Signing Off

Let me first start by saying that this year has been the first year I can say I truly enjoyed learning US history. From starting with the difference between empathy and sympathy to a grand finale of the showing of the movie 13 Days this year has certainly held a lot. I think my ability to retain and even discuss history reflects more on Mrs. Lawson's ability to find new ways to teach and engage a classroom full of teenagers, who haven't studied US history since approximately 8th grade. So thank you for that Mrs. Lawson! I miss your class next year. With your help I've learned to look at and write about movies and articles in a more analytical light but still keep my voice within my writing. Our watching of 13 Days is just one example. Even though I may not be writing about it in a full on paper or in a separate blog post I can still say that with Mrs. Lawson's help I was 1) able to see the movie in a positive light, 2) enjoy the movie, and 3) learn more about the political hierarchy in the Kennedy term. I learned that 'DEAFCON2' is a status of the need for protective measures during war time or coming to war. But out of all of what I've said I think it says the most that I remember the first activity we did and it still impacts to this day. I can't help but think about it each time I apply the term in my life. So thank you Mrs. Lawson, you've made my last year of History the best year I've had so far!

An Introspective Look into the Perspectives of Climate Change

To the readers of which this content may concern,

The year is dated 2016 and the world is finding itself amongst some of the most troubling times. There is no shortage of topics to debate and problems to solve in the twenty-first century, and climate change is one of these hotspot debates. Though it has been talked about for more than a decade, climate change, is still a sore spot amongst governments and national groups such as the EU (European Union) and the UN (United Nations). For years summits for the United Nations Climate Change Conference have been occurring to help settle the dust over global warming and how it can be stopped, slowed down, etc. but it not my point to discuss the minutia of a summit like the one in Paris France or even the real politics behind climate change. Instead I intend to bring forth the opinions of those who oppose the popularly held belief that climate change is real and explain the perspectives which they hold and are categorized into.

It would be easiest for myself to start in the category to which I first believed in myself – the skeptic. And though I do not categorize within this group any longer, it is their disbelief in climate change that has sparked many debates over the legitimacy of the science, politics, and media coverage of the topic. Conveniently, through my research I have found a well formulated chart of the most defined categories of skeptics. Some correlate and others seems to have no reference to each other, but they are all commonly linked by their denouncement of global warming in some shape or fashion.

Figure 1. Visible Organization of Sceptics

In brief, the way this chart is organized is from the bottom up. The bottom seven categories serve as the main objects to which skeptics argue against. If a skeptic fights "Trend", they believe that climate change is not actually happening and will sometimes go as far as to say there is an opposing, cooling trend:

"Earth's temperature is currently cooling slightly, ocean heat is declining, global sea-level rise has not accelerated (although the climate models predict that it should) and tropical storm energy is at a thirty-year low. (Carter, 2011, p.39)"

 "Cause" fighting skeptics do accept the theory of climate change and that it is actually occurring but they do not believe that humans are part of the cause. An example of this would be a person claiming that the world is just going through its cycle. They would say that there is nothing abnormal about the current conditions and that eventually it would revert back its lower levels as the earth starts to regulate the greenhouse gases once more. The final disinter on that prong is the "impact" skeptic. These people believe that humans do partially play a role in the rising temperatures but they say we are not the true problem. Common arguments would run along the lines of there being no scientific proof that humans are "causing more extreme weather events. (Rensburg, 2015, p.3)" And that the change being caused by humans is so small that the earth and its inhabitants will adapt "as [they] have always done.(Rensburg, 2015, p.3)" These three skeptics are classified more specifically in a centre group known as 'Evidence' skeptics. This means that these three categories formulate their opinions on evidence, scientific or not. These skeptics are the easiest to argue with because of the nature of their focus. 

Evidence based arguments with 'trend', 'cause', and 'impact' skeptics are considered the easiest to argue because they run on a pyramidal scale. This means that as you digress through an argument the skeptic is likely to change their mind and go from stating that global warming doesn't exist to accepting it as a trend, but remain rooted that humans didn't cause it. Because their argument was weak to begin with they are likely to persuaded by evidence of human affectation, but they will drop to humans not having been the main cause. And upon the revelation that humans are a larger source they will turn to the cost of fixing this problem, and cite it as being too expensive. But in reality most first  world countries like China and the United States, besides being the highest producers of green house gases, would also be the leaders in helping to reduce their industrial carbon footprint. This in itself would reduce their argument to merely just sticking to the idea that climate change isn't actually a problem, but they would have no evidence, forcing them begin picking apart policy and politics of climate change.

Figure 2. A pyramidal formatting of the three Evidence based skeptics

This brings us to the right side of the chart where it becomes much harder to argue with the skeptic. This is due to the fact that they begin to pick apart the policies, decision making, how climate change is handled and the truth of the scientific evidence. It is particularly hard to pick apart these arguments because skeptics and non-skeptics can hold these viewpoints, which gives the skeptic a better ground to fight on. To better illustrate the stances or points which these skeptics might take look into Table 1.

