The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

May I ask for a little proofreading ? Options
Lampetie
Posted: Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:21:36 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/12/2013
Posts: 2
Neurons: 6
Location: France
Hi ! I am a french 11th grader, and tomorrow, I have to do a debate in class about ecology. It is in english language, so while I am inspired by the subject, I am also afraid I misspelled words and made grammar errors. I would be thankful if you could point out things that seems weird to you. I also accept counterarguments if you don't agree with what I wrote (and I know most people don't).
Thank you :-) Here it is :

PHOTO 1

Deforestation is often due to the lack of ownership. For example, a great part of the Amazonian rainforest isn't owned by anybody. People don't take care of it, they burn lands and turn them into farmlands. Governments should give indigenous people ownership of the rainforest they live in. Also, Amazonian farmers work illegally, they don't own their lands. Thus, they have to move constantly, implying more deforestation. With deforestation, there is less rain, which is bad for hydroelectricity. Hydroelectricity producers could either buy lands in the Amazonian rainforest or pay the land owners so they don't cut trees, as they are now doing in Costa Rica.


PHOTO 2

Litter is both an environmental and a social issue. It looks, ugly, and it costs the community a lot to clean up after us. It causes blockages in the drainage system and leads to flooding, which also is expensive to repair. Litter decreases oxygen in water, and it can kill aquatic life. It can also be dangerous to people, particularly when it involves broken glass and syringes. We should raise awareness about this issue and educate others on why not to litter.


PHOTO 3

We should see what the man in the mirror doesn't see. The earths cracks because of the drought, it is caused by the lack of rain. This ad tells us that we must be aware of stuff we can't see in our everyday life, such as drought, lack of water, food...
I think people that are victims of polluted water or air should be able to sue the polluters and get a lot of money from them. That way, it would be discouraging.
Water should be privatized, so water systems and sources would be fully exploited. Poor people should get tickets that allow them to have a minimal quantity of free water.


PHOTO 4

In my opinion, this ad isn't personal enough, it takes us too far away from human suffering. It shows desertification, which is, as well as deforestation, often due to the lack of ownership. For example, Sahel was hit by desertification. The pasture was communal, and it led to overexploitation of it. The ground was overused. Collectively owned lands lead to deforestation and overgrazing, which turns the area into a wasteland. The phenomena is called "the tragedy of the commons".

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING :
I don't believe in global warming, and it is certainly not man-made. Actually, studies have shown no significant change in temperature over the last decades. Changes in climate have continually occurred since always. There is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, and it constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere. Some glaciers are melting, but others are growing, so there is no overall melting. It is well-known that a huge part of the Antarctic glacier is melting, but it is actually due to an ice ridge rather than climate change...
SinTax
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:06:18 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/6/2013
Posts: 27
Neurons: 81
Location: California
PHOTO 1

Deforestation is often due to the lack of ownership. For example, a great part of the Amazonian rainforest isn't owned by anybody. Amazonian farmers work illegally because they don't own their lands. Thus, they have to move constantly, causing more deforestation. With deforestation, there is less rain, which has a negative impace on hydroelectricity. Hydroelectricity producers could either buy lands in the Amazonian rainforest or Governments should give indigenous people ownership of the rainforest they live in or pay the land owners not to cut trees, as they are now doing in Costa Rica.


PHOTO 2

Litter is both an environmental and a social issue. It looks ugly and it costs the community a lot to clean up. It blocks drainage systems and leads to flooding, which is also expensive to repair. Litter decreases oxygen in water, which can kill aquatic life. It can also be dangerous to people, particularly when it involves broken glass and syringes. We should raise awareness about this issue and educate others about the dangers of litter.


PHOTO 3

We should see what the man in the mirror doesn't see. This ad tells us that we must be aware of stuff we can't see in our everyday life, such as drought, lack of water, food.
I think people who are victims of water and air pollution should be able to sue the polluters for damages to discourage further pollution.
Water should be privatized so that water systems and resources could be fully exploited. Poor people should get vouchers that allow them to have a minimal quantity of free water.


