Jaded Mozley Dr. Biswas WRTR 1313 Writing and critical reasoning 7 march 2024 Analyzing Fallacies and Strategies in Climate Change Discourse In his article, "Climate Change is a Myth," Dean Burnett suggests that a whole network of corrupt scientists, and, of course, nefarious fear-mongering governments must be behind the hoax. Burnett does his utmost to bring down to size the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change by means of ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. His arguments, however, contain quite a bunch of fallacies, like cherry-picking evidence and appealing to authority, and thus give way to a serious gap between his claims and the evidence given. Deciphering these fallacies and what they indeed suggest will help one …show more content…
He sensationalizes the activists and scientists as the most horrid fear-peddlers and manipulators, arguing from radical agendas, and lets the readers know that their arguments can be disarmed without actually engaging with the scientific evidence. Towards the end, the author really let himself down by launching ad hominem attacks, questioning the motives and integrity of the climate scientists he says have been on a mission to put up a big hoax. The author finishes the article with sarcasm, pointing to a preference for life on some other planet rather than life full of suffering under "rigorous scientific control" on Earth. In other words, fallaciously, the myth of climate change has been realized due to the motives of corrupt scientists and fear-mongering governments. The main claim is that the evidence for climate change cannot sustain evaluation. Glaring claims include dismissing the increasing sea level and melting of the glaciers as exaggerations, relating food crises and mass extinctions to conspiracies or nature, and blaming climatic scientists for ulterior motives in the creation of a …show more content…
on anthropogenic climate change, he said. Deniers, in doing so, create a misleading perception of scientific uncertainty and hinder efforts to address the issue effectively. Additionally, they often reference dissenting voices within the scientific community to cast doubt on mainstream climate science, despite the overwhelming consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists regarding the reality of human-induced global warming. Furthermore, deniers frequently employ strawman arguments to misrepresent the positions of climate activists. The author dismisses concerns about rising sea levels by suggesting that places like Atlantis, Miami, or Skegness never existed and ridiculing the idea that melting glacial ice contributes to sea level rise. In doing so, the author constructs a distorted version of the argument for climate change. (Burnett, 2014) They view environmentalists as alarmists or extremists advocating for radical measures to combat climate change. This tactic serves to discredit legitimate concerns about environmental degradation and downplay the urgency of addressing climate
A similar message that appears in his book that appeared in the aforementioned speech was the impact of the media speculation. The book addresses this in two examples. One was presented with the news of a lawsuit that an island called Vantu would file against the EPA; yet the lawsuit would never move forward due to it only serving a purpose to launder money and raise awareness to global warming that was never proven to affect the island. The other was shown to be environmental scientist who received their funding from environmental organizations, such as NERF in the book. These scientists would often have to go against their findings and report what the organizations wanted them to, or possibly lose their funding. Additionally, the book profoundly took opposition to the claim of global warming. This is presented in the form of the main character, Peter Evans, who has been manipulated into believing everything that the media has told him about global warming. It isn’t until John Kenner is introduced, that Peter begins got learn the truth about global warming. The author uses specific evidence to back his claims, specifically he uses a wide array of resources to verify his claim that Antarctica is not in fact melting, but getting colder and thickening. Furthermore, another essential concept that that book introduces is environmental extremists, or bioterrorism. These characters in the book would stop at nothing to make sure that everyone believed in global warming, and tried to destroy parts of the world to succeed in their mission. Bioterrorists are best represented as a warning of what could happen if people continue to buy into the media’s lies without having conclusive evidence to back up their
Lindzen begins his piece by asserting that there isn't, and never will be, static, unchanging climates on planets with fluid envelopes. Throughout this article, he ponders why there has been an increase in alarm over climate change in the past few years. At the beginning of the article, he states that the increase in alarm is because the public has become scientifically illiterate, which, in turn, makes them more susceptible to being taken advantage of by people of higher status. He continues on by saying that the panic over climate change is falsely placed and that the climate is and has constantly been changing over time. He gives supportive examples of this through climate changing events that have occurred throughout the centuries. Also, according to Lindzen, findings on climate change are problematic because they are based on computer models. He claims that the data conflicts with the models, and that scientists “correct” the data to agree with the models, which points to some level of corruption in climate science. Although Lindzen does give reasons that he believes climate change may be over exaggerated, he keeps going back to another reason. Throughout the article, he ind...
