Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argumentative speech about global warming
Argumentative topics about climate change
Argumentative topics about climate change
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Argumentative speech about global warming
Global warming is an increasingly common subject in our political realm, and the opposing sides seem to be farther apart and more contentious than ever. In his article at NYTimes.com, “On Experts and Global Warming”, Gary Gutting argues that given the nature of the arguments this should no longer be the case. The use of experts as evidence for each side’s belief, he suggests, takes the argument out of the hands of “nonexperts” and places it within the climate scientists’ domain. While this is the example he uses, Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, makes it clear that this isn’t the only forum where his idea applies. Gutting’s idea is simple, if the two sides agree that a certain topic falls into the area of expertise of a given group, then they must accept the consensus on the subject of that group. He uses Global Warming as an example of a current issue that exemplifies his idea. Gutting points out that both sides have recognized “climate scientists” as the experts on this subject since both use studies and statements from this field to support their beliefs. Since the opposing parties have agreed on a field of expertise, Gutting argues that the consensus of that field on the topic should be accepted by each. “As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position” (Gutting, 2011). Being “nonexperts” themselves, opponents are in no position to reject the conclusions of the majority, leaving only one other option. “It follows that a nonexpert who wants to reject [anthropogenic global warming] can do so only by arguing that climate science lacks the scientific status needed be taken seriously in our debates about pu... ... middle of paper ... ...sophisticated tone of the paper. While this makes his idea less emotionally appealing, the logical style will help the audience relate and comprehend it. Gutting’s article is an effective argument within the exigencies, and the constraints he places on his argument help clarify its’ meaning and purpose. His idea will be increasingly relevant to his audience in many of the upcoming discussions around the primaries and the general election itself. References Gutting, G. (2011, July 12). "On Experts and Global Warming". Retrieved September 04, 2011, from NYTimes.com - Opinionator: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/ Montopoli, B. (2011, August 17). "Rick Perry Suggests Global Warming Is a Hoax". Retrieved September 04, 2011, from CBSNews.com - Political Hotsheet: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20093535-503544.html
In the article “Climate of Complete Certainty” by Bret Stephens, he argues upon the topic that politicians exaggerate scientific certitude to benefit themselves. Stephens uses Clinton’s campaign loss and the climatic debate as illustrations to show that scientific fact doesn’t always give the defining factor of gains or losses. As stated by Stephens, Brexit showed the Clinton campaign that the populist tide causes a major surprise factor when determining the end result. With this example in mind, Stephens conveys that the end result strayed away from absolute certainty. Another instance in which scientific certitude is altered is within the topic of climate change.
Many people’s opinions are influenced by political leaders and their beliefs, which can have a negative effect on science’s efforts. Mere word changes have shown to make a difference in people’s willingness to pay for taxes that they don’t necessarily support or are even aware of. The use of storytelling has shown to be a powerful means in communicating science to the public as well. Although education and science understanding are not directly correlated with the acceptance of climate science, there is evidence that shows that a brief explanation of greenhouse effects “enhance acceptance across the political spectrum”. Researching source credibility has also boosted the political acceptance of certain scientific information.
He includes references from scientists with different backgrounds and public statements from government officials to support the claims that he made. Not only that, Scranton is a doctoral candidate in English at Princeton University, and he has written for The New York Times, Boston Review, and Theory & Event. Also, Scranton has published a novel about the Iraq war. His achievements and academic background certainly increase his credibility. His scientific and political sources add to his credibility even more so. The examples included in the logos paragraph is only a representation of the evidence featured in his article hence the use of the plural version of scientists and government officials in this essay. Even though Dr. Scranton has credible sources, he does fail to consider a portion of UTA readers. He mentions that the “question is no longer whether global warming exists” but instead questions how we are going to deal with it (par. 9). As a result, Scranton ignores the readers that might not believe in global warming; he does not recognize this small audience in his article, and as a consequence, readers might find Scranton to be slightly arrogant. Despite the failure to acknowledge this alternate view, Scranton does have the public’s interests at heart. The purpose of the article is to convince readers to take action and help save humanity
Gore’s logical appeals emphasize the danger and significance of global warming in a cogent, engaging multimedia platform. Rather than monotonously expounding upon detail after detail, he uses interactive visual aids to clarify his claims. As Stefan Lovgren, in “Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Movie: Fact or Hype?,” abbreviates, “the documentary handles the science well.” Gore is confident in the delivery of his information; he talks to his audience with ease and precision. He states, “[t]he relationships are actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide...
Tompkins displays, in her essay’s conclusion, the necessity to “piece together the story… as best I can,” because diverging perspectives inhibit a person’s ability to find, with confidence, a purely unbiased fact about any situation (9). These kinds of quandaries exist in many modern social spheres. Although much more objective, an issue, such as climate change, relies on an individual researching and uncovering facts from various sources, just as Tompkins did. Similarly, the individual must then “[believe] this version up to a point, that version not at all, another almost entirely,” so they may move forward toward a conclusion. If they fail to move toward a conclusion, they will tarry too long at the epistemological gateway and fail to effectively address the issue, by voting in misinformed politicians or not recycling. While the environment relies on more objective and easily accessible information, it exists in clear relation to Tompkins’ dilemma. Academic uncertainty halting the important flow of social progress. However, while academic uncertainty appears to be at fault, without academic uncertainty, science and fact would not achieve the proper rigor for it to call itself fact. And, without social progress,
This video successfully uses the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos to support its claims on climate change. The way National Geographic uses ethos, or credibility, for this video is strong and thought out. The main speaker is none other than Bill Nye, who most students grew up watching in elementary school; to learn different aspects of science; and is a very respectable and credible speaker for this topic, of climate change. Nye graduated from Cornell University with a degree in mechanical engineering, then moved to Seattle, Washington to work as an engineer for Boeing and ultimately became a science educator, winning educational awards for his famous program, “Bill Nye the Science Guy”(Biography.com). Nye has extremely credible credentials to be able to speak about this topic of science, who speaks in a serious, concerned and informative manner to grab the attention of the viewer and explain that climate change is a serious affair that needs to be acted upon.
In 2010, and every year since, Bernie Sanders has strongly spoken out against proposals to dismantle environmental protection programs. He believes that imminent environmental threats should be treated the same as a doctor would treat a cold or broken bone, with straight to the point scientific facts, not opinions. He states, “...this discussion about global warming is now political, not scientific. And this is absurd…” This statement speaks to the Republican party’s clear refusal to acknowledge that climate change is real and human
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
Thesis statement: The global warming and the resultant climatic change is due to uncontrolled human exploitation of earth and its resources thereby emitting large volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Robinson, Arthur B. and Zachary W. "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth." 04 Dec 1997. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. 16 Jan. 2005 .
Williams, Laurence O. An End to Global Warming. Ohio: Pergamno, 2012. Web 13 May 2015
Gore, Al. The Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It. New York: Rodale, 2006. Print.
The controversial subject of global warming according to a large amount of scientists is not a prominent concern. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all. If so many scientists believe it is not a concern then why should we think any different? Well, a consensus shows that in reality 97% of all climate scientists agree that global warming is an issue and that it is most likely due to ...
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...