PHOTO 4

In my opinion, this ad isn't personal enough. It takes us too far away from human suffering. It shows desertification, which is, like deforestation, often due to the lack of ownership. For example, Sahel was hit by desertification. The pasture was communal, and it led to overexploitation of it. The pasture was overgrazed. Collectively owned lands lead to deforestation and overgrazing, which turns the area into a wasteland. The phenomena is called "the tragedy of the commons".

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
I don't believe in global warming and it is certainly not man-made. Actually, studies have shown no significant change in temperature over the last decades. Changes in climate have occurred thousands of times in earth's history, long before human beings walked the planet. There is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, and it constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere. Some glaciers are melting, but others are growing, so there is no overall melting. It is well-known that a huge part of the Antarctic glacier is melting, but it is actually due to an ice ridge rather than climate change.

Lampetie,
Please allow me to commend you on the circumspect and judicious opinions you express in your essay. You resist the politically correct and scientifically suspect explanations issued by environmental extremists who seek to destroy our economic system. I believe it was Winston Churchill who once wisely noted that capitalism is far from perfect, but it's much better than anything else that's been tried.
SinTax
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2013 7:28:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 30,816
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
May I assume that this is in the format of a PowerPoint presentation, and that supporting evidence will also be provided in some sort of elaboration?

Lampetie wrote:

PHOTO 1

Deforestation is often due to the lack of ownership. For example, a great part of the Amazonian rainforest isn't owned by anybody. People don't take care of it, they burn lands and turn them into farmlands. Governments should give indigenous people ownership of the rainforest they live in. Also, Amazonian farmers work illegally, they don't own their lands. Thus, they have to move constantly, implying more deforestation. With deforestation, there is less rain, which is bad for hydroelectricity. Hydroelectricity producers could either buy lands in the Amazonian rainforest or pay the land owners so they don't cut trees, as they are now doing in Costa Rica.

Grammatically, this is good.

As a usage note, the word "ownership" in a discussion like this usually has the connotation of taking personal responsibility for something, and not literally taking title to something.

I am not aware of any scientific study that shows a strong correlation between deforestation and rainfall, never mind a causal relationship. The case for forest conservation is much more strongly supported on the bases of erosion prevention, soil quality conservation, and carbon fixing.

There are a number of studies that demonstrate that hydroelectric power is not only less economical, but also often more damaging to the environment than other technologies.

Lampetie wrote:

PHOTO 2

Litter is both an environmental and a social issue. It looks, ugly, and it costs the community a lot to clean up after us. It causes blockages in the drainage system and leads to flooding, which also is expensive to repair. Litter decreases oxygen in water, and it can kill aquatic life. It can also be dangerous to people, particularly when it involves broken glass and syringes. We should raise awareness about this issue and educate others on why not to litter.

This looks good and sound. I would omit the phrase "after us" as redundant.

Lampetie wrote:

PHOTO 3

We should see what the man in the mirror doesn't see. The earths cracks because of the drought, it is caused by the lack of rain. This ad tells us that we must be aware of stuff we can't see in our everyday life, such as drought, lack of water, food...
I think people that are victims of polluted water or air should be able to sue the polluters and get a lot of money from them. That way, it would be discouraging.
Water should be privatized, so water systems and sources would be fully exploited. Poor people should get tickets that allow them to have a minimal quantity of free water.

This is grammatically fine, although "the man in the mirror" is clichéd and sticks out because its tone doesn't match the rest of the presentation.

This is muddied thinking that conflates two very different issues in water management. Drought is rarely amenable to human control. Instead, it requires adaptive management of existing resources.

Think about this: if water management is privatized, who will be responsible for establishing quotas and issuing water chits, and even more importantly, who will have the resources to develop the infrastructure to distribute the water? These are all problems that are better addressed collectively, at least at the community level, if not requiring regional societal and governmental institutions to implement them effectively.

Lampetie wrote:

PHOTO 4

In my opinion, this ad isn't personal enough, it takes us too far away from human suffering. It shows desertification, which is, as well as deforestation, often due to the lack of ownership. For example, Sahel was hit by desertification. The pasture was communal, and it led to overexploitation of it. The ground was overused. Collectively owned lands lead to deforestation and overgrazing, which turns the area into a wasteland. The phenomena is called "the tragedy of the commons".

