Answer:
because everybody has different theories and they get so shocked everybody has different answers
Answer:
a geological event, such as a glacier or sink hole, can create a pond. Ponds are nothing more than shallow holes where water collects. Yet, if left alone, ponds will fill in with dirt and debris until they become land.
Explanation:
explains abt ponds
In the excerpt from Thunberg's speech, she moves from a general premise about CO2 usage to a specific prediction about emissions, as explained below.
<h3>What is Thunberg's reasoning?</h3>
This question concerns the ending of the speech given by Greta Thunberg at the United Nations. Thunberg mentions the following:
- We can still have a 67% chance to stay below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise.
- To accomplish that, back in 2018, we had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit.
- However, that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.
- In conclusion, our CO2 budget will be over in just 8 and a half years.
We can see that Thunberg goes from a general premise to a specific prediction about emissions. The premise consists of everything she says about the amount of CO2 we are allowed to emit. The prediction is that we will use up that amount in just 8 years.
With the information above in mind, we can select option B as the correct answer concerning Thunberg's reasoning. She moves from a general premise about CO2 usage to a specific prediction about emissions.
The missing excerpt is the following:
"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.
"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years."
Learn more about Greta Thunberg here:
brainly.com/question/28419470
#SPJ1
Answer and Explanation:
This question is asking for a personal opinion. Consider the following answer an example, and feel free to change and adapt it to your own point of view:
When people hear perspectives that are hurtful to themselves or to others, they have, in my opinion, two options. They can either choose to ignore them or to argue against them. Some things must be taken into consideration when deciding which way to go, though. The person who is thinking of arguing may ask him/herself whether this discussion is worth the time and effort. They may consider their audience - perhaps the person who voiced the hurtful perspectives in the first place is rude, aggressive, even violent. In that case, it may very well be better to just let go, to just find a better place - and a better audience - to comment and discuss that matter.
If, however, he or she decides to argue - if the audience is open to it, if he or she feels it is worth their time and effort- , he or she must do so with confidence and patience. No hurtful perspective is worth getting angry over. As a matter of fact, once someone displays anger, he or she loses face.
