Kolbert has once again been able to use her great description of people and places to help with this topic of Global Warming.
I understand how difficult it is to write about something that is so intensely looked upon with so much to write about, however I'm beginning to see a repetition in just what this book is really about. It's a compile of examples that to myself...well...at the time may be interesting, but I don't find any hard evidence behind it. It is just examples of animals and how they have begun to migrate in different areas.
I do enjoy this book, however, because it has definitely given me a better interest in what exactly Global Warming is all about and how it is effecting our world today. I enjoy Kolberts writing style by describing her subjects in such great detail from their messy desks to the color of their eyes. That's the type of reading I enjoy, great descriptive writing that can paint a picture in your head being able to visualize these things.
I'm not really sure as to why Kolbert decided to use the examples she did in this chapter, maybe to describe how greatly Global warming is effecting them. However I did notice that throughout this entire book so far she will describe an example for however many pages and then the last sentence is just something like, "there is only one explanation, Global Warming." I feel like she needs more evidence then just explaining these insects and animals or describing what they look like. Personally I feel like they are just that, descriptions. Animals change, as do humans, we adapt to society, as to animals adapt to their surroundings...I understand Global Warming, but are these facts just merely animals changing thinking they are sick of their daily routines just like we do in every day life? That's a question scientists will eventually figure out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amanda, it may be that there is another explanation for a few of the phenomena that Kolbert has described in her book. But she would argue that common sense says all these things would not be happening simultaneously if not for global warming. That's her argument; you don't have to accept it, but I'd like to hear the counterargument.
ReplyDelete