According to the World Bank’s report, climatologists predict greenhouse gases will cause temperatures to rise 7.2 degrees before the next century (par. 8). While the rise in temperature might seem trivial, Scranton elaborates on the detrimental effects this change would cause by quoting James Clapper. Mr. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, argues that extreme weather disasters will “increasingly disrupt food and energy markets, exacerbating state weakness, forcing human migrations, and triggering riots, civil disobedience, and vandalism” (par. 7). Dr. Scranton mentions these sources in order to convince the audience that an increase of only a few degrees can have a devastating impact that will inevitably leave the planet radically different during this epoch; the current epoch we live in, named the Anthropocene, is a term invented by geologist and scientists for the epoch that is “characterized by the arrival of the human species as a geological force” (par. 10). The name of the epoch inspired Scranton to title the article “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene” since it reaffirms his claim that we must accept that the future will not be the same as the present. Furthermore, Scranton includes a book in his article written by geophysicist David Archer incase readers remain skeptical of the scientific evidence with
It is obvious from the tone of this report that Michael Pollan really wants to stop climate change; he just doesn’t know how to make a lasting effect. Even so, he never ceases to pull at the readers’ heartstrings. The author does a great job at coercing the readers to jump on board; the only problem is there is no destination in mind. So, instead of inciting his readers to act out against this problem, Pollan leaves them dumbfounded and uncertain on how to
This technique is so rare and journalists are usually diverted from it, but Wallace-Wells breaks all social norms and decides to point his finger anyway. He writes directly to those already aware of the tragedies of climate change, but still need to be woken up and alarmed of it’s severity. He states, “but no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough”, making it clear his main motive is not to inform, even though he thoroughly did so, but to frighten and awaken the reader. His attitude, tone, and overall use of pathos is what sets this article apart from others and makes his point effective. His words impact the reader and linger in their minds because of his alarming
Ever since the advent of weather observation and prediction technology in the past 150 years, science has created a consensus that the earth is getting warmer, and that human influence is to blame. Some even blame this change, known as global warming, for bouts of extreme weather including cyclonic storms, droughts, wildfires, and heat waves. These scientists (and much of the public) believe that our influence is the problem, as our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, the product of the usage of our fuels, are polluting the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun within. However, a minority group, scientists and public skeptics alike, believe this warming trend is merely a coincidence with the earth’s naturally cyclical climate, and that the activists are overstating something they know little about. Many even agree that if the prospect of our influence were to be true, the effects are not at all that bad, unlike what it is hyped to be. Thus, global warming has become a debatable theory. Much like legislation that prevents schools from teaching evolution as anything more than a theory, now there are also laws that mandate that global warming be considered debatable, and to argue both sides of it (Jonas).
He opens up the article with the singular word that incites the highest level of fear in people, “doomsday” (Wallace-Wells). It catches people’s attention and makes them worry about the ramifications of climate change, and Wallace-Wells’ use of this word enforces the looming danger of rising temperatures. Next, he discusses the lifespan of Miami and Bangladesh “as if [they] still have a chance of surviving” even if people stop burning fossil fuels all together (Wallace-Wells). Wallace-Wells asserts that carbon emissions are the ultimate cause of climate change and causes anxiety in the readers because parts of the world may soon disappear into the ocean. Then, he explains how the carbon emissions affect the air quality and describes the air as “a rolling death smog that suffocates millions” (Wallace-Wells). This terrorizing and horrifying statement effects the audience and makes them panic about the air quality due to fossil fuel burning. Wallace-Wells’ inclusion of heartstopping and fear inducing descriptions of the consequences of climate change forces the audience to take another look at the issue as something that it is imperative to address. Emotions are influential and stick out in people’s minds, yet for these appeals to be effective, Wallace-Wells had to support them with facts and
In his article "Climate change is a myth," Dean Burnett makes the false claim that corrupt scientists and fear-mongering governments are behind the hoax. Through strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks, Burnett attempts to undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. However, his arguments are packed with logical fallacies such as cherry-picking evidence and appealing to authority, resulting in a significant gap between his claims and the evidence provided. By dissecting these fallacies and their implications, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities within the discourse surrounding climate change and its societal and policy implications. In the middle of the article, the author employs strawman
For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence about climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication. Despite the evidence to the contrary, many interest groups with considerable political clout have successfully perpetuated the argument that documented changes in the environment are a product of natural cyclical changes in climate, and are not associated with human activities. However, even the acceptance of this particular brand of reality is no grounds for the disregard of environmental consciousness. Even if one accepts the premise that recent climate change is not resultant of human activity, the rationale behind environmental conservation remains ...
