THIS WEEK'S LESSON ACTIVITIES
INSTRUCTOR__________________________
LEVEL_____ABE Level E______
DATE____________ CLASS
Topic: Global Warming
Guiding Question: Fact or Fiction?
Lesson Objectives:
The students will:
1) write an informative essay citing textual evidence.
2) compare/contrast multiple texts.
3) answer text-dependent questions using evidence from the text.
CCR Standards Aligned to this Lesson:
W/WHST.9-10.2
W/WHST.11-12.4
W/WHST.11-12.9
RI/RL.9-10.2
RST.11-12.2
Reading: The instructor reads the entire text aloud to the students as the students
follow along. The students pair read read lines 1 – 31 (alternate paragraphs).
Encourage students to ‘read with their pencil’ underlining any difficult words or phrases,
circling any interesting or important words, and making brief notes in the margin to
summarize (no complete sentences here). Model this strategy, if necessary. Finally,
students independently read lines 1 – 31. Conduct a brief think-pair-share and ask
students to identify the main idea of the first 31 lines. Distribute Accountable Language
Stems to guide students towards more meaningful discussions. Ask text-dependent
questions for this section (see below).
After the discussion, students take brief notes on their Cornell Notes (see below)
graphic organizer related to the key themes and ideas in this first section. Write the first
summary (found at the bottom of the Cornell Note) as a class. Challenge the class to
summarize the text in 20 words or less using the 5 W’s and How (graphic organizer
below). For the following two sections, students create their own summaries.
Introduce the two political cartoons (below). Ask text-dependent questions based on
the images: How do these images inform the global warming debate? What does each
image portray? Who may have created the images? For what purpose? What mood are
the artists creating?
Adapted from Institute for Learning, 2003
Accountable Language Stems
Agreement
“I agree with _____ because _____.”
“I like what _____ said because _____.”
“I agree with _____; but on the other hand, _____.”
Disagreement
“I disagree with _____ because _____.”
“I’m not sure I agree with what _____ said because _____.”
“I can see that _____; however, I disagree with (or can’t see) _____.”
Clarifications
“Could you please repeat that for me?”
Paraphrase what you heard and ask, “Could you explain a bit more, please?”
“I’m not sure I understood you when you said _____. Could you say more about that?”
“What’s your evidence?”
“How does that support our work/mission at _____?”
Confirmation
“I think _____.”
“I believe _____.”
Confusion
“I don’t understand _____.”
“I am confused about _____.”
Extension
“I was thinking about what _____ said, and I was wondering what if _____.”
“This makes me think _____.”
“I want to know more about _____.”
“Now I am wondering _____.”
“Can you tell me more about _____?”
Review
“I want to go back to what _____ said.”
**When asking text-based questions, ask students to cite the line (or point to the
text) where they find the evidence.**
Text-Based Questions
What can you infer from the title and
Possible Answers
Global warming is imminent. Both political
picture in this text?
parties agree that it will impact the
economy. The homes in the picture may
eventually be underwater. The article may
try to scare the reader and supports the
global-warming-as-fact position.
What key details and/or examples
The ice sheets are melting. Homes and
help support the main idea of global
businesses along the coast could flood,
warming’s economic threat?
agriculture may shift north displacing
southern farmers. Heat and humidity may
become so dangerous that it may impact
construction and tourism jobs. (lines 7 11)
What message is the author trying to
Global warming is real and will impact the
share?
economy. Even former Treasury
Secretaries from both parties are
concerned.
What does “bipartisan’ mean and why Bipartisan: representing, characterized by,
did the author choose to use it in the
or including members from two parties or
title?
factions (dictionary.com). The author is
aware that both political parties have
differing beliefs on global warming. By
using the word, “bipartisan”, he is hoping to
reach out to both parties. (line 1)
Why did the author begin the article in (many answer possibilities)
this way? (lines 7-11)
One thought: it may alarm the reader and
cause him/her to continue reading.
Why did the author include these
(many answers)
particular events?
Global warming is alarming, but when it
affects the nation’s jobs, it can be even
more frightening.
Who is part of the ‘coalition’ (line 13)? Senior political and economic figures,
And why is this significant to the
including three Treasury secretaries.
ongoing climate change debate?
It is significant because the figures come
from the ‘left, right and center’ (line 14).
Climate change is no longer a partisan
issue.
Why did the author use, “unusual
This issue has ‘pitted’ political parties and
bipartisan alliance” on line 18? And
individuals against each other, this report
what impact will this have on
signified a joint message from both parties.
perceptions of climate change?
