for ways to prove whether climate change is happening or not, and what the upsides and downsides are to it.

The people who believe in climate change can either be for it or against it. They could be for climate change as John is trying to prove here that climate change is a good thing. There are also the people that believe climate change is bad, and these people look for things like the fact that the volcano erupted. It is seen that with volcano erupting, believers would see this as a downfall, but when looked at closer, it can be seen that the eruption was a upside. It all depends on how you look at the situation.

With the eruption came a breeding in salmon that has not been seen for 100 years. Something in volcano disturbed the sea, and made the salmon able to breed more. It cannot be positive what made the salmon breed more, as testing would disturb too many things in the ocean, and the breeding cycles. It could just be a strange coincidence that the salmon started to breed more when the volcano erupted or it could actually be at fault for the good disturbance in the salmons mating cycle. There is no way to actually tell that if the volcano didn’t erupt if the salmon would be mating the way that they are, or did the salmon start to mate because the volcano erupted.

We cannot be certain whether some type of hormones were put into the food that the salmon eat from the volcano, or if the salmon were possibly spooked. If the volcano erupted it can put many different things into the water, and that would affect everything that lives in the water. There have been something good put in, like a hormone that made the salmon want to breed more. There could also have been something that the salmon sensed, like the world was going to end so they began to breed more rapidly to try and save their species. There is no way of telling if the salmon have a 5th sense so to speak, or if they can just get turned on easily which leads to more breeding.

This argument is very weak; you can’t even tell is the volcano eruption is a bad thing or a good thing. There are just too many opinions on the subject and not enough evidence to prove which side is right or wrong, or even slightly lean to one side. When reading this article John can make you believe that climate change is a good thing, but if he were to go into detail he could probably convince you that although there is one point in the positive side, there are so many negative additions to the subject.
John throws in some number to help you believe what he saying, this backs up his theory but he doesn’t show you the opposite side which in this case is much stronger. When just reading this article you could believe that climate change is a good thing; look at what it did to the salmon. One volcano erupts thousands of fish are born, and therefore salmon has greatly increased it population. What if this could happen to other species like the endangered ones. Then you could also see that this was a freak occurrence, the chances of what ever made the salmon breed more, making other species want to breed more and really slim.

The main item of the article may seem to be salmon breeding, but it’s actually about climate change. It’s hard to tell because climate change is only mentioned briefly at the beginning of the article, but overall this is what John is leading up to. That climate when looking at little points can be a good thing happening to our planet. Though with more research done it can be easily proven that climate change would not be good for our planet. There is just not enough evidence out there for it to be proven that climate change is that great. John may have proven that this little fact is good, but he has a weak agreement when it comes to arguing that climate change is a good thing.

Resources
Article:
Laumer,John.2010.Volcano-Stimulated Rebound Of 2010 Salmon Run Challenges Anti-Science Environmentalism.Tree Hugger. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/massively-volcano-stimulated-rebound-of-us-salmon-runs-challenges-anti-science-environmentalism.php?campaign=th_rss_science
Picture:
Kelly, http://www.biology-blog.com/blogs/archives/Biology-blog/520525028-Feb-14-2008.html