Sheppard, M., (2010). Post climategate: Towards a reassessment of the global warming. Retrieved February 13, 2010, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20017
National Geographic, “…that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches…” (Sea Level Rise). This rise is due to the melting ice as well as thermal expansion. Gore begins to state this fact in order to provide another example of global warming for his audience with the line, “When ice melts in mountains and in Antarctica and Greenland- when land-based ice melts—it raises the sea level” (Gore). The risen sea levels need to be addressed when referring to global warming because if they are not they will lead to floods throughout the world such as, “An area of Bandladesh is due to be flooded where ten million people live. A large area of Florida is due to be flooded. The Florida Keys are very much at risk. The Everglades are at risk”
The opposing party would like you to believe that the scientists are 90% certain that extreme heat periods will increase worldwide. They say that this is causing increased danger of wildfires, human deaths, and algal blooms. This of course is utterly false on many different levels. These scientists that the opposing party was actually paying a select group of scientists to testify for them meaning the “90% of Scientists” were actually lying because they were being paid off. The real majority agreed against these paid scientists, but they were not included in the vote for agreement in this statistic. These statistics are not nearly as dire as described because they won’t happen. This is because the CO2 emissions are no where near to where they are portrayed in the Al Gore video.
The Great Global Warming Swindle has been the most widely watched documentary critical of the scientific consensus that climate change is due to anthropogenic activities. Aired in 2007 in the United Kingdom, the documentary claimed to debunk the “myth” of manmade global climate change, exposing it as a vast conspiracy designed to gain funding for research and push an environmental agenda that is especially harmful to the developing world. Directed by British producer Martin Durkin, the documentary includes discussion with a number of scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming and claim that there viewpoints are being deliberately censored in favor of the politically correct consensus.
Climate change has been an extremely controversial topic in recent history and continues to create much debate today. Many questions concerning climate change’s origins and its potential affect on the globe are not fully understood and remain unanswered. What is climate change? Is climate change happening? Is it a natural cycle of the world or are there other catalysts involved such as human activity? What proof is there? What data correlations show climate change is accelerated by humans? How serious is climate change and how will it affect the future of our globe? What are we doing to address climate change? Should we really be concerned about climate change? Questions such as these have made climate change a very serious issue in today’s world and created the ideology of climatism. The issue of climate change has affected many different aspects of our lives and the world we live in. Policymaking, human activism, technologies, emission control, global warming, alternative energy sources and many other things have been greatly affected by the mania of climate change. This research report will present climate change in a light of common sense and rationality that will take a grounded discussion of the science behind climate change, global warming, human activity, and how the ideology of climatism has corrupted and driven the actions to combat climate change.
The earth is a complex system, which continues to evolve and change. Climate change and global warming are currently popular in the political agenda. But what does “climate” really mean? The difference between weather and climate can be conveyed in a single sentence: “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.” Based on research of the geologic record, we know that climate change has happened throughout Earth's history and at present, ever-increasing evidence points to the roles that humans play in altering Earth systems. The Earth and its atmosphere receive heat energy from the sun; the atmospheric heat budget of the Earth depends on the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from the planet; which has been constant over the last few thousand years. However present evidence seems to suggest that the recent increase in temperature has been brought about by pollution of the atmosphere, in particular the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide, mostly through Anthropogenic Forcing (human activity) and other various internal and external factors. I...