Claudia asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Read my speech and tell me what you think please!!!?

Global Warming Speech:

Everybody has already heard something about global warming, but honestly: Are we doing enough? No, we’re not. We CAN, we SHOULD and we MUST do much more, because if we don’t we and our future generations are going to suffer the consequences.

We live in a planet that is really fragile, and we cannot expect that it will stay all right after being damaged on daily basis by us. One of the main processes that causes global warming is the greenhouse effect. (show PowerPoint – here is an image explaining the greenhouse effect), as we can see here, the solar radiation pass through the atmosphere, some of it goes back to space, but others stay on Earth (which is good because it keeps our planet warm), but with the global warming happening the ones that are suppose to go back to the Space can’t go, instead they stay in our planet, causing hotter temperatures than normal).

If we put a glass of ice outside in a hot day, of course that it will eventually melt, and the ice turns into water. That is exactly what is happening with our glaciers…Since some glaciers are melting the sea level rising is becoming a real threat. We are facing a big danger: if the West Antarctic ice shelf melts the sea level would raise 20 feet (6 meters), putting in danger places like New York, Florida, San Francisco Bay, the Netherlands and many more. (Show PowerPoint: this is what will happen to the World Trade Center Memorial, in Manhattan. And in Florida, where 15 million people live. And here there is Netherlands, where 16 million people live). If this happens “the maps of the world will have to be redrawn”.

But we are not just facing the rise of sea levels. Many other things CAN and WILL happen to our beautiful planet, such as more hurricanes, droughts, floods, infectious diseases, a possibility of a new ice age, many deaths and of course the rise in temperatures (show PowerPoint: this is how our planet is right now, but if the global warming keeps happening it will turn into this, a completely different image).

If you want to take action there are a lot of things that you can do, for example, don’t leave electronics, (such as computers, televisions, etc.) in standby mode (because even if they are in standby mode they are using energy, when you don’t actually need it); recycle (if you recycle you can save 2400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, which is a big help for our environment); switch to green energy (green energy is the type of energy that is not going to damage the environment, this energy is made by natural processes, like solar power, wave power and wind power. One of the examples of the green energy things that you can buy are fluorescent lights); don’t use your car so many times (while you are using a car you’re burning fossil fuels, which are extremely dangerous for our environment); try not go by plane (airplanes are responsible for 2 to 3 percent of human CO2 emissions, because they trap energy in Earth's atmosphere); use less hot water (because it takes a lot of energy to heat water); plant more trees (one tree will absorb a ton of carbon dioxin over its lifetime) and spread the word (if a lot of people know about this world crisis it will be much easier to take action, because we will have everybody’s help).

A man called Upton Sinclair wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”. This is why the politicians don’t do anything about it; but what do you prefer: Money or our planet Earth? It is not hard to choose, because without our planet we cannot have money. Why are we still ignoring this when we have so much proof that this is real? For example: the Lake Chad: in 1963 it was a beautiful big lake in Africa, but now it doesn’t exist. The Ward Hunt ice shelf in Canada has broken apart. 2005 was the hottest year ever and the hurricanes have become bigger and more: some examples are the hurricane Katrina (in New Orleans, Louisiana) and the hurricane Rita (in Los Angeles, California). We cannot say: “I am only one person, I am not going to change the world by doing this” If you say this, or think this way you are doing the wrong thing, because if we all help, a personal level will turn into a national level and then a global level. We know what to do, how to do it and we have everything that we need. If we are enough smart to create things like computers we are enough smart to solve this, we are only missing will.

