Essay On Evidence

Climate change is the long term shift in global climate patterns attributed mainly to the use of fossil fuels. Many people are aware of this issue, however, there has been an increase in the amount of people who deny climate change. 23 percent of Americans (compared to last year’s 16 percent) believe that climate change is not a problem (Atkin). To conclude that people do not accept cli­mate change because they do not under­stand it or need to be educated about it, is reasonable. However, I believe that it isn’t skepticism driving this denial. Rather, it is the phenomenon of reaffirming one’s identity. Instead of analyzing the evidence, it is intentionally interpreted in such a way as to maintain a pre-existing belief.

There are many ways to convey a message to readers. Often times authors, speech writers, etc., refer to Aristotle’s three main concepts of rhetoric, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is considered to be the, “credibility,” of the author. Pathos is the idea of, “emotional appeal,” to the audience. Finally, Logos is the translated as the, “logic,” involved when making a point. All forms of rhetoric have at least one of these concepts, while good arguments incorporate a well balanced mixture of the three.

Indeed, wooden-headedness plays a large role inside of all organizations and human affairs, as seen by our American government. Even though there is a scientific consensus among the top scientists in the world that climate change is a real phenomenon, Trump and his administration have constantly ignored all contrary signs of climate change to focus on his preconceived notion that climate change was invented by China to set back our industrial capacity. Despite the fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated how “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society,” Trump continues to exhibit wooden-headedness by rejecting contrary evidence of climate change and pretending as if climate change doesn’t exist.

In order for the audience to be persuaded, they must believe the argument is (or is not) logical and is supported by appropriate evidence. To find whether the evidence is appropriative it must have criteria that is sufficient, typical, accurate, and relevant (Killingsworth, 2005). The results fret his analysis concludes the rhetor was deficient in supporting the argument with sufficient evidence from the topic of individuals change over time. There was an abundance of studies shared that contributed to understanding of different aspects of the topics context but little information was incorporated to show any negative view. The inadequacy of information in the writing was a strategic approach made by the rhetor to manipulate the listeners impression of the topic. The audience was left to draw their own conclusions with an incomplete understanding of the topic but well informed. This action swayed reasoning by the carefully manipulated information presented. Consequently, technique was effective in persuading the audience to adopt his particular

In order to effectively convince an audience that a certain claim is true, it is necessary to use both evidence from a variety of sources and different rhetorical devices to make your claim seem valid.

The roles of science, the media, and politics greatly influence public opinion and understanding of the world around us. These three spheres of information and action are invariably linked when discussing complex global issues like climate change. However, the presentation and resolution of disagreement within the three spheres is incredibly independent. The many ways that climate change, specifically the debate on the existence of climate change, is portrayed within these spheres can greatly affect public emotion, knowledge, and policy of such an issue. This is particularly evident in the United States (US) (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). This paper attempts to briefly outline the portrayal and settlement of the debate on the existence of

Donald Trump, ruthless businessman and future president, who will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017, has proclaimed again and again that he does not accept the scientific evidence that climate change is real. This is a surprising remark considering that it’s a well-known fact that “97 percent of scientific experts agree that human-caused climate change is real”. It was also revealed that on his campaign website he has nothing about the environment, unlike Hillary Clinton who listed “protecting animals and wildlife” and “climate change” as two main topics on hers.

This essay will discuss my understanding and use of using evidence-based reasoning, and my understanding and use of pursuing scholarly inquiry. Firstly, what is evidence-based reasoning? Evidence-based reasoning to me, is using information that is credible, and that has used methodology such as surveys, experiments, control groups, tests etc. that support the claims they are making. Evidence-based reasoning is backed up by factual statistics and/or information. Evidence-based reasoning is also not one-sided. Evidence-based reasoning does not start with a claim then find sources that support it, but evidence-based reasoning starts with the research information to in the end conclude / make a claim about a certain topic. In my paper, I used evidence-based

This lecture was hosted by Dr. Andrew Hoffman from University of Michigan. As suggested by the title, this lecture was a “diluted” version of considerable research from his book, which focused on understanding the effects of culture and politics on the notion of climate change. Dr. Hoffman started the lecture by providing many scientific studies and facts proving the reality and seriousness of climate change. So the question is, why do some people choose to not believe and oppose the scientific consensus on issues of climate change, while all the proofs are present? And the simple answer he gave was that, the debate over climate change right now is not about science, is not about climate models, but about politics and the conflicting worldviews of these people and the values that are threatened by the notion of climate change. Dr. Hoffman then explained that one of the key arguments is that a scientific consensus does not necessarily reflect social consensus.

