Please can you go to this link and download the exam papers 1 and 2 from 2006.
http://www.cie.org.uk/qualifications/academic/uppersec/alevel/subject?assdef_id=778
Monday 26 May 2008
Wednesday 21 May 2008
Linking Words for essays
Giving examples
For example
For instance
Namely
The most common way of giving examples is by using for example or for instance.
Namely refers to something by name.
"There are two problems: namely, the expense and the time."
Adding information
And
In addition
As well as
Also
Too
Furthermore
Moreover
Apart from
In addition to
Besides
Ideas are often linked by and. In a list, you put a comma between each item, but not before and.
"We discussed training, education and the budget."
Also is used to add an extra idea or emphasis. "We also spoke about marketing."
You can use also with not only to give emphasis.
"We are concerned not only by the costs, but also by the competition."
We don't usually start a sentence with also. If you want to start a sentence with a phrase that means also, you can use In addition, or In addition to this…
As well as can be used at the beginning or the middle of a sentence.
"As well as the costs, we are concerned by the competition."
"We are interested in costs as well as the competition."
Too goes either at the end of the sentence, or after the subject and means as well.
"They were concerned too."
"I, too, was concerned."
Apart from and besides are often used to mean as well as, or in addition to.
"Apart from Rover, we are the largest sports car manufacturer."
"Besides Rover, we are the largest sports car manufacturer."
Moreover and furthermore add extra information to the point you are making.
"Marketing plans give us an idea of the potential market. Moreover, they tell us about the competition."
Summarising
In short
In brief
In summary
To summarise
In a nutshell
To conclude
In conclusion
We normally use these words at the beginning of the sentence to give a summary of what we have said or written.
Sequencing ideas
The former, … the latter
Firstly, secondly, finally
The first point is
Lastly
The following
The former and the latter are useful when you want to refer to one of two points."Marketing and finance are both covered in the course. The former is studied in the first term and the latter is studied in the final term."
Firstly, … secondly, … finally (or lastly) are useful ways to list ideas.
It's rare to use "fourthly", or "fifthly". Instead, try the first point, the second point, the third point and so on.
The following is a good way of starting a list.
"The following people have been chosen to go on the training course: N Peters, C Jones and A Owen."
Giving a reason
Due to / due to the fact that
Owing to / owing to the fact that
Because
Because of
Since
As
Due to and owing to must be followed by a noun.
"Due to the rise in oil prices, the inflation rate rose by 1.25%."
"Owing to the demand, we are unable to supply all items within 2 weeks."
If you want to follow these words with a clause (a subject, verb and object), you must follow the words with the fact that.
"Due to the fact that oil prices have risen, the inflation rate has gone up by 1%25."
"Owing to the fact that the workers have gone on strike, the company has been unable to fulfil all its orders."
Because / because of
Because of is followed by a noun.
"Because of bad weather, the football match was postponed."
Because can be used at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence. For example, "Because it was raining, the match was postponed."
"We believe in incentive schemes, because we want our employees to be more productive."
Since / as
Since and as mean because.
"Since the company is expanding, we need to hire more staff."
"As the company is expanding, we need to hire more staff."
Giving a result
Therefore
So
Consequently
This means that
As a result
Therefore, so, consequently and as a result are all used in a similar way.
"The company are expanding. Therefore / So / Consequently / As a result, they are taking on extra staff."
So is more informal.
Contrasting ideas
But
However
Although / even though
Despite / despite the fact that
In spite of / in spite of the fact that
Nevertheless
Nonetheless
While
Whereas
Unlike
In theory… in practice…
But is more informal than however. It is not normally used at the beginning of a sentence.
"He works hard, but he doesn't earn much.""He works hard. However, he doesn't earn much."
Although, despite and in spite of introduce an idea of contrast. With these words, you must have two halves of a sentence.
"Although it was cold, she went out in shorts.""In spite of the cold, she went out in shorts."
Despite and in spite of are used in the same way as due to and owing to. They must be followed by a noun. If you want to follow them with a noun and a verb, you must use the fact that.
"Despite the fact that the company was doing badly, they took on extra employees."
Nevertheless and nonetheless mean in spite of that or anyway.
"The sea was cold, but he went swimming nevertheless." (In spite of the fact that it was cold.)
"The company is doing well. Nonetheless, they aren't going to expand this year."
