GELO 2 Concentration

867 Words4 Pages
GELO 2 F17
1. Based on the graph, there is a correlation between the effects of CO2 concentration and the average global temperature. They both resulted in an exponential growth over the period between 1880 to 2010 relatively with the same amount of increase. While the global average temperature from 1880 to 2010 gradually increased relatively from 56.5 to 58.1 Fahrenheits, the amount of CO 2 Concentration (ppmv) also increased as well ranging from 280 to 390. This is an example of science because it uses properly considered and provided all evidence shown. Although the data have many ups and down trends of different temperature and climate changes within the years, it also shows the gradual increase of temperature over the years.

2. In
…show more content…
The first point that best explain why Fred Singer’s arguments are pseudoscience is because his claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it. For example, he stated that he hasn’t seen global warming for the last 10 years, however with this positive hypothesis he only presents it with research of data or evidence that support his claims, where on the other hand, science works with neither a positive or a negative hypothesis and are open to all evidence that either support or goes against it. The second point, is that the quality of the data supporting Fred Singer’s claim is unjustified. The sample size of looking at only 10 years is too small to have a statistical significance, while choosing using observational selection of endpoints in his data that support his claim. Third, Fred Singer also claims that climate change is a natural phenomenon, because it’s constantly changing all the time. This is an example of telling apart pseudoscience from science because, there is no clear definition that the meaning of “natural” is safe or healthy. Claiming something is natural is vague, and to state that climate change is natural is not an evidence that global warming isn’t…show more content…
One argument that GM Executive Bob Lutz claims is that abnormal weather patterns around the world have always been the way of life. The evidence he provided was his experience of growing up with hurricane and none of the weather prediction have came true. An argument that Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson provided was that there are another approach or evidence to climate change which was through the observation of plants and animals. His supporting evidence was that animals are starting to migrate up north where they haven’t been before, and plants are starting to be fertilize at places that can’t be fertilized before, and just maybe nature is telling us answers we should already know about. The difference between these two professionals can be found through the tone and way they state their claims. Bob Lutz presents his arguments and claims through a harsh tone with confidence even though he stuttered to provide any factual evidence beside years of living experience. While Dr. Neil, on the other hand clearly spoke his claims and evidence in a much calmer tone, giving suggestion to approach the climate changes in other ways beside just living experience, such as viewing the natural evidence of animal and plants or also by looking at it through a conservative way as well. Characteristics that makes an expert trustworthy, is through his tone of voice, using precise terminology with clear definitions, embracing criticism, and follows the evidence wherever it leads, while also
Open Document