Al Gore makes a claim that polar bears are decreasing because the ice caps are melting causing them to drown, but actually the population is increasing due to the new hunting regulations. There are now more than 25,000 polar bears here today. Ice caps go through melting and freezing phases. During the summer they melt and during the winter they freeze back up. It is all apart of the seasonal cycles on how close and far away the sun is to a particular place on earth. The sea level has risen 7 ½ inches in the last 150 years which is a normal measurement. It is said that hurricanes are decreasing, droughts intensity levels are dropping and occurrences are declining, but the snow storms have increased. The problems with this information is that no one can predict the actual weather. The scientists who disagree with global warming state that they believe it is a carbon problem due to the plants, not a CO2 problem. They believe that the sun is the cause of all of the climate change. Federal government is responsible for the majority of the research projects. If you want to do a research project about disagreeing with global warming they will most likely not fund you. They have set up the global warming policy to reduce the CO2 levels, but this is affecting other people throughout the world who need aid, but the policies are preventing

Craven talks about in his book, it can be very helpful. It is possible to find evidence for any argument if you look hard enough, and the credibility spectrum give a good way to decide who you should be listening to. One example of a source that is pretty good is the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a panel of scientific climate experts from all around the globe that about every five years compiles a report on, essentially, everything new and important in climate change. This is a very good source because, all of these people are experts in their fields, they come from a vast number of scientific fields, as well as from countries all over the world, and they all look at the report to ensure that the information they put out is as accurate and current as possible. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences would also be a good source to turn to. Being elected to be part of the NAS is a great honor in the scientific community, and it carries with it the understanding that you have made great contributions to science and that you know what you’re talking about. So, while it isn’t perfect, it would be worth it to look at and listen to what the member of the NAS are listening to, because they have a lot of experience under their

A question that epistemologist ask is what sort of factors make beliefs justified. That is to say, could there possibly be a set of basic justified beliefs that rationally define all of your other beliefs? Or perhaps there are no foundational beliefs, but rather an infinite amount of beliefs that explain the ones that came before it. Are these beliefs based on evidence or perhaps something more? Epistemology attempts to answer these such questions.

Scientist believe that human activity is causing the earth’s temperature to increase unusually fast. They believe there is a correlation between increase levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuel and spikes in the earth’s temperature. From climate scientist discoveries 97% of all scientist believe that humans are the direct cause of global warming. Yet, based on two distinctly different arguments portrayed by the media, only 25% of US citizens believe that humans are the direct cause of global warming. One half of the media use scientific research as evidence and the other half uses tactics to keep the audience skeptical of scientific evidence on

The warming trend the we are observing right now is particularly important because it’s proven to be mainly human-induced and proceeds at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years (IPCC, 2007) There is a strong, credible amount of evidence, based on numerous lines of research, which suggests that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part due to human activities. Certain scientific conclusions have been so scrupulously studied and tested, and supported by so many independent scientists that the likelihood of them to be proven wrong is incredibly small (The National Academies Press, 2010) However, even though we have a scientific consensus on climate change and its cause, the political response to a global warming problem has been strongly impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate (Dunlap, 2013) There are groups of people who reject this

Climate change revolves around claims that cannot be quantified and research with no backbone. Through the use of an exaggerated media, climate change has been turned into a certain doom that overshadows us, instead of a general guideline for responsible waste management. We have decided that the 1C change in temperature noted since we have begun to record temperature, means that we are heating the Earth and dooming our race. This is simply not true. Patrick L Barry says, “The Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence, they note. And not all of the evidence supports global warming. Air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably, according to satellite data, and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the last 20 years” –Nasa Science Beta President Trump is not condoning unethical treatment of the Earth, but instead working to promote the wellbeing of American Citizens by withdrawing our financial contributions and crippling agreement to the Paris Accord.