(line 16)
Why do ‘business leaders in
Global warming directly affects them.
particular’ (lines 18-19) need to wake Business leaders are the ones who profit
up to the risk of global warming?
from farms, tourism, real estate, etc.
Reagan removed the solar panels on Shultz was/is a powerful and staunch
the white house in 1986, Shultz was
republican. If he is changing his mind on
his Sec. of State at the time. Why is it global warming, people should listen.
significant that George P. Shultz
believes that “something’s
happening?” (line 20)
Why is it ironic that Shultz added
solar panels to his house in
California?
What are greenhouse gases and why
do the former Treasury secretaries
endorse the taxing of emissions of
these gases?
Mr. Paulson said that we’re at a
“tipping point” with the planet (line
29). What does he mean by this?
Paulson states that, “A lot of things
are going to happen that none of us
are going to like to see.” (line 30-31)
What do you think he means by this?
What message is the author trying to
share?
What mood does the author create?
Where in the text can you find
evidence of this?
Because he was Sec. of State under
Reagan who took down the panels that
Jimmy Carter installed on the Whitehouse.
(this is not text-dependent, but the
information can be gleaned from the
previous question.)
Greenhouse gases: any of the gases
whose absorption of solar radiation is
responsible for the greenhouse effect,
including carbon dioxide, methane, ozone,
and the fluorocarbons (dictionary.com).
Taxing the emissions may be enough of a
deterrent to cause businesses to reduce
emissions. (line 27 – 28)
Tipping point: the culmination of a build-up
of small changes that effects a big change.
The planet is on the verge of major, and
probably devastating, change related to
climate change.
Floods, heat waves, loss of jobs, etc. Even
things that we cannot imagine.
Global warming is real and a number of
figureheads are getting onboard, despite
political views, to spread the message.
Using words like ‘intense’, ‘dangerous’ (line
10), turmoil (line 11), ‘economic risk’ (line
19), ‘concern’ (line 22), tipping point (line
29) and ‘none of us are going to like to see’
(line 31) sets the tone of a warning and
impending doom.
How I will scaffold my lessons to reach all of my students' levels:
Include independent, pair, and small group work.
Provide graphic organizers.
Provide ample wait-time for students to respond to questions.
Use Cornell Notes for note-taking and summarizing.
Providing Accountable Talk stems to students to guide deep and academic discussion.
How I will assess my students' mastery of the lessons:
Listen for use of Accountable Talk components. Assess student comprehension during
pair work and group text-dependent question discussions. Check for comprehension on
multiple graphic organizers. Evaluate student informative essay, looking for textual
evidence and synthesis from multiple text sources.
My reflections of the lessons (what worked, what didn't, what I might change for
next time):
Resources:
Accountable Language Stems. Institute for Learning, 2003.
http://curriculum.dpsk12.org/lang_literacy_cultural/literacy/elem_lit/curric_instruc_asses
s/interdisc_units/AccountableTalkFeaturesandLanguageStems.pdf
Gillis, Justin. Bipartisan Report Tallies High Toll on Economy From Global Warming.
New York Times, June 24, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/science/reporttallies-toll-on-economy-from-global-warming.html?_r=0
Krauthammer, Charles. Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’. The
Washington Post, February 20, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charleskrauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b9310204122c514b_story.html
Multi-Day Plan
Day 1: Follow the plan under ‘Reading’ above.
Day 2: Follow the same procedures as day 1 for this text using lines 32 – 71. Use textdependent questions to foster a deep discussion of the text.
Day 3: Follow the same procedures as day 1 for this text using lines 71 – 101.
Day 4: Read Krauthammer’s article. Follow the same procedures as day 1 for this text.
Ask text-dependent questions and encourage students to cite their evidence during
class discussion. Include: What similarities and/or differences are there in the two
texts? From what point of view are the both written? What in the text makes you say
that? How does your own point of view compare to those of the two authors? How
does the author’s choice of words, the tone of the language, illuminate the author’s point
of view on the topic?
Day 5: In pairs, students use a Venn Diagram, compare/contrast the two articles. Lead
a class discussion on the similarities/differences in tone, point of view, topic, etc.
Students begin to gather evidence for their essay. Use the evidence graphic organizer
to help students find and interpret their evidence (use “Quote It” organizer below).
Day 6-8: Students write an informative essay on global warming citing evidence from
both texts. Follow the writing process and include peer editing and multiple revisions.
