TSEM 102.007, 069 Fall 2022 Ten-Page Writing Assignment Guidelines The overall objectives to be met in completing the ten-page written assignment are as follows: · Prepare and present a compelling substantive interpretation, argument, and/or analysis of a problem or issue in a research paper. · Gather and use academic resources effectively and according to the standards and rules of academic integrity in formulating and presenting a substantive interpretation, argument, and/or analysis of a problem or issue. · Understand and evaluate the nature and possible causes and implications of events, behavior, problems, and issues from an informed and intellectually balanced perspective. · Connect concepts and empirical evidence in logically coherent, valid, and compelling ways. To complete this assignment, choose an issue, problem, or historical event that has been viewed in different ways by individuals and groups with different perspectives, political positions, and overall contexts. Identify the specific issue and associated problem that it represents, keeping in mind that how the problem occurs for individuals and/or groups is based on their context and its drivers. As you identify your topic, key on the following questions: · What name is used by individuals and groups in referring to this issue, problem, or event? (e.g., “voting rights,” “the Challenger disaster,” “the war on drugs.”) Bear in mind that the same issue may be referred to differently by different individuals and groups. · What problem or problems need to be addressed and resolved in this matter? · How do different individuals and groups see the problem or problems? · How does individual and/or group context influence how the problem occurs for different individuals and groups. · What are the different views and perspectives on the nature of this problem and its solution? How does context influence this? (Be sure to identify all of the different positions represented in this matter, whether you agree with them or not.) · What do the different views of the problem and its solution have in common? What are the differences? · How, if at all, can the differences be reconciled? · How does your own context affect the way you have approached the above questions? · Which of the views and solutions you have identified have the most merit? · What would you advocate as the solution to the problem? How do you support your position? Steps · Identify your topic · Write a one-page summary of the key issue(s) at stake in addressing this topic · Research the different views and evidence regarding the topic · List the different views of this topic and the bases for those views · Identify the specific problem(s) to be solved. · Evaluate the different views of how this problem should be solved. · Write the final paper. Target dates · Identify topic/one page-summary – 1 November · Provide a list of different issues and views present in the topic – 15 November · Outline the paper – .

1. TSEM 102.007, 069
Fall 2022
Ten-Page Writing Assignment
Guidelines
The overall objectives to be met in completing the ten-page
written assignment are as follows:
· Prepare and present a compelling substantive interpretation,
argument, and/or analysis of a problem or issue in a research
paper.
· Gather and use academic resources effectively and according
to the standards and rules of academic integrity in formulating
and presenting a substantive interpretation, argument, and/or
analysis of a problem or issue.
· Understand and evaluate the nature and possible causes and
implications of events, behavior, problems, and issues from an
informed and intellectually balanced perspective.
· Connect concepts and empirical evidence in logically
coherent, valid, and compelling ways.
To complete this assignment, choose an issue, problem, or
historical event that has been viewed in different ways by
individuals and groups with different perspectives, political
positions, and overall contexts. Identify the specific issue and
associated problem that it represents, keeping in mind that how
the problem occurs for individuals and/or groups is based on
their context and its drivers. As you identify your topic, key on
the following questions:
· What name is used by individuals and groups in referring to
this issue, problem, or event? (e.g., “voting rights,” “the
Challenger disaster,” “the war on drugs.”) Bear in mind that the
same issue may be referred to differently by different

2. individuals and groups.
· What problem or problems need to be addressed and resolved
in this matter?
· How do different individuals and groups see the problem or
problems?
· How does individual and/or group context influence how the
problem occurs for different individuals and groups.
· What are the different views and perspectives on the nature of
this problem and its solution? How does context influence this?
(Be sure to identify all of the different positions represented in
this matter, whether you agree with them or not.)
· What do the different views of the problem and its solution
have in common? What are the differences?
· How, if at all, can the differences be reconciled?
· How does your own context affect the way you have
approached the above questions?
· Which of the views and solutions you have identified have the
most merit?
· What would you advocate as the solution to the problem?
How do you support your position?
Steps
· Identify your topic
· Write a one-page summary of the key issue(s) at stake in
addressing this topic
· Research the different views and evidence regarding the topic
· List the different views of this topic and the bases for those
views
· Identify the specific problem(s) to be solved.
· Evaluate the different views of how this problem should be
solved.
· Write the final paper.
Target dates
· Identify topic/one page-summary – 1 November