While, whereas and unlike are used to show how two things are different from each other.
"While my sister has blue eyes, mine are brown."
"Taxes have gone up, whereas social security contributions have gone down."
"Unlike in the UK, the USA has cheap petrol."
In theory… in practice… show an unexpected result.
"In theory, teachers should prepare for lessons, but in practice, they often don't have enough time."
For example
For instance
Namely
The most common way of giving examples is by using for example or for instance.
Namely refers to something by name.
"There are two problems: namely, the expense and the time."
Adding information
And
In addition
As well as
Also
Too
Furthermore
Moreover
Apart from
In addition to
Besides
Ideas are often linked by and. In a list, you put a comma between each item, but not before and.
"We discussed training, education and the budget."
Also is used to add an extra idea or emphasis. "We also spoke about marketing."
You can use also with not only to give emphasis.
"We are concerned not only by the costs, but also by the competition."
We don't usually start a sentence with also. If you want to start a sentence with a phrase that means also, you can use In addition, or In addition to this…
As well as can be used at the beginning or the middle of a sentence.
"As well as the costs, we are concerned by the competition."
"We are interested in costs as well as the competition."
Too goes either at the end of the sentence, or after the subject and means as well.
"They were concerned too."
"I, too, was concerned."
Apart from and besides are often used to mean as well as, or in addition to.
"Apart from Rover, we are the largest sports car manufacturer."
"Besides Rover, we are the largest sports car manufacturer."
Moreover and furthermore add extra information to the point you are making.
"Marketing plans give us an idea of the potential market. Moreover, they tell us about the competition."
Summarising
In short
In brief
In summary
To summarise
In a nutshell
To conclude
In conclusion
We normally use these words at the beginning of the sentence to give a summary of what we have said or written.
Sequencing ideas
The former, … the latter
Firstly, secondly, finally
The first point is
Lastly
The following
The former and the latter are useful when you want to refer to one of two points."Marketing and finance are both covered in the course. The former is studied in the first term and the latter is studied in the final term."
Firstly, … secondly, … finally (or lastly) are useful ways to list ideas.
It's rare to use "fourthly", or "fifthly". Instead, try the first point, the second point, the third point and so on.
The following is a good way of starting a list.
"The following people have been chosen to go on the training course: N Peters, C Jones and A Owen."
Giving a reason
Due to / due to the fact that
Owing to / owing to the fact that
Because
Because of
Since
As
Due to and owing to must be followed by a noun.
"Due to the rise in oil prices, the inflation rate rose by 1.25%."
"Owing to the demand, we are unable to supply all items within 2 weeks."
If you want to follow these words with a clause (a subject, verb and object), you must follow the words with the fact that.
"Due to the fact that oil prices have risen, the inflation rate has gone up by 1%25."
"Owing to the fact that the workers have gone on strike, the company has been unable to fulfil all its orders."
Because / because of
Because of is followed by a noun.
"Because of bad weather, the football match was postponed."
Because can be used at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence. For example, "Because it was raining, the match was postponed."
"We believe in incentive schemes, because we want our employees to be more productive."
Since / as
Since and as mean because.
"Since the company is expanding, we need to hire more staff."
"As the company is expanding, we need to hire more staff."
Giving a result
Therefore
So
Consequently
This means that
As a result
Therefore, so, consequently and as a result are all used in a similar way.
"The company are expanding. Therefore / So / Consequently / As a result, they are taking on extra staff."
So is more informal.
Contrasting ideas
But
However
Although / even though
Despite / despite the fact that
In spite of / in spite of the fact that
Nevertheless
Nonetheless
While
Whereas
Unlike
In theory… in practice…
But is more informal than however. It is not normally used at the beginning of a sentence.
"He works hard, but he doesn't earn much.""He works hard. However, he doesn't earn much."
Although, despite and in spite of introduce an idea of contrast. With these words, you must have two halves of a sentence.
"Although it was cold, she went out in shorts.""In spite of the cold, she went out in shorts."
Despite and in spite of are used in the same way as due to and owing to. They must be followed by a noun. If you want to follow them with a noun and a verb, you must use the fact that.
"Despite the fact that the company was doing badly, they took on extra employees."
Nevertheless and nonetheless mean in spite of that or anyway.
"The sea was cold, but he went swimming nevertheless." (In spite of the fact that it was cold.)