The grammar is good.

The reasoning is a bit shaky. Again, the word "ownership" is meant metaphorically, not literally. The concept "tragedy of the commons" refers not to a lack of titles and deeds but rather to a neglect to consider collective interests and assign responsibility for assuring that those interest are protected. There are some areas where privatization leads to better use due to personal interest and motivation, but then these resources would no longer be a part of the commons, would they?

Lampetie wrote:

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING :
I don't believe in global warming, and it is certainly not man-made. Actually, studies have shown no significant change in temperature over the last decades. Changes in climate have continually occurred since always. There is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, and it constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere. Some glaciers are melting, but others are growing, so there is no overall melting. It is well-known that a huge part of the Antarctic glacier is melting, but it is actually due to an ice ridge rather than climate change...

There is no "proof" in scientific inquiry, except in the area of mathematics. There is only carefully observed evidence and rigorous analysis to form testable theory.

The evidence that the Earth, as a thermal system, is currently collecting more energy than it is radiating is irrefutable. The conclusion that emissions caused by human activity have played a significant role in amplifying this trend is strong, with the debate among experts confined to the precise extent, rather than the fact of it. This is not a matter of belief in the sense of faith, this is a matter of confidence in conclusions reached by blistering criticism among the scientists themselves. Whatever remains from this process of peer review has literally stood the test of time in a way that unexamined dogma or uninformed speculations and "common sense" never could claim.

This is different from the political question of what needs to be done now. In that sense, a certain skepticism concerning extreme actions and appeals to emotion is quite appropriate, in my opinion.
Arfax
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:28:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/29/2010
Posts: 103
Neurons: 273
Location: France
Hello,

I'm French too, and I work in the field of hydrology.

Your confidence in private ownership surprised me.
I suggest you try and get more information about the causes of desertification, and its remedies. I agree with LeonAzul : I'm not so sure you can do much about droughts.

You believe that privately owned forests are better managed : aren't many managed forests monospecies ones, with fast-growing trees, with little ecological value (such as palm trees to make these oils that invade our processed food...).

I also disagree with drinking water private management : you can find lots of papers on this topic in many parts of the world. Private companies work to make a profit, and they sell water at an increased price. They are often accused of not investing enough money in infrastructure, because they have a contract for a limited period of time, and so are reluctant to make long-term investments. Public mismanagement does exist, but I would rather trust regional or national control bodies to improve things rather that private companies. Of course, it implies a minimum of honesty and no corruption, but this is also true for private management.

In the developping countries, famous companies manage to obtain pumping licences in good quality aquifers, they bottle the water and sell it for a profit, whereas the local communities suffer from the resulting water table lowering. You talk about giving the local populations "tickets to get a minimum amount of water" ; I'm afraid this will be a very minimal minimum...
What does "fully exploited" means when water becomes a non-renewable ressource ? In Spain, irrigation has led to salinisation of large areas because they generously pumped fresh water, and continued afterwards to pump brackish water coming from deep aquifers or from the sea (along the coasts, sea water can invade the aquifers to replace fresh water pumped in excess...).

About global warming : you do not "believe" but I'm afraid LeonAzul is once more right : the scientists have overwhelming strong evidence of global warming due to green-house effect. Where do your conclusions come from ? These are erroneous. A paper in the prestigious journal Nature states that "The present models are clearly able to reproduce natural climate variability over the past 150 years, and have provided an essential test of the theoretical link between CO2 and global temperatures. Their vision of the future has in some ways been incredibly stable. For example, the predicted rise in global temperature for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't changed much in more than 20 years " (Maslin and Austin, 2012).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486183a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120614

I recommand you the executive summary of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/executive-summary.pdf
SinTax
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:31:37 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/6/2013
Posts: 27
Neurons: 81
Location: California
The IPCC is a fraud, like almost every other organization associated with the UN. On more than one occasion the IPCC has been caught using junk science to make its claims. I applaud Lampetie's faith in private enterprise and his belief in the individual.

