An article I found in the new scientist called “ A warming world could leave cities flattened” (15 October 2010) by Kate Ravillous, I felt it did not make a compelling argument. The argument presented attempts to prove the earth is crumbling due to climate change. With the increasing temperatures all around the world this could ultimately lead to the earth becoming flat. The following quote from the article presents the main argument of the article, “Thinning glaciers on volcanoes could destabilize vast chunks of their summit coves triggering mega landslides capable of flattening cities such as Seattle and devastating local infrastructure.” The major problems I found with this argument the author presented was that, it is based on the fact that global warming is the only cause of the glaciers melting. There is continuously new evidence being found to say the glaciers aren’t melting and there may not even be such an idea of climate change occurring. No one really knows the affects the glaciers have on the volcanoes because there is no evidence. There hasn’t yet been any occurrence of a volcanic eruptions from glaciers melting in the existence of humans.
Another argument the author presented was “10 000 years ago, as the planet came out of the last ice age, vast portions of the volcanic summit cones collapsed, leading to enormous landslides.” This statement is based on something that happened years ago and for all we know we could wrong about the whole ice age theory. Humans were not present on earth at this time, there is some substantial evidence to prove the ice age theory actually happened but how do we really know this for a fact. The flattening of the earth is basically the same idea of as the ice age because essentially everything living would be killed in the process. I feel there isn’t enough proof to say this can happen, since the author is basing their knowledge on what humans “think” may have happened centuries ago.
The idea of global warming and climate change is also a very controversial topic on the rise. I personally don’t believe in any idea of climate change. It is more of humans making a big deal over the slighted change in temperatures. For example on the radio when the meteorologists say a new record breaking temperature, it is then followed by this hasn’t happen since 1950. This proves how the earth most likely goes through cycles every couple of decades. Another article I found by Paul Joseph Watson says “This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question the climate change theory.” This proves that there really isn’t all this evidence of rising temperatures as the media says there is. If the temperatures haven’t change in last ten years, then the majority of what the news tells us could be a hoax. This is the reason why I feel what the article I found is not a good enough argument because the idea of climate change is mostly a way for the media to create tension. I think people tend link a lot of the bad environmental predictions to the idea of global warming. Some argue that global warming would be good for the earth. The reason for the earth flattening could be due to increasing temperatures but if the earth isn’t really warming then why would the volcanoes destabilize?
The author does in some ways try to reconstruct the argument by saying the scientists are just concerned, “ with global temperatures on the rise, Torney is concerned history will repeat itself on volcanoes all over the world.” Near the end of the article she offers grounds of consideration, that what she is saying is only a concern of the scientists in order to protect the claims she has made in the beginning. When the author uses language like concerned or must be, it shows the weakness in the information they are presenting to the public. Kate also says “this concludes that glacier melting must have to been to blame.” It seems as though she is only reasoning that the scientists came up with this prediction and there is no other evidence to compare these predictions to. The conclusions were just the “easiest” way to successfully negotiate the claims they were making. Whenever the concept of global warming is brought into the equation, people automatically think it is the most logical explanation of the destructive environmental problems occurring.
Furthermore, I don’t think there is enough evidence presented on the volcanoes in relation to the glaciers to be making conclusions such as cities will be flattened. Some evidence that would be better for this argument would be some experimental data of how the glaciers are actually supporting the volcanoes and how they are actually interconnected. Also if there has been any recent cities affected by the volcanic eruptions not 10,000 years, in a time where humans were present on earth would be more convincing. If there is a way to prove the increasing temperatures have triggered the volcanoes to erupt and how do we know heating of the volcanoes will do this? I feel the predictions made are very vague because the language used such as apparently and concerned with. I feel this article is more of a way of formulation of a hypothesis for some scientists, than actually revealing truthful claims. Nobody for sure knows what is going to happen to earth, that is for mother nature to know and us to find out.
By: Ashley Venner.
References:
Ravilious, K (2010). A warming world could leave cities flattened. The New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827825.100-a-warming-world-could-leave-cities-flattened.html
Watson, P (2008). No global warming since 1998, planet cools off. Prison Planet. Retrieved from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment