Analysis Of Justin's Argument

The majority of the article’s body contrasts the changes in sea levels, temperature increases and decreases, and alterations in precipitation. Although people in opposition to global climate change have asserted that there hasn’t been warming in the last decade, in 2010 scientists confirmed that the previous ten years were the “hottest decade since modern records have been kept.” People use heavy snowfalls as an example that global warming is a myth, yet “scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere” which cause heavier falls of snow and rain in certain regions, such as the Northeastern United States. By bringing up these points he is creating logos and using basic knowledge to prove his point.

Fred Singer uses data specifically from the past 10 years to support his claim that global warming isn’t real or temperature is not rising, representing a biased sample. The data from the past 10 years are used selectively to tailor his arguments. One could pick any end points in the climate change data and find a cooling trend but if you were to look at the overall data, the temperature continues to rise at an exponential rate. Fred Singers argument uses a specific interpretation of data to appeal to the reasoning side of the public. A potentially better argument could be, cooling trends can be plotted at any end points on the temperature data, but the long term data shows an exponential growth in temperature.

At this point, Patterson approaches the core of his argument, wherein he provides what he believes to be sufficient evidence that the idea global warming will soon cease to be a threat to the progress. He argues that the “fever is breaking, as more and more scientists come forward to admit their doubts about the global warming paradigm”. The use of a fever as a

Beginning with Mark Hendrickson’s argument, he recognizes that the climate is changing. He wrote in his article “Climate Change-Hoax or Crime of the Century” that the Earth has emerged from a Little Ice Age not that long ago, and it would be worrisome if the climate around the globe was not warming

Climate change is not real. The ice caps are not melting. Animals are not becoming endangered. Food is abundant on the land and in the sea. These are the arguments by naysayers and climate change deniers. These are the people who refuse to listen to generations of history and scientific research. These are the political administrations that will stop scientific advancements.

Charles Krauthammer writes an excellent article by attacking the debate over climate change in “The Myth of “Settled Science””. He opens up the article stating that he takes a neutral stance and that neither those who agree or disagree with climate change are right. His main go to target is President Obama. Charles believes that the global warming debate can never be settled. This is because, science is always changing. Based on support of Richard McNider and John Christy, science and technology cannot prove that climate change is a fact or doesn’t exist. With examples of unnecessary mammograms that cause harm rather than good, he questions how can science predict the future based on certain events. He proves that Hurricane Sandy wasn’t the

I am providing the following evidence to support the credibility of the article that I cited above:

An article on Newsela, “PRO/CON: Did Hurricane Harvey Show the Reality of Climate Change?,” was just recently written pertaining to the massive Hurricane Harvey that happened only a few weeks ago. Wayne Madsen, the writer of “PRO: Yes, Harvey Shows Climate Change is Real,” argues that Hurricane Harvey proves global warming exists. On the opposition, “CON: No, Hurricanes Have Plagued Texas For a Long Time,” Whitt Flora believes that global warming had no effect on this disastrous hurricane. However, logos from the supporting article reveal that there has been reportedly more severe storms in these past few years: “With drastic climate change, the world is experiencing historic

In his video “What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change” for conservative media organization Prager University, environmentalist and former President of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore expresses his skepticism of humans being a major cause of climate change. While it is true that humans have not been the sole contributors to climate change, Moore significantly downplays the impact that humans have had on the climate. The overwhelming, international, peer reviewed scientific consensus is that recent human activity has caused an unprecedented increase in global warming (“Climate Change: How do we know?”). Moore’s characterization of humanity’s impact on climate change omits important data and research to spin a misleading narrative on climate change.

Stephen Schneider states that it is his "strong belief that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to form a subjective prior" concerning the verity of global warming and the human causes that underlie it (Schneider). His argument is admittedly based on "a priori" (before the fact) knowledge, yet he attempts to move from "a priori" knowledge to "a posteriori" (after the fact) by introducing the lightest touches of empirical data and suggesting that much more data will be accumulated in the future to confirm his "a priori" assertion. Schneider's argument is brief but convincing in its own way: he admits that his approach to the question of global warming is subjective but that time should prove it to be objectively true. This paper will analyze Schneider's argument by summarizing it, defining the key terms, assessing the conclusion and showing how it follows from the proposition.

Daniel decided he needed more than just one article as evidence to support his opinion.

At the first writing center session, Brian went over a draft of my argumentative essay concerning ethics in journalism. We agreed that the paper had strong evidence but no real argument at the time. We then narrowed down the broad examples I had found, such as video game journalism, to instead focus on journalism that covers world news. Since it was my first time at the writing center, Brian also gave me a copy of the John Jay APA handbook, which helped immensely in refining this and future papers to the correct style.

The most convincing argument on the opposing side to me was Tom’s. Tom argued that religion is not the most dangerous source of conflict in the 21st century. Instead, Tom suggested that economic and social stability is more to blame for conflict in the world today. He also argued that the fact that countries have nuclear weapons at their reach poses the bigger chance on conflict in the world. I do believe that scarcity put people on edge and causes people to form alliances and take other people resources, ultimately doing whatever it take for them to survive.

Many false and inaccurate claims arise when it comes to the opposing views on climate change. Individuals will argue

“When taking the heating of the entire climate system into account, our planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past 15 years” (Cook). Our planet is becoming warmer. When scientists add up all the heat warming the land, oceans, atmosphere, ice melting, earth is accumulating heat equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second. Global warming is a serious issue faced by our world as there has been a significant increase in temperature over the years. But the article published by Dr. Mark Sircus on “Global Warming -largest science scandal in the history” refutes the theory of global warming. Dr. Sircus states that there is no linkage between carbon dioxide and temperature leading to global warming, the sea level is not rising, arctic sea ice extent is now higher and climate change is due to solar activity. Dr. Sircus also points out that that the recent weather changes are not in line with global warming and “we are in the beginning of a deep freeze” (Global Warming - Largest Science Scandal in US History). NASA and the scientific community states that global warming is not a hoax and there is a rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to greenhouse gases released as people burn fossils. NASA states that the “key indicators of global warming are based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance and of receding glaciers, sea ice, and