I almost couldn't believe it when I saw that he is a Frenchman, because almost all the citizens of France share Arfax's point of view: the glorification of government and unshakable faith in the infallible bureaucracy. The individual is nothing but an appendage of the all-controlling state.

Hang tough, Lampetie. Don't let the pompous priests of Political Correctness lead you down the path to perdition. Always remember: How can anyone trust the doomsayers when they talk about climate change 100 years from now....when the best meteorologists in the world with satellites and powerful computers can't give us an accurate 5-day weather forecast.
leonAzul
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:06:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 30,816
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
First, may I strongly suggest we take this to the Politics forum where it is on-topic. I shall attempt to expain why in the rest of this response.
SinTax wrote:
The IPCC is a fraud, like almost every other organization associated with the UN. On more than one occasion the IPCC has been caught using junk science to make its claims. I applaud Lampetie's faith in private enterprise and his belief in the individual.

The IPCC reports have been found not so much to be fraud as to be flawed. The flaws are those of bureaucratic managers misrepresenting the results of dispassionate science with the use of polemic and emotional interpretation. This is exactly what I was talking about with regard to skepticism concerning politically motivated pronouncements on the subject by those who haven't taken the time to become familiar with the science.

SinTax wrote:

I almost couldn't believe it when I saw that he is a Frenchman, because almost all the citizens of France share Arfax's point of view: the glorification of government and unshakable faith in the infallible bureaucracy. The individual is nothing but an appendage of the all-controlling state.

This is so much false dichotomy and "straw man" polemic that I shall simply let it stand without further comment but this. This sort of argumentation is an almost perfect example of the Marxist dialectic you claim to abjure. Again, this is exactly what I was talking about with regard to skepticism concerning politically motivated pronouncements on the subject by those who haven't taken the time to become familiar with the science.

SinTax wrote:

Hang tough, Lampetie. Don't let the pompous priests of Political Correctness lead you down the path to perdition. Always remember: How can anyone trust the doomsayers when they talk about climate change 100 years from now....when the best meteorologists in the world with satellites and powerful computers can't give us an accurate 5-day weather forecast.

Please continue to ask questions sincerely, Lampetie. Don't let the pompous priests of Political Correctness lead you down the path to perdition.

And please don't let people who confuse meteorology with climatology confuse you as well.
Lampetie
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:00:11 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/12/2013
Posts: 2
Neurons: 6
Location: France
Hi ! I performed well in the debate, my classmates didn't know as much as you guys - thanks God ! I have little knowledge about ecology, and honestly don't care much about it (even though I believe everything I wrote and I am a fervent capitalist, I was also seeking my classmates' and the teacher's attention). But I thank you all very much for the grammatical corrections, it was very useful, as well as the counter arguments :)
Arfax
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:58:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/29/2010
Posts: 103
Neurons: 273
Location: France
I usually so not contribute to these kinds of debate because I know that some people will come with grandiloquent arguments. But this time it happens to be a topic well within my competence, I'm sorry the scientists are being laughed at while the evidence is accumulating. Why should they lie in that sense(they could get bribes by polluting companies if they said otherwise !) ; their problem is not interpreting the data, it is convincing people (problem is two-fold : people in charge do not always understand maths or physics, and scientists too often aren't clear enough).


"almost all the citizens of France share Arfax's point of view: the glorification of government and unshakable faith in the infallible bureaucracy. The individual is nothing but an appendage of the all-controlling state." Waouh... yeah, and we are very arrogant, have a "béret" on the head and a baguette in the hand, are sipping red wine all day, and we never take a shower (did I forget something ?).

This is what happens when the States wants to control : New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Riseand also here.

"Always remember: How can anyone trust the doomsayers when they talk about climate change 100 years from now....when the best meteorologists in the world with satellites and powerful computers can't give us an accurate 5-day weather forecast."

As Leon told you, this often-heard argument is irrelevant ! Weather forecast models are based on complex atmosperical simulations (flows of air taking into account their temperature, wetness, pressure...) whereas linking gaz with green-house effect is another task. It is the same for floods : we can quantify the probability of floods but have no idea of when the next big flood will take place (next year, in 10 years, 200 years...) we can only begin modelling possible flows when the rain starts (flood warning procedures).
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.