You are on page 1of 3


I would like to choose Anthropogenic Climate Change as my topic for this speech.

Re: Instructor
Hi Student,

Well, at the risk of sounding terribly uninformed, you'll have to explain to me what it IS first,
before I approve it. It sounds like a big topic that wouldn't be able to be covered sufficiently in 5
to 7 minutes... and exactly what would you want to persuade us about?

And I will also tell you that I had another student ask to do global warming as a topic and I told
her no, but I did tell her she could pick one aspect of 'saving the environment' and focus on

I'll look forward to your explanation!

Re: Student
Anthropogenic climate change is human influence on the climatewhich results in negative
change. Since climate change is already a known phenomena I would like to present a brief
primer on the human aspect of it with actual data. Global warming is a broad topic and defines
no particular purpose. I'm looking to show the human relation to climate with simple data.

I want to persuade people that this issue is real in light of this ridiculous dismissal of the Paris
Agreement. My aspect of saving the environment is to create awareness that humans are
ignoring it. You talked about how it's good to present statistics that catch attention, well this is
a perfect topic for that.

Re: Instructor
So, my understanding is that you believe that humans are 'creating' climate change? It is also
my understanding that there isn't actual 'data', but all based on 'models'.

And let me just fill you in a little on the 'ridiculous' dismissal of the Paris Accord. The only thing
it HOPED to changed was to reduce the climate by a FRACTION of 1 degree by the year 2100.
The US was the only country that would be sending billions of dollars to other countries so that
they could maybe do something to reduce their emissions... China wasn't required to make any
changes until the year 2030... China and India are currently the 2 biggest producers of carbon
emissions/pollution, whatever you want to call it. Even if the US did EVERYTHING to reduce or
completely eliminate its carbon footprint, it wouldn't make any difference because of China and
India. The Paris Climate Accord is nothing but a money scheme. "Follow the money" .. Has the
climate changed? Of course, the Earth has evolved since its beginning. It will continue to evolve
and change.

So no, this is not a topic you can do. You can call it anything you want.. global warming,
anthropogenic climate change, it's basically the same thing that the other student wanted to
do. So if I'm not going to allow one student to do it, I can't allow another student to do it. I will
tell you what I told the other student. If you want to tackle a topic that actually makes sense,
why not argue for less dependency on petroleum, or how about an increased use of solar
energy, wind turbines, etc?

Re: Student
What I actually said was that humans are influencing climate changenegatively. Climate does
change by itself, and it always will, but humans are dramatically negatively influencing that
change and knocking ecosystems out of balance in the process. Models are based on data. I was
going to present some of that data had I gotten the chance to do so. Here is an example:

In the past 600,000 yearsaccording to atmospheric samples obtained from ice cores and
other methodsthe abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere has not exceeded 300 ppm. Rarely
does it ever even extend beyond 280 ppm. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution CO2
levels went from around 280 ppm to around 310 ppm in 1950. Now, in 2017, the abundance of
CO2 in the atmosphere has risen to 406.17 ppm. That's a 45% increase in only a little over a
century. By the way, the safe level of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is 350. At this rate, the
greenhouse effect resulting from human emissions will be irreversible in under a century. This is
only one example of empirical 'data'.

As for the Paris Accord, it's a non-binding agreement. Which means there's nothing being
enforced and no requirements enacted. It's an agreement between all nations that a problem is
present and we need to commit to fixing it. The reason this agreement was dismissed is
because President Trump is a climate change denier who's stated: "The concept of global
warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-
competitive." What you say about the U.S. sending billions to other countries is not entirely
accurate. I'm assuming you're referring to the Green Climate Fund here. There's no financial
enforcement, but the U.S. did commit 3 billion to the cause. In the long run, dropping out of
this agreement will hurt the U.S. economy during the global shift to renewable resources. This
has set the U.S. back in being the leader of the coming technological advancements in energy.
Major businesses such as Microsoft are defending the Agreement by stating that it will indeed
stimulate economic growth. A fraction of a degree is substantial. Passing just 2 C is
catastrophic for the climate and virtually irreversible. The Paris agreement is trying to prevent
this. China is already investing and making changes to curve its emissions, while U.S. still can't
get over the denial phase. You say that China and India are the two biggest producers of CO2.
This is half right. China is the biggest with 8715.31 million metric tons of emissions. The U.S. is
in an easy second place with 5490.63 million metric tons. India produces only 1725.76
million metric tons. In overall history though, the U.S. is the biggest emitter of CO2. The U.S.
doing its part in preserving our planet when we're producing 5490.63 million metric tons of
emissions wouldn't make a difference? The Paris Agreement is just a money scheme? I must
say, this is absolute nonsensedangerous nonsense with your authority position over
malleable students.

It's not "basically the same thing." This topic makes all too much sense, and that's why it's a bit
disturbing that you would deny it. My goal was to allow the issue to be recognized so that a
shift in thinking could spark the contrary topics you mentioned as debatable solutions. In order
to fix a problem it must first be recognized. We need people to point the problem of climate
change denial out so solutions can thrive in awareness. With all of this being said, sure, I can
find another topic to do.

Also, no, there is no such thing as an alternative fact. Facts are facts. Only opinions about those
facts are alternatives. When people are misled into believing that opinions about objective facts
are themselves facts we begin to devolve into a culture of 'alternative facts'.