3. · Provide a list of different issues and views present in the topic
– 15 November
· Outline the paper – 29 November
· Draft the paper – 8 December
· Final submission – 19 December
The Petition: A Global Warming Case Study
by
Bruce C. Allen and Clyde Freeman Herreid
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
“Sign it, Mike!” Professor Dan Carlson’s suggestion
was unequivocal. “So it’s overstated, maybe a little
extreme. So what? Sign the petition or crumple it up
and throw it out. Either way, let’s get back to work!”
Dan had little time or patience for paperwork.
“It is not just an exaggerated statement. There are
ethical concerns,” geophysicist Michael King
responded. The meeting was not going as he expected.
He had hoped to rally the other faculty members of the
Geology Department against an organization named
the Petition Project. Yet, after only five minutes of
this special staff meeting, his hopes were rapidly fading.
Dan spoke again. “You know that 11,000 years ago a glacier
covered North America. That icesheet is
gone because Earth warmed up without any influence from
mankind or our industries. Cooling and
warming cycles have occurred repeatedly over Earth’s history.
There is paleoclimatological evidence

4. that suggests variations in Earth’s spin axis and orbital shape
drive climatic oscillations or it may be
directly related to solar output. But now, because the
environmentalists have cast Nature and Mother
Earth as victims, the blame falls to the ‘evil humans.’ Well, that
thinking is misguided at best. It is not
science. It’s political correctness.”
“Nevertheless,” Toni Daniels was not one to keep quiet when a
good argument presented itself, “a
global warming trend is emerging that can’t be dismissed out of
hand! Until recently, it was
questionable that temperatures have risen significantly over the
past century. It looked like clouds and
aerosols were offsetting any atmospheric warming generated by
greenhouse gases. But the evidence is
mounting and is already quite convincing. An ongoing project in
the Arctic, named Ice Station Sheba,
has found the pack ice is thinning rapidly. It is 100 miles
further north than expected and is only 7 feet
thick. That is 3 feet less than expected. These findings are
supported by measurements of reduced
salinity in the upper strata of the Arctic Ocean. If that isn’t
enough, now the weather service says this is
the warmest year on record. And a recent tree ring study
indicates this is the warmest decade in 600
years. Also, there are indications that heat-driven weather
phenomena, such as cyclonic storms and El
Nino episodes, are escalating in frequency and intensity. These
signs of climatic change correlate well
with the 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 levels above the pre-
Industrial age value. So, regardless of the
root cause, it is likely greenhouse gases play a role in global
warming.”
There was a momentary pause as Dan and those that sided with

5. him tried to think of a strong counter-
argument. Michael took the opportunity to restate his problem.
“Look, there is more to this than who is
right and who is wrong about global warming. In front of you
are copies of the letter and petition I
received yesterday morning. The project is an effort to convince
Congress to reject the United Nations-
backed Kyoto Treaty. If ratified, the treaty would limit the use
of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, by
approximately one-third of the 1990 levels by the year 2012.
The projected result is a drop of 10% or
2
less in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide
(CO2), by industrialized nations. Listen to
this excerpt from the cover letter which was signed by a past
president of the National Academy of
Sciences:
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas.
Research data on climate change do not show
that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful.
“Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? In fact, it echoes my thoughts
on the matter. Now listen to the actual
petition:”
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science
and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There’s the problem. It is not opposition to the Kyoto Treaty.