We can do two things about the global warming: spending all day long not caring about the problem, while millions of innocents die, and putting yourself in risk or do something about it and change our world. It is your decision…

18 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    "on daily basis" to "on a daily basis"

    "main processes" might want to use a different word there

    "solar radiation pass through" to "solar radiation passes through"

    "but others stay on Earth" you are treating radiation like objects, sounds very odd to me, might want to think of a different way to describe the radiation that bounces back into space and that reaches the earth

    "the ones that are suppose" use something else for "ones"

    "the ones that are suppose to go back to the Space can’t go, instead they stay in our planet, causing hotter temperatures than normal)." There is no opening bracket. The wording implies that when radiation is going back something makes it come back towards earth. That is why i used the word bounce, rather than bouncing off, and only some of it reaching the earth's surface, now only a small amount bounces off and a larger amount reaches the earths surface.

    "of course that it " no need for "that"

    "if the West Antarctic ice shelf melts the sea level would raise 20 feet..." Good point, but also mention the island countries that have already been lost to rising sea levels. Use that to get peoples attention, than move on to NY, netherlands and other areas. Present to future is generally a good way to go.

    You mention a new ice age and rising temperatures. opposite ideas, be sure to have answer to that, if anyone asks, or clarify how the ice age will come about in a sentence or two.

    "on’t leave electronics, (such as computers, televisions, etc.)" Do mention Air conditioners, there are lots of air conditioners in the USA, while the temperatures don't require them. Sure 30 degrees celcius makes people sweat, but that doesn't mean you turn on the ac, if the temperature is above 48 degrees celcius than it makes sense otherwise live through it.

    "don’t use your car so many times " give an alternative, in europe the distances aren't that great, but big cities are big cities no matter where they are located, and people make extensive use of public transport there, while it is unheard of in north america (that standard is very low here as a whole)

    "try not go by plane" to "try not to go by plane" need to give an alternative, there is no good alternative at present for air travel, other than reducing pollution caused by air traffic.

    "plant more trees" Be careful about that one, planting trees is good, but if you aren't smart about it, you will be introducing a new specie of trees in an environment that is not used to it, and this causes major environmental problem. One of the biggest reasons for allergies in cities is that people plant trees without taking into account the environment they are planting the trees in, which plays havoc with the environment system.

    "A man called Upton Sinclair wrote" to "Upton Sinclair wrote"

    "Money or our planet Earth?" To you the answer is simple, but most people chose money that is why we are where we are. Might want to rephrase the question to make the quotation more relevant.

    "have become bigger and more:" to "have become bigger"

    "a personal level will turn into a national level and then a global level." to "a personal level will turn into a community level, which will lead to the city level, state level and to the national level. When other nations see this, it will become a global level initiative" or something along those lines, as in put in more small steps rather than jumping to a big one.

    "If we are enough smart" to " If we are smart enough", same problem when you do the same mistake again later on in the sentence.

    "we are only missing will" to "we are only missing the will to do it." or you might want to define "it"

    "spending all day long not caring about the problem, while millions of innocents die, and putting yourself in risk or do something about it and change our world. It is your decision" Need to rephrase that whole end part. Good ending, bad word choice put together in a hodge podge fashion.

    The over all speech is good, the above things are small little things to improve it if you want. I read it while speaking out loud in my mind and pointed out the places where it seemed odd to a listener.

  • Trevor
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You've obviously put a lot of thought into preparing this speech. I won't mention the grammatical errors as this has been done but I'll just mention one or two points about the content (my forte is climatology, not the English language).

    You mentioned the West Antarctic Ice Cap - if it melts sea levels will rise by 8.06 metres (26 feet 5 inches). You may wish to consider mentioning the East Antarctic Ice Cap, if this melts completely sea levels will rise by 64.90 metres (212 feet 10 inches). The melting of the Antarctic Ice Cap will take many thousands of years, sea level rises attributable to global warming are about 3mm a year (up to 30mm in some places).

    You mentioned an increase in the number of hurricanes - there has indeed been an increase (80% more in the last 30 years) but the link to global warming is not is not as clearly defined as some of the other effects of global warming, there are other factors besides global warming that need to be taken into account. GW has a role to play but it's not the only cause.

    Airplane emissions are nearer to 4% of all human carbon dioxide emissions (3% of greenhouse gas emissions- there's a difference between GHG and CO2 emissions).

