References for project

Here are two links to useful journal articles discussing plan colombia, the topic for my group's final project:

http://www.jlup.org/journal/vol3issue1currentIssues/Gibbs_Leech_Dimensions.pdf

http://www.tni.org/archives/vargas/jdpi.pdf

My contribution to the group

Ase a member of team firecats I will be doing a lot of the research on the project about plan Colombia, as well as helping put together the report. I will also present and help prepare the presentation.

signal phrases

To put a commercial flight in perspective, a February 2007 New Scientist article titled “Green Sky Thinking” stated, “A single flight across the Atlantic can guzzle about 60,000 liters – more than an average motorist uses in 50 years of driving – generating about 140 tons of carbon dioxide, along with 750 kilograms of nitrous oxide2.” ( From the article "In the article The Not So Green Sky by Mike Szczupak")

Larry Carbone, a veterinarian at the University of California’s animal testing laboratory explains in his book,What animals want: expertise and advocacy in laboratory animal welfare policy, that animals do feel pain, but not in the same way as humans4. (from the article Not All Rats are Rats? by Heather Durkee )

According to a Sharon Beder in the article entitled, "Greenwashing/Greenscamming/Greenspeak", many organizations even pay extra money for public relations experts to make their companies seem more environmentally friendly than others.[1] (From the article When Some Go Green, Others Get Your Green! by Aaron Eskind )

Amazon use the "slash and "burn" method to clear the forest states MIT’s Project Amazonia. (Deforesting the World by Sara Morimoto )

A recent report from the World Wind Energy Association shows that wind power currently accounts for 1.5% of all energy around the World, and is a front being led by the United States (Oil Blows! Is Wind Power Earning the Attention it Deserves? by Thomas Hutley )

oratory techniques

One of the better presentations I have seen recently was made by my grandmother. She recently published a book about children hidden in convents during the holocaust, and has been going around the country promoting her book. I have seen a number of her presentations and have been impressed every time. As far as posture and everything she spoke confidently and did not move around too much during her presentation. She was brought up a variety of stories. She clearly ended and started new sections throughout her presentation, such as when she transitioned from the childrens' response to the nuns' response, or from her story to the stories in her book. Her rhetoric was clear and she was able to make it seem like her book is a mixture of stories that allow for a lot of analysis and tell a lot about a time period.

A bad presentation I have seen was in the BME lecture class. Professors from within the department usually speak and show a slide show. One professor brought up a slide show with harsh colors that didn't match at all. The presentation was way too centered around images, which made it harder to take notes, since he also spoke quickly. He continually finished a sentence with "yeah..." and brought up unecessary pieces of information like when he saw his old students in the pictures on the presentation he was showing us.

fact checking

For my second article (the one on our green pages) I found a wealth of information on the topic. Some scientific journals such as "Nature" have covered the subject of geo-engineering incredibly in depth, and have called on a variety of opinionated scientists to give their point of view. In addition, more popular sources like Scientific American and The Guardian have done a few articles on the subject, probably in an attempt to give the reader a balanced view of the progress made in geo-engineering as well as the controversy surrounding it. These articles weren't quite as credible as articles published in scientific journals such as Nature and Climate Change, however they did provide a lot of good information which was probably compiled from articles in scientific journals. The articles in popular sources often cited many studies recently conducted, and those studies could be further examined individually if one decided to go search for them.
Overall, I feel that my article's use of 6 pieces from specialized journals lends it a lot of credibility. The pieces include conference proceedings and journal articles which all discuss my topic in depth. The use of popular sources also contributed, because often times experts that seemed to be credible (professors, researchers, ect.) were quoted in the article.
Overall, finding sources for the paper was not too difficult as geo-engineering has been getting a lot of attention recently.

Rhetoric in opinion pieces

Opinion pieces are simple forms of writing intended to express an opinion, convince an audience, and in some cases, call the audience to action.
An opinion piece arguably has two purposes, one is to express an opinion, and the other is to convince the public of the opinion. Of course the first part is much easier to do. Convincing the audience is where the bulk of the author's rhetorical strategies come into play. Most editorials use deductive reasoning, by which they will first make a statement, and then go into more depth and present evidence in order to prove that statement. If the author of the opinion piece is writing about sciences, he/she will use evidence from scholarly and reliable sources generally. If the editorial piece is meant to be a simple insult of someone (as was the case with the article criticizing Caesar Milan), then the author will more likely use observations made by himself or herself, possibly quotes from various people, and maybe a few statistics to help drive home their point.
The tone of editorial pieces varies, however most of the ones I have recently read have taken on a condescending and sarcastic tone. The author is generally acting in a condescending view towards the other opinion, or specifically, the supporters of other opinions. This appeals to the audience because it makes them feel as though the author of the editorial knows enough and is powerful enough that he/she can treat his opposition like a child, and not like a worthy adversary.
Opinion pieces that are not condescending are generally more alarmist and generally call for action. They tend to bring forward more evidence to support the author's views, and take less jabs at the opposition. They try to make their cause seem like an immediate necessity, and usually end up telling the audience that they need to bring about some change.

Modifications to assignment 3 outline

in light of the peer review we did during class I will be making some changes to the draft based of criticism of my outline.

I will reorganize my arguments in such a way that the strongest ones are in the beginning and the end of the article with the weaker ones somewhere in the middle.

I will use inductive reasoning. I will start with a statement and then I will back it.

I will explain to the audience how they are partially responsible for the problem discussed in the article, and how these problems are already negatively affecting our environment, which is why they should change their ways.

Much of the article will be based of common knowledge, such as knowledge that people change cell phones very often, and rarely for the reason that their old one is broken. The main research part might come with statistics about the harm of urban sprawl and the amount of land taken up to farm meat eaten in America. Also, compare standard of living of american to taht of 3rd world person or even a european