multimodality discussionat least 200 words W r i t i n g

1.Multimodality Discussion

At least 200 words + 1 image | 3 replies

After reviewing the What is Multimodality? page, watch these introductory videos to the topic of climate change: “Climate Change 101” and “Climate Science: What You Need to Know.” Both videos are multimodal as they incorporate speech, images, text, and graphics in their compositions.

In your discussion post, write about how and to what effect multimodality is used in the videos. You should refer to individual elements (like graphics, charts, video clips, text) using specific examples (like the melting glacier in Nye’s video or the warming graph in the PBS video). Does the multimodality of these compositions enhance your experience as a viewer? If yes, how so? If no, explain why not? Include at least one screen shot from either of the videos to make your post multimodal .

Comment on at least 3 posts by your peers.

2.”The Uninhabitable Earth” Discussion

3 Paragraphs | 2 Replies

Link to article: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html (Links to an external site.)

Link to PDF: The Uninhabitable Earth

In the summer 2017, David Wallace-Wells published “The Uninhabitable Earth” in New York magazine. Based on his research of primary sources and interviews with climate scientists, Wallace-Wells depicts a “worst-case scenario” of unmitigated climate change. The impacts go beyond glaciers melting and sea level rise, Wallace-Wells quickly points out, and he goes on to describe several other impacts. He writes about extreme heat, food insecurity, climate plagues, air and water pollution, armed conflict over diminishing resources, and economic collapse (and this still only skims the surface of the wide range of effects of climate change).

There were strong negative reactions to this article. Some called him a “climate alarmist,” dismissing the depictions as overly exaggerated and lacking credibility. Others complained that the rhetoric of the article was too pessimistic and fatalistic, arguing that climate writing should inspire hope and action rather than instill doom and gloom.

In response to the first criticism, Wallace-Wells republished the article with annotations (the version you are reading). With these annotations, Wallace-Wells provides more context for his claims and creates hyperlinks to the various primary sources that he based his writing on, encouraging readers to go straight to the facts. Last year, he expanded this article into a book: The Uninhabitable Earth: Life after Warming (Links to an external site.) (2019).

After you’ve read the article, I’d like you to do a few things in this discussion assignment.

1. Summarize one of the impact sections (I-VIII)
   1. Write a one-paragraph summary of the section using 2-3 quotes (and explain their significance)
   2. Briefly assess the rhetoric of the section. Does the author cite credible sources and data to make his points (logos; ethos), does he use vivid and striking language to create emotional responses (pathos), does he create a sense of urgency around the topic and make it timely (kairos)–or any combination of these rhetorical appeals? Provide at least one example.
2. Do a google search and see if there are any recent articles (within the last year) that relate to this section.
   1. Create a Work Cited citation (click here (Links to an external site.) and scroll down to see how to cite “An Article in a Web Magazine” or “A Page on a Website”)
   2. In a paragraph, summarize the contents of the article
   3. Relate it to the section from Wallace-Wells’ piece. Does the recent article support, contradict, or in any way add more nuance to Wallace-Wells’ predictions?
3. Write a one-paragraph response to “The Uninhabitable Earth”
   Some things you can consider in your response: do you agree or disagree with the criticism that the author is exaggerating and has no credible basis for his claims? Do you agree or disagree that the article is too pessimistic and fatalistic? Do you find the article to be informative in terms of describing some of the impacts of climate change? Did anything from the article surprise you? Which aspects of the article did you mostly strongly respond to and why?
4. After submitting your discussion post, read and respond to at least 2 posts from your peers.
   1. Your response should be at least 3 sentences
   2. (Try to) respond to someone who wrote about the same section that you chose
   3. (Try to) respond to someone who about about a different section than the one you chose