response to review from Ms.Fong (By ZhuoMing)

As there are not so many objective proves for my inatial point of view in Topic 1. I changed to Topic 3, which is considered much easiler to choose a side: Should decision-mskers focus primarily on sulfur particles as the way to combat climate change or should they not? Of course, I chose they should not rely on this respectively new thehnology. And I found that there are a lot of arguments I can present in this topic including those in the roundtable we discussed and some other material I found from the Internet.

Some points are: we should not rely on this as there are a lot of uncertainties and it will weaken our determination to reduce the gases emission. Another reason we should not rely on it because the time is limited and we should concentrate on facing the problem from the obverse side. once this method fails, it would be too late for us to restart the reduction of emission or it would be too dangerous to try other methods again.

I think these reasons are more valid and objective. And as this is only the first draft of my essay on Topic 1. I will still modify it after the conference.

review of the draft of WA2 from Ms.Fong(by ZhuoMing)

The topic I firstly chose was topic 1, namely , discuss how much governments should rely on predictions from climate models when they are planning climate adaptation measures. So the question is how much should leaders rely on the predictions. And it is comparatively a hard topic for an argumentive essay. If we agree that decision-makers should rely primarily on the report, the opposite perspective should be that they should not rely on the predictions, vice versa. And if my statement is that the decision-makers should rely partly these, I probably need to refute both relying totally and not relying nothing at all on the predictions, As is said by Ms.Fong.

However, my point is that different countries should rely on the reports provided by now differently simply because different countries have different values, different profits and different conditions. In the argument, I said something as there are uncertain components in the reports that are provided by developed countries and developing countries may not believe in this as they do not have such advanced technology and would even consider this could become a way that developed countries restrict their economic developing, which is considered not valid and objective by Ms.Fong. After thinking again, I found that there were few argements that could proof my point if I argue in this way so I decided to change a topic.

Response to JiaYue's peer review ( by Zhao Hong)

As mentioned by JiaYue in her peer review, I have also realized that my first draft seems to be out of point and does not look like an argumentative essay. It is more like a summary of the 3rd essay given to us. Thus I have decided to rewrite my draft to rectify the mistake. In my new draft, I have added in my arguments and counterarguments with rebuttals. Furthermore, I have also expressed my stand on the issue clearly similar to that of an argumentative essay.

Next, I have also added quite a number of citations and quotations from different references into my draft to make it more sounding and interesting.

Last but not least, I have also rewritten my thesis statement and my main points for the essay, and edited my conclusion, as suggested by JiaYue.

Peer Review for Yuheng (Done by Zhao Hong)

Yuheng did a good job in writing his first draft of WA2. His essay is well-organized, accompanied with clearly elaborated arguments and counterarguments. His thesis statement “… although some people oppose such a method, there is some evidence which indicates that this is not a good way to combat global warming…” clearly expressed his view on the injection of sulfur particles to cool the planet.

In addition, his introduction paragraph gives a brief yet detailed background of the issue to be discussed, with a question as food for thought. Usage of transition words further enables the paragraphs to be linked smoothly to one another and prevent “breakage” between paragraphs.

On the other hand, Yuheng can probably improve on his paragraphing to improve the presentation of his essay. Some paragraphs are slightly too lengthy which may cause readers to lose their interest while reading halfway.

Moreover, some of his rebuttals can be further elaborated if not most of the content will seem to be focused only on research of SRM. I would advice Yuheng to provide more supporting facts to make his essay more interesting and sounding. I would also like to advice him to edit the part regarding the cost of SRM as he did not give a clear stand on whether SRM is deemed cheap or not.

In a nutshell, this is a good draft with some minor editing to be taken care of.

Peer review (Post by Song Yuheng)

After reading JiaYue’s essay, I think it is a good essay. In the introduction part, she used some examples to show how serious the global warming is. This draws readers’ attention. Then she raised two opposite opinions and rebutted them. Eventually she summed up the reasons why SRM should be implemented. The structure of the essay is very clear. In addition, there are a lot of reference to be used which makes her argument more convincible.
However, there are some defects as well. One thing is that the introduction part seems to be too long. It is almost as long as the body part. I think she can sum up the examples a little bit to make it shorter. The other thing is that the thesis statement is not very clear. I think she can make it clearer by putting her stand at the beginning of the body part.
Generally speaking, it is a good essay.

Peer review on lim zhao hong’s WA2

Very clear and good expansion and introduction about geoengineering and SRM , gives the audience good review of the definition of SRM AND GEOENGINEERING.
Very clear and obvious thesis statement at the end of the first paragraph--- the introduction paragraph.
Clear outline. Know well what you want to say.
However, I don’t think this is a agrumentive essay, as you have no opponent and proponent and rebuttal as well as the stands and thesis statement for both sides.
You have only introduced the advantages and defects of SRM, without showing your own stand and the arguments seem not powerful enough.
Still the points in this essay seems not vey collective and lack of some coherence.
In addition, some references should be added in your draft.
For the conclusion part, not review your thesis statement and main points in your final conclusion. Better mention again in the conclusion

By liang jiayue.

comment on JiaYue's blog(post by yuheng)

This is a good summary. The structure is clear by using transition words “firstly”, ”secondly”, ”thirdly”, ”in addition”. The content is clear as well. It displays the main points in the article one by one. At the end of the summary, it shows the author’s opinion.
However, I think in terms of the problems of SRM some of the author’s opinions is missed in the summary. For example the author also said, SRM might lead to the ignorance of coming out new policy on global warming. In addition, the author also mentioned about the uncertainty.
Anyway generally speaking it is a good summary.