"The company is doing well. Nonetheless, they aren't going to expand this year."
While, whereas and unlike are used to show how two things are different from each other.
"While my sister has blue eyes, mine are brown."
"Taxes have gone up, whereas social security contributions have gone down."
"Unlike in the UK, the USA has cheap petrol."
In theory… in practice… show an unexpected result.
"In theory, teachers should prepare for lessons, but in practice, they often don't have enough time."
Tuesday 13 May 2008
Wednesday 7 May 2008
Evidence Against Global Warming
Watch the web for climate change truths
Notable stories of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.
So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 "while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions".
A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. Each year between 2003 and 2007, the retreat of its winter snow cover inspired reports citing this as evidence of global warming.
In 2004 scientists from the University of Bangor made headlines with the prediction that Snowdon might lose its snowcap altogether by 2020. In 2007 a Welsh MP, Lembit Opik, was saying "it is shocking to think that in just 14 years snow on this mountain could be nothing but a distant memory".
Last November, viewing photographs of a snowless Snowdon at an exhibition in Cardiff, the Welsh environment minister, Jane Davidson, said "we must act now to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change".
Yet virtually no coverage has been given to the abnormally deep spring snow which prevented the completion of a new building on Snowdon's summit for more than a month, and nearly made it miss the deadline for £4.2 million of EU funding. (Brussels eventually extended the deadline to next autumn.)
Two weeks ago, as North America emerged from its coldest and snowiest winter for decades, the US National Climate Data Center, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a statement that snow cover in January on the Eurasian land mass had been the most extensive ever recorded, and that in the US March had been only the 63rd warmest since records began in 1895.
While global warming enthusiasts might take cheer from the NOAA's claim that "average global land temperature" in March was "the warmest on record", this was in striking contrast to a graph published last week on the Climate Audit website by Steve McIntyre.
Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.
Mr McIntyre is the computer expert who exposed the infamous "hockey stick" graph - that icon of warmist orthodoxy which showed global temperatures soaring recently to their highest level for 1,000 years. He showed that the computer model that produced this graph had been so designed that it would have conjured even random numbers from a telephone directory into the shape of a hockey stick).
On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a "tipping point" where "irreversible change" takes place. This was based on last September's data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million.
What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).
The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe.
Discussion of this on the invaluable Watts Up With That website, run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts, shows how the alternations of the PDO between warm and cool coincided with each of the major temperature shifts of the 20th century - warming after 1905, cooling after 1946, warming again after 1977 - and how the new shift to a cool phase could have repercussions for decades to come.
It is notable that the German computer predictions published last week by Nature forecast a decade of cooling due to deep-ocean movements in the Atlantic, without taking account of how this may now be reinforced by a similar, even greater movement in the Pacific.
Mr Watts points out that the West coast of the USA might already be experiencing these effects in the recent freezing temperatures that have devastated orchards and vineyards in California, prompting an appeal for disaster relief for growers who fear they may have lost this year's crops.
Mr Watts's readers are amused by the explanation from one warmist apologist that "these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities - or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it".
It is striking, in view of the colossal implications of the current response to "the greatest challenge confronting mankind" - as our politicians love to call it - how this hugely important debate is almost entirely overlooked by the media, and is instead conducted largely on the internet, through expert websites such as those run by Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts.
On one hand our politicians are committing us to spending unimaginable sums on wind farms, emissions trading schemes, absurdly ambitious biofuel targets, and every kind of tax and regulation designed to reduce our "carbon footprint" - all based on blindly accepting the predictions of computer models that the planet is overheating due to our output of greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).
The fact is that what has been happening to the world's climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998, was not predicted by any of those officially-sponsored models. The discrepancy between their predictions and observable data becomes more glaring with every month that passes.
It won't do for believers in warmist orthodoxy to claim that, although temperatures may be falling, this is only because they are "masking an underlying warming trend that is still continuing" - nor to fob us off with assurances that the "German model shows that higher temperatures than 1998, the warmest year on record, are likely to return after 2015".
In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late.
Notable stories of recent months should have been the evidence pouring in from all sides to cast doubts on the idea that the world is inexorably heating up. The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.
So a German study, published by Nature last week, claimed that, while the world is definitely warming, it may cool down until 2015 "while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions".