    Planting trees needs to be done correctly - the nearer the equator the better, tree planting in sub-arctic and some temporate regions has little or no benefit in reducing CO2 levels.

    It's not really fair on the politicians to say they're not doing anything about GW - outside of the US many politicians are taking action, the US is lagging far behind in this respect.

    Lake Chad does still exist but it's much smaller than it was. Although a lake with a huge surface area it was never very deep (7 metres average if I recall). For decades water was drawn off for irrigating crops and this substantially reduced the water level. Global warming has a part to play but irregation is the biggest cause of the lake shrinking.

    As well as mentioning the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf you may want to mention the Larsen B Ice Shelf that broke off from Antarctica, this was an immense sheet of ice about the same size as Rhode Island.

    If you would like any further help or have any questions please feel free to e-mail me.

    Good luck with your presentation.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It’s all BS global warming is a concoction of the extreme left to social engineer society away from capitalism.

    2005 was the hottest year ever and the hurricanes have become bigger and more:

    Actually if you look at weather patterns of the last 2000 years we are below average” this is done by looking at tree rings). The pretty little graphs used by the environmentalist only go back 150 years to skews the statistics, because there has been a slight half degree increase over that time. Hurricanes have only been counted for the last 50 years and only 25 years with satellites. Before that they were not recorded nationally and before satellites the ones that did not reach land were not counted at all.

    Rita (in Los Angeles, California).

    Actually I live in California and we were only hit with the riminence of that storm. It was similar to an average rain in say NYC or Florida. Most people don’t relies that Baja California is hit with about as many ” hurricanes “or cyclones in the pacific as New Orleans. These storms once they hit the Baja Peninsula travel north toward California and Arizona creating Monsoons, which are very common in the summer months.

    (if you recycle you can save 2400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, which is a big help for our environment);

    All living things create carbon dioxide, including insects which produce it at 3 times the rate of all other living animals on earth, but the biggest CO2 emitter is the oceans that create co2 when water evaporates. When all is said and done humans account for less than 5% of all CO2 admissions thus if the Kyoto accord were in acted world wide including china, and Russian human CO@ would only degrees .005$ not a significant number.

    Many people look at BIG Tobacco and Big Oil with skepticism but don’t realize that the environmental industry is 10 times bigger and far more politically influential. And yet many don’t question their motive but just accept what they say blindly. There is no consensus on global warming, because science is not consensus, but fact. Science is not up for a vote, if that were true the world’s scientist in 1492 could have voted that the world was indeed flat. Most of the scientist that support global warming research today, count on government research to fund their studies, and since funding only goes to those who support global warming theory’s guess what the scientist do? They support the theory

  • 1 decade ago

    It seems like a good speech from a grammar and syntax kind of perspective. I don't agree with your facts though. For example, hurricane Rita did not hit Los Angeles. It hit Houston.

    I also question many of your other facts. I just cannot believe one person recycling will save 2400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. The tree absorbing a ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime is reasonable though. Trees live 100 years or longer, and one ton is 2000 pounds, so that means a tree absorbs, at most, 20 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. I could believe that.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    First of all, you practically ripped the whole thing from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." And Upton Sinclair was one of the most outspoken, anti-capitalist socialists of his day.

    Now to your facts about global warming.

    You claim that if the West Antarctic Ice Caps melt, sea level worldwide will go up 20 feet. Al gore made this number up. The New york Times itself admitted this. In reality, sea level would only go up 23 INCHES. Look it up online. It's a gross exaggeration. Therefore, Manhattan, the Netherlands, and Calcutta wouldn't be affected at all.

    This is from the New York Times (URL below)

    "The latest report from the climate panel predicted that the global climate is likely to rise between 3.5 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere reaches twice the level of 1750. By 2100, sea levels are likely to rise between 7 to 23 inches."