1
The New York Times
3
Bipartisan Report Tallies High Toll on Economy From
Global Warming
4
By JUSTIN GILLIS JUNE 24, 2014
5
6
Homes in Miami Beach. A report says unchecked warming could put 1 to 5 percent of Florida properties below sea
level by 2100. Credit Joe Raedle/Getty Images
2
7
8
9
10
11
More than a million homes and businesses along the nation’s coasts could flood repeatedly
before ultimately being destroyed. Entire states in the Southeast and the Corn Belt may lose
much of their agriculture as farming shifts northward in a warming world. Heat and humidity
will probably grow so intense that spending time outside will become physically dangerous,
throwing industries like construction and tourism into turmoil.
12
13
14
15
That is a picture of what may happen to the United States economy in a world of unchecked
global warming, according to a major new report released Tuesday by a coalition of senior
political and economic figures from the left, right and center, including three Treasury
secretaries stretching back to the Nixon administration.
16
17
18
19
At a time when the issue of climate change has divided the American political landscape, pitting
Republicans against Democrats and even fellow party members against one another, the
unusual bipartisan alliance of political veterans said that the country — and business leaders in
particular — must wake up to the enormous scale of the economic risk.
20
21
22
23
24
“The big ice sheets are melting; something’s happening,” George P. Shultz, who was Treasury
secretary under President Richard M. Nixon and secretary of state under President Ronald
Reagan, said in an interview. He noted that he had grown concerned enough about global
warming to put solar panels on his own California roof and to buy an electric car. “I say we
should take out an insurance policy.”
25
26
27
28
The former Treasury secretaries — including Henry M. Paulson Jr., a Republican who served
under President George W. Bush, and Robert E. Rubin, a Democrat in the Clinton administration
— promised to help sound the alarm. All endorse putting a price on greenhouse gases, most
likely by taxing emissions.
29
30
31
“I actually do believe that we’re at a tipping point with the planet,” Mr. Paulson said in an
interview at his home in Chicago. “A lot of things are going to happen that none of us are going
to like to see.”
32
33
34
35
Speaking Tuesday morning at a news conference in New York, Mr. Rubin urged the Securities
and Exchange Commission to take a tougher stance in requiring that publicly held companies
disclose the climate-related risks they may face. While many companies have started issuing
such warnings to investors, the disclosures are often vague and inadequate, he said.
36
37
38
“I have come to believe that climate change is the existential issue of our age,” Mr. Rubin said.
“I believe that investors should insist that companies disclose their risks, including the value of
assets that could be stranded.”
39
40
41
He was referring to warnings that assets worth trillions of dollars are at risk of being stranded,
or rendered obsolete, including vast coal and oil deposits that will most likely have to be left in
the ground if dangerous levels of global warming are to be prevented.
42
43
44
45
46
47
The campaign behind the new report, called Risky Business, is funded largely by three wealthy
financiers who are strong advocates of action on global warming: Mr. Paulson, who with his
wife, Wendy, has helped finance conservation efforts for decades; Thomas F. Steyer, a
billionaire former hedge fund executive and Democrat who is pushing to make global warming
a central issue in political races around the country; and Michael R. Bloomberg, the former
mayor of New York, who now urges cities to confront the threat of climate change.
48
49
50
They commissioned an economic modeling firm that often does work for the oil and gas
industry, the Rhodium Group, to assemble a team of experts who carried out the risk analysis.
Trevor Houser, a Rhodium partner who led the study, sought to insulate the findings from the
51
52
political opinions of the sponsors, in part by setting up a committee of leading climate scientists
and environmental economists who reviewed the work.
53
54
Mr. Houser called the analysis “the most detailed modeling ever done on the impact of climate
change on specific sectors of the U.S. economy.”
55
56
57
Still, it is unclear whether the new report, or the voices of the former Treasury secretaries, will
have an effect on companies or investors, given that many decisions on Wall Street are driven
by short-term considerations of profit and loss.
58
59
60
61
“The largest companies are starting to realize climate change is a financial issue,” said Mindy S.
Lubber, who runs a Boston advocacy group called Ceres that seeks to focus investor attention
on the economic risks. “Are they radically changing yet? No. But we’re making some progress,
slowly.”
62
63
64
The report said the economic effects would vary substantially by region. Some colder states
may actually benefit from higher temperatures in significant ways, including longer growing
seasons.
65
66
67
Under the likeliest projections, Mr. Houser said, the American economy will keep growing
throughout this century despite the increasing economic drag from climate change. So people
in the future will probably be wealthier than those of today.
68
69
70
71
But the warming will nonetheless impose huge costs, the report said. Coastal counties, home to
40 percent of the nation’s population, will take especially large hits from the rise of the sea,
which could swallow more than $370 billion worth of property in Florida and Louisiana alone by
the end of the century.