A little vignette of the media's one-sided view was given by recent events on Snowdon, the highest mountain in southern Britain. Each year between 2003 and 2007, the retreat of its winter snow cover inspired reports citing this as evidence of global warming.
In 2004 scientists from the University of Bangor made headlines with the prediction that Snowdon might lose its snowcap altogether by 2020. In 2007 a Welsh MP, Lembit Opik, was saying "it is shocking to think that in just 14 years snow on this mountain could be nothing but a distant memory".
Last November, viewing photographs of a snowless Snowdon at an exhibition in Cardiff, the Welsh environment minister, Jane Davidson, said "we must act now to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change".
Yet virtually no coverage has been given to the abnormally deep spring snow which prevented the completion of a new building on Snowdon's summit for more than a month, and nearly made it miss the deadline for £4.2 million of EU funding. (Brussels eventually extended the deadline to next autumn.)
Two weeks ago, as North America emerged from its coldest and snowiest winter for decades, the US National Climate Data Center, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a statement that snow cover in January on the Eurasian land mass had been the most extensive ever recorded, and that in the US March had been only the 63rd warmest since records began in 1895.
While global warming enthusiasts might take cheer from the NOAA's claim that "average global land temperature" in March was "the warmest on record", this was in striking contrast to a graph published last week on the Climate Audit website by Steve McIntyre.
Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.
Mr McIntyre is the computer expert who exposed the infamous "hockey stick" graph - that icon of warmist orthodoxy which showed global temperatures soaring recently to their highest level for 1,000 years. He showed that the computer model that produced this graph had been so designed that it would have conjured even random numbers from a telephone directory into the shape of a hockey stick).
On April 24 the World Wildife Fund (WWF), another body keen to keep the warmist flag flying, published a study warning that Arctic sea ice was melting so fast that it may soon reach a "tipping point" where "irreversible change" takes place. This was based on last September's data, showing ice cover having shrunk over six months from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million.
What the WWF omitted to mention was that by March the ice had recovered to 14 million sq km (see the website Cryosphere Today), and that ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska that month was at its highest level ever recorded. (At the same time Antarctic sea ice-cover was also at its highest-ever level, 30 per cent above normal).
The most dramatic evidence, however, emerged last week with an announcement by Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory that an immense slow-cycling movement of water in the Pacific, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), had unexpectedly shifted into its cool phase, something which only happens every 30 years or so, ultimately affecting climate all over the globe.
Discussion of this on the invaluable Watts Up With That website, run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts, shows how the alternations of the PDO between warm and cool coincided with each of the major temperature shifts of the 20th century - warming after 1905, cooling after 1946, warming again after 1977 - and how the new shift to a cool phase could have repercussions for decades to come.
It is notable that the German computer predictions published last week by Nature forecast a decade of cooling due to deep-ocean movements in the Atlantic, without taking account of how this may now be reinforced by a similar, even greater movement in the Pacific.
Mr Watts points out that the West coast of the USA might already be experiencing these effects in the recent freezing temperatures that have devastated orchards and vineyards in California, prompting an appeal for disaster relief for growers who fear they may have lost this year's crops.
Mr Watts's readers are amused by the explanation from one warmist apologist that "these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities - or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it".
It is striking, in view of the colossal implications of the current response to "the greatest challenge confronting mankind" - as our politicians love to call it - how this hugely important debate is almost entirely overlooked by the media, and is instead conducted largely on the internet, through expert websites such as those run by Mr McIntyre and Mr Watts.
On one hand our politicians are committing us to spending unimaginable sums on wind farms, emissions trading schemes, absurdly ambitious biofuel targets, and every kind of tax and regulation designed to reduce our "carbon footprint" - all based on blindly accepting the predictions of computer models that the planet is overheating due to our output of greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).
The fact is that what has been happening to the world's climate in recent years, since global temperatures ceased to rise after 1998, was not predicted by any of those officially-sponsored models. The discrepancy between their predictions and observable data becomes more glaring with every month that passes.
It won't do for believers in warmist orthodoxy to claim that, although temperatures may be falling, this is only because they are "masking an underlying warming trend that is still continuing" - nor to fob us off with assurances that the "German model shows that higher temperatures than 1998, the warmest year on record, are likely to return after 2015".
In view of what is now at stake, such quasi-religious incantations masquerading as science are something we can no longer afford. We should get back to proper science before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)