    Second, you claim that the earth will experience more storms and stronger hurricanes. Well, we've had less hurricanes in 2006 and 2007 than we had in 2005. According to global warming, hurricane frequency and intensity should have increased. But it didn't. 2006 was also cooler than 2007. Also, you mention that 2005 was the hottest year on record. However, the "record" isn't reliable past 100 years. So, there really is no way of knowing what the hottest year ever actually was. Currently, LA is experiencing wild fires. However, this is not caused by global warming. This area is naturally dry, and has always been susceptible to wild fires, just like valleys are always susceptible to flooding.

    You mention Lake Chad. It's currently drying up.

    Read this:

    Lake Chad is believed to be a remnant of a former inland sea which has grown and shrunk with changes in climate over the past 13,000 years. At its largest, around 4000 BC, this lake is estimated to have covered an area of 400,000 km². Lake sediments appear to indicate dry periods, when the lake nearly dried up, around 8500 BC, 5500 BC, 2000 BC, and 100 BC. It was one of the largest lakes in the world when first surveyed by Europeans in 1823, but it has shrunk considerably since then. An increased demand on the lake's water from the local population has likely accelerated its shrinkage over the past 40 years. This is largely due to overgrazing in the area surrounding the lake, causing desertification and a decline in vegetation.

    Now, you see? Lake Chad has been drying and filling up for years and years. And, today, Lake Chad is low on water, not because of global warming, but because of overgrazing, and more industry.

    You mention The Western Hunt Ice Shelf. This has been breaking apart since 1900. It's demise is a result of a warming trend that arose since the end of the Little Ice Age, which ended in the 1800's. That is, It's melting is not caused by more emissions, but by natural causes.

    You claim that millions of people are dying. You're trying to use scare tactics, much like Obama did last week. (He claimed that 10,000 people died in Kansas due to Tornados, when only 10 people actually were killed.)

    If you look at the evidence, there really is none proving that global warming is harming the earth. There is hardly scientific consensus on gobal warming anyway. Many scientist have doubts concerning the dangers involved with global warming. You talk about carbon emissions. You'll probably show that carbon emissions graph relating temperature to carbon levels. But you'll leave out the fact that temperature change always precedes carbon level changes. This means that the temperature changes before the carbon levels do. Cutting carbon emissions wouldn't do anything. If would be like trying to get rid of all the cold air without turning off the air conditioner.

    Besides, cutting emisisons won't stop global warming. It'll just delay it for about five years, and, at the same time, cost us a third of our economic growth.

    So, in conclusion, I really don't like your speech. You need to really research your topics before you begin spouting out falsified evidence and attempting to convince people to do things that really won't do anything to solve a non-existent problem.

    Yes, global warming IS happening. It's just not a big deal.

    And remember: we all can drastically reduce the temperature just by switching from Fahrenheit to Celsius.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Your teacher will probably salute you, but that's because he or she also is brainwashed. Here's a big clue for you. Man couldn't, in his wildest dreams, possibly destroy the planet. The earth is not fragile. Not at all. What global warming is really all about is us weak-*** humans worried about our own survival. Don't worry. When humans have thankfully gone the way of the dinosaur, the planet will replace them with something hopefully more intelligent and spiritually attuned.

  • 1 decade ago

    On the whole good. Sounds like your going to use one interesting video. Look for few more to brake up very long sections. Sighting references would give it more force.

    Disagree with concept Earth's overall environment is fragile, but strongest of systems can be overwhelmed. Good Luck.

  • 1 decade ago

    Looks like your presentation will be very interesting. Perhaps you might think of "recycling" your speech into a magazine article to help spread your "voice" to a larger audience. I can give you tips on how to research to find the right Writer's Market to do this should you be interested in doing so.

  • 1 decade ago

    You should say that the glass with ice in it melts faster, because I'd assume that the glaciers are always melting like the glass with ice.

  • 1 decade ago

    This is a great speech if you want people to think you are insane. Man has nothing to do with global warming.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.