72
73
74
If greenhouse gas emissions continue at a rapid pace, the report said, the global sea level could
increase roughly a foot by 2050, and double or triple that by century’s end. A rise of as much as
six or eight feet cannot be entirely ruled out, but that is more likely in the next century.
75
76
77
78
Given that land is sinking in Louisiana even faster than the sea is rising, 4.1 percent to 5.5
percent of all insurable property in that state will be below mean sea level by 2050, the report
predicted. By 2100, that figure could reach 15 percent to 20 percent. In Florida, 1 percent to 5
percent of all properties could fall below sea level by 2100, the report said.
79
80
81
82
83
But long before homes and businesses along the coast are entirely inundated, the researchers
said, owners will face escalating damages from flooding. That poses substantial risks to
taxpayers, who subsidize the National Flood Insurance Program, which has already been put
more than $20 billion in the red by storms of recent years. Coastal property owners have fought
attempts by Congress to charge premiums reflecting the true hazard.
84
85
86
The study projected complex effects on American agriculture. It is possible that farm output will
continue rising, the report found, as it has done for many decades — but that increase may
require huge shifts in where crops are grown.
87
88
89
90
With current agricultural practices, the losses could be substantial in the Southeast and the
Corn Belt, as high temperatures and water stress take a toll on crops. That would have to be
made up by an agricultural shift to the northern rim of the country, with states like North
Dakota and Minnesota potentially being net winners.
91
92
But in parts of the country, farmers and other outdoor laborers will face routinely dangerous
working conditions as summers grow longer and hotter, the report found.
93
94
95
96
97
If emissions continue apace, the combination of heat and humidity projected for some regions,
particularly the Southeast, at century’s end means that anyone working outside at certain times
will face a high risk of life-threatening heat stroke. And in the 22nd century, much of the
eastern half of the country could face these conditions for weeks on end, the researchers
predicted.
98
99
While the economic consequences would probably be substantial, Mr. Houser’s group
essentially gave up on trying to attach hard numbers to that particular hazard.
100
101
“You shouldn’t be thinking about that risk in economic terms,” Mr. Houser said. “That’s just:
What kind of world do we want to live in?”
The Washington Post
Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’
Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer
Charles Krauthammer writes a weekly political column that runs on Fridays.
February 20
I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.
I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who
pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are whitecoated propagandists.
“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his
latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is
nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static,
and impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long
assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so
settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms
(for free, no less) or be subject to termination.
Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed
for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths.
Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives
unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.
So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast
cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And
how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate
research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are
hopelessly mistaken?
They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues
Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their
predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a
computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being
real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly
wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and
John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.
Settled? Even Britain’s national weather service concedes there’s been no
change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years. If
even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying
models, how settled is the science?
But even worse than the pretense of settledness is the cynical attribution of
any politically convenient natural disaster to climate change, a clever term
that allows you to attribute anything — warming and cooling, drought and
flood — to man’s sinful carbon burning.
Accordingly, Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California last
Friday. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even the New York Times
gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, “the most
recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California
should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”
How inconvenient. But we’ve been here before. Hurricane Sandy was made
the poster child for the alleged increased frequency and strength of “extreme
weather events” like hurricanes.
Nonsense. Sandy wasn’t even a hurricane when it hit the United States.
Indeed, in all of 2012, only a single hurricane made U.S. landfall. And 2013
saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in 30 years. In fact, in the last half-century,
one-third fewer major hurricanes have hit the United States than in the
previous half-century.
Similarly tornadoes. Every time one hits, the climate-change commentary
begins. Yet last year saw the fewest in a quarter-century. And the last 30 years
— of presumed global warming — has seen a 30 percent decrease in extreme
tornado activity (F3 and above) versus the previous 30 years.
None of this is dispositive. It doesn’t settle the issue. But that’s the point. It
mocks the very notion of settled science, which is nothing but a crude attempt
to silence critics and delegitimize debate. As does the term “denier” — an echo
of Holocaust denial, contemptibly suggesting the malevolent rejection of an
established historical truth.
Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith.
For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, there’s more
than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads. If you whore after other gods, the
Bible tells us, “the Lord’s wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the
heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit”
(Deuteronomy 11).
Sounds like California. Except that today there’s a new god, the Earth Mother.
And a new set of sins — burning coal and driving a fully equipped F-150.
But whoring is whoring, and the gods must be appeased. So if California
burns, you send your high priest (in carbon-belching Air Force One, but never
mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant
congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a “climate resilience fund.”
Ah, settled science in action.