6. It is the premise on which that opposition
is based. I find it hard to believe this petition is being circulated
by professional scientists. This kind of
melodramatic absoluteness sounds like the language of a would-
be religious prophet.”
Michael continued, “If that were the end of it, maybe it would
be better to ignore the petition rather than
draw attention to it. However, it gets worse. Again, in the
stacks in front of you, you’ll find copies of an
unpublished professional paper. The authors are from the
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
(OISM) and the George C. Marshall Institute. However, the
format is an exact duplicate of that used by
the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. The apparent
intent is to make the paper appear as
though it has been through the peer-review process. In my mind,
the overstated case—coupled with the
misrepresented paper—is outright fraud! What really disturbs
me are the Internet websites for the
Marshall Institute and for OISM. Both sites present a biased
perspective on global warming and the
OISM page contains a list of several thousand supporters’
names. Among them are some of the
country’s top scientists. I believe the scenario has been
engineered to convince Congress and the public
that the sponsor’s position represents a consensus of the
scientific community.”
“Well, it seems perfectly reasonable to me,” said paleontologist
Robert Peters. “I intend to support it.”
As the senior member of the department, Peters’ opinion carried
considerable weight. “In fact, I think
the department should support it.” Michael’s arguments seemed
to be falling on deaf ears though, by this
time, he was no longer surprised.

7. “Maybe there are ethics issues,” Peters continued, “but maybe a
little white lie or two is just what we
need. The public has been brainwashed into believing that
anything on the evening news is truth. The
media has been pushing global warming for its sensationalistic
value. All the dire predictions are
emphasized, while the arguments against global warming are
ignored. It is never mentioned that global
temperatures were higher in medieval times when grapes were
growing in Scotland and the Vikings
inhabited Greenland. Civilization wasn’t destroyed then and the
coastal lands were not inundated. I
think we owe it to the public to set the record straight. If that
means fighting fire with fire, then so be it.”
“Isn’t it our responsibility as scientists to present a balanced
picture of the facts as we understand
them?” Michael countered. “Grand standing and extreme
advocacy are hallmarks of politics, not
science. I am not convinced that support is the appropriate
response.”
Dan Carlson was a friend of Michael’s. He felt he may have
been too harsh earlier, so he tried a more
moderate tone. “Michael, you’ve been following my research.
You know that I’ve been working with
Global Circulation Models for years now. If I have learned one
thing, it’s that we can’t yet model
atmospheric physics well enough to predict next year’s weather,
let alone the climate of the next

8. 3
century. We simply don’t know Earth’s level of climatic
sensitivity to the input parameters like solar
output, volcanos, clouds, aerosols or the suspect gases. In fact,
we don’t even know that we have
identified all the parameters. We have to ‘tune’ the models
significantly just to get them to represent
anything near reality. That doesn’t leave me with much
confidence in predictions based on their output. I
say let’s not do anything we might regret later, like limit the
use of fossil fuels.”
Toni Daniels clearly sided with Michael. She had a strong
background in physical geography. “We must
be advocates for truth and nothing else. Promoting a cause
through deception is exactly what the petition
backers are doing by adopting that level of advocacy. Besides,
they are simply wrong. As I already
stated, there is ample evidence for global warming. More
importantly, we are running out of time to
avert disaster. It no longer matters whether or not anthropogenic
greenhouse gases are the fundamental
cause of global warming. We all know their effect, so we all
know that controlling their emission will at
least help reduce the rate of warming. The Kyoto Treaty may
not be perfect but it is better than nothing!
We certainly cannot support any petition that opposes it or that
takes an anti-global warming posture!”
Toni was adamant. Michael was impressed by her, although he
did not agree with everything she said.
Dan responded. “Claims of impending disaster are certainly
unjustified! Even if it turns out that

9. manmade carbon dioxide is the primary cause of global
warming, the prospects for the future may not be
all that bleak. My garden is full of plants bigger and healthier
than I have ever seen before. Agronomists
are claiming that plants everywhere are experiencing the same
effect because of increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide. This could mean restoration of our rain forests
due to the increased growth rates of trees.
Higher grain yields would mean more food for more people.
Deserts could become greener. Areas under
ice and snow in the high latitudes could open up. New lands
would be available for human occupation.
Remember, carbon dioxide levels have risen only 25% in over
200 years. An offsetting amount of new
vegetation is entirely possible and could bring the system back
under control, limiting the average global
temperature to roughly its current level…. So, Michael, why
would we want to block an effort to stop
the Kyoto Treaty?”
“Dan, I am concerned about scientific integrity….”
Study Questions
1. What is meant by the term “global warming” and why may it
be a problem?
2. What is the most probable cause of the current “global
warming”? Has our
planet experience global warming before, what caused it?
3. What lines of evidence support or refute “global warming”?
Identify three
specific lines of evidence that support "global warming" and
three different
lines of evidence that refute "global warming".