Table 1. A chart of reasoning for climate change Skeptics

Because policy and decision making in itself a topic that causes dichotomy between groups it gives a skeptic the upper hand because the logic behind the logistics of policy making is so muddled. Skeptics thrive on the confusion because in reality their assertions are usually a muddled explanation that utilizes the confusion of uninformed people and the division of groups on political matters. Another matter of controversy that is used against the popular belief is the distortion the importance of global warming by media and money-driven research. 

Skeptical viewpoints have always existed on the opposite side of any popular belief, but skepticism on climate change is particularly controversial because it is a massive problem that encompasses the whole of the world. Form first world countries to third world countries that are beginning their transition into a industrial era, meaning their carbon footprint is going to increase just as US's or China did when they industrialized. And the future to which you will live in I do hope that they will have taken charge and worked to decrease the carbon footprint of the world. And should you have the heart to charge into leading or taking part in this campaign for the earth's health I hope you find this helpful in fighting off the negativity and skeptics of your time. 

References:

1. 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference A wiki article on the on-goings of the UN CCC 

2. Climate Change Scepticism  A scholarly article written by Willem Van Rensburg on the different categories of skeptics. 

3. Carter, 2011 An article originally referenced in a quote that in my letter. Used to offer proper accreditation.  

Climate Unit: The Politics

I'm interested in focusing on the Politics of Climate because I want to know why it is such a decisive topic in the United States and whether this phenomena occurs world wide. I'm a lover of debates and open discussions and I'd like to see what other people think about climate and why they think it is such a controversial issue. It's very interesting to see what other people have to say about the issue and what other, new ideas they bring to the table especially with Climate being such a large topic of interest right now in the world, like the summit just held in Paris over climate change.

What I Think When I Hear: Climate

Earth
global-warming
climate-change
Conservation
National-Parks

When I hear climate I think of the controversy of the global warming issues and how they just held a summit and passed an act/law that commits all the countries to lessening their carbon-footprint. I also thought of conservation and national parks because these two words go along with the need to protect the little green space we still have in the United States.

Besides instituting protection of green space and shrinking our carbon footprint, what can we as citizens of the world do to keep our climate in better health? How can citizens of the world come together to keep the environment healthier and safer?

Reading Questions about the 1930s

Read about the Great Depression. According to this article, what was wrong with President Hoover's response? Why did people blame themselves when things went wrong, and how valid or invalid was this response?

• President Hoover took the issue too lightly, calling it a  "passing incident". And he did not take action to help stabilize the economy or banking system. Instead he instigated a trickle-down policy to help finance businesses and banks. Because of the American mindset "success was earned and if failure occurred it was deserved" it made many American's blamed themselves for the failing economy and loss of jobs. This rationale was not very rational since the failure was on the part of over production and too rapid of an increase in the market.

Read about Black Sunday.How would you have felt if you'd been there on that day? What kinds of fears, concerns, or questions would be going through your mind during, and after, the event described?

• Had I been there during Black Sunday I think I would have been terrified. To be surrounded by utter darkness for hours on end with no light in sight would be smothering and I can get claustrophobic. If I were a farmer I would worry what my crop outcomes would be or whether my stock animals had survived, and I would worry for everyone else around me and hope that they had found themselves a safe place. I would wonder if this would be my death. 

Read about The Drought. What areas were affected by it?  What caused it.  The author ends this article with a pithy quote. Do you agree or disagree with this historian's perspective? Why or why not?

• The western third of Kansas, Southeastern Colorado, the Oklahoma Panhandle, the northern two-thirds of the Texas Panhandle, and northeastern New Mexico. The dust bowl was caused by overuse and over grazing, and the fine silt that had been held by the grass was free to float out on the wind and drown the area in dust. I think the author was correct in doing so because it related to the over production of goods and the lack of regulation on the economy that lead to the Great Depression.

Read about Mass Exodus from the Plains. Were does the migration of people out of the Dust Bowl rank in terms of other migrations in US History? What made life hard for people once they arrived in California?

• It is the biggest migration within the US. It hard for people to assimilate because there were so many moving in that it also became very hard for them to find employment in CA as well. Farming was a corporate job rather than small, personal farmers. These people were also facing harassment from Californians.

Speech Reflections

I think Ward did a wonderful job of looking about and speaking clearly and Carson did a really nice job of doing voice inflection and sounding excited/passionate about what he was saying. Everyone at least tried to have an air of confidence and kept pushing on even when they messed up a word.

I think the speeches went really well, everyone definitely knew what their speaking on.

Doing these speeches made me definitely think about my control and nervousness. I was being more conscious of the way I sounded and looked to everyone else.

The Politics of Radio

Radio - a new source of media that crisscrossed the entirety of the United States. In the 1930's radios were in almost every household in America. And presidents like FDR took full advantage of this opportunity. And one of the first major political casts on the radio was of President Coolidge's inaugural speech  and one of the most well known radio broadcasts was President Roosevelt's Fireside chats. These talk shows consisted of Roosevelt talking "one-on-one" with the American people about concepts and problems in the US like The New Deal and soldiers fighting in WWII. Besides having just direct connections to presidents it gave America the chance to hear about everything in a more personable way. Political life became more personal and it became a source for presidential candidates to open themselves up to the American public. The parties (Republican and Democratic) began to broadcast their candidates across their own stations and across public ones as Radio became more and more accessible.