10. 4. Can we do anything about “global warming”? Described
something that we
can do as a nation and something that you can do as an
indvidual.
References
Print
Jones, Philip D., and Wigley, Tom M. L., 1990. “Global
Warming Trends.” Scientific American,
August 1990, pp. 84–91.
Mahlman, J. D., 1997. “Uncertainties in Projections of Human-
Caused Climate Warming.”
Science, vol. 278, 21 November 1997, pp. 1416–1417.
Schneider, Stephen H., 1989. “The Changing Climate.”
Scientific American, September 1989, pp.
70–79.
Suplee, Curt, 1998. “Unlocking the Climate Puzzle.” National
Geographic, vol. 193, no. 5, May
1998, pp. 38–71.
4

11. Internet
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.noaa.gov
Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/
American Geophysical Union
http://earth.agu.org
USGS Global Change Research Program
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov
Global Warming Information Home Page
http://www.globalwarming.org/index.htm
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
http://www.oism.org/
Revised: 09/06/02 nas
Originally published at
http://www.sciencecases.org/petition/petition.asp
Copyright © 2003 by the National Center for Case Study
Teaching in Science. Please see our usage guidelines, which
outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this
work.
https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/
https://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/collection/uses/
TSEM 102.007, 069
Fall 2022

12. Ten-Page Writing Assignment
Guidelines
The overall objectives to be met in completing the ten-page
written assignment are as follows:
· Prepare and present a compelling substantive interpretation,
argument, and/or analysis of a problem or issue in a research
paper.
· Gather and use academic resources effectively and according
to the standards and rules of academic integrity in formulating
and presenting a substantive interpretation, argument, and/or
analysis of a problem or issue.
· Understand and evaluate the nature and possible causes and
implications of events, behavior, problems, and issues from an
informed and intellectually balanced perspective.
· Connect concepts and empirical evidence in logically
coherent, valid, and compelling ways.
To complete this assignment, choose an issue, problem, or
historical event that has been viewed in different ways by
individuals and groups with different perspectives, political
positions, and overall contexts. Identify the specific issue and
associated problem that it represents, keeping in mind that how
the problem occurs for individuals and/or groups is based on
their context and its drivers. As you identify your topic, key on
the following questions:
· What name is used by individuals and groups in referring to
this issue, problem, or event? (e.g., “voting rights,” “the
Challenger disaster,” “the war on drugs.”) Bear in mind that the
same issue may be referred to differently by different
individuals and groups.
· What problem or problems need to be addressed and resolved
in this matter?
· How do different individuals and groups see the problem or

13. problems?
· How does individual and/or group context influence how the
problem occurs for different individuals and groups.
· What are the different views and perspectives on the nature of
this problem and its solution? How does context influence this?
(Be sure to identify all of the different positions represented in
this matter, whether you agree with them or not.)
· What do the different views of the problem and its solution
have in common? What are the differences?
· How, if at all, can the differences be reconciled?
· How does your own context affect the way you have
approached the above questions?
· Which of the views and solutions you have identified have the
most merit?
· What would you advocate as the solution to the problem?
How do you support your position?
Steps
· Identify your topic
· Write a one-page summary of the key issue(s) at stake in
addressing this topic
· Research the different views and evidence regarding the topic
· List the different views of this topic and the bases for those
views
· Identify the specific problem(s) to be solved.
· Evaluate the different views of how this problem should be
solved.
· Write the final paper.
Target dates
· Identify topic/one page-summary – 1 November
· Provide a list of different issues and views present in the topic
– 15 November
· Outline the paper – 29 November

14. · Draft the paper – 8 December
· Final submission – 19 December