global climate change
global climate change
The topic for this case study is global climate change. Because it is beyond the scope of this course to thoroughly evaluate a complex scientific topic, you will not be expected to form a position or offer your opinion on this topic. Rather, the material in this chapter is presented for you to practice evaluating arguments, identifying fallacies, and questioning sources—with the hope that you will continue to apply these skills whenever you encounter material aimed to persuade.
This chapter won’t present any new exposition. Instead, we provide some relevant review notes that have been excerpted from the earlier chapters. You can consult these notes if you need a refresher as you work through the final videos, articles, and questions in the course.
REVIEW NOTES
Arguments
To say that something is true is to make a claim. But to give reasons to believe that it is true is to make an argument. Thus all arguments consist of at least two parts:
1. premise – one or more reasons to support the claim
2. conclusion – the claim being supported
Common Fallacies
Fallacy: a type of flawed reasoning
1. Begging the question: fallacy where the argument relies on a premise that resembles the conclusion, depends on the conclusion, or is as controversial as the conclusion.
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy where the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that “everybody” (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy where the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”
4. Appeal to ignorance: fallacy where the arguer claims that because something cannot be proven false, it must be true unless the opponent can disprove the conclusion.
5. Appeal to emotion: fallacy where the arguer tries to persuade the audience by arousing feelings such as pity, fear, patriotism, flattery, etc. in lieu of presenting rational arguments.
6. Unqualified authority: fallacy where the arguer tries to get people to agree by appealing to the reputation of someone who is not an expert in the field or otherwise qualified to prove that something is true.
7. Ad hominem: fallacy where the arguer attacks his or her opponent’s personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances instead of the argument presented. The phrase is Latin for “to the man.”
8. False dichotomy: fallacy where the arguer inaccurately portrays a circumstance as having a limited number of possible outcomes, thus setting up an either-or situation with the intent of presenting one of those alternatives as drastically more preferable.
9. Straw Man: fallacy where the arguer sets up a vulnerable version of his or her opponent’s position and then presents evidence to knock down the distorted position.
10. Red herring: fallacy where the arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the opponent or audience from what is really at stake.
11. Slippery slope: fallacy where the arguer suggests that one event is going to spark a chain of events leading up to an undesirable outcome, even when there is no logical reason to believe with certainty that the first event will cause that chain of events.
12. Weak analogy: fallacy where the arguer uses a comparison to support their argument, but the two things being compared are not similar enough for the comparison to be relevant.
Evaluating Claims and Sources
When claims are presented to you, evaluate them by asking two key questions:
1. How credible is the claim itself?
2. How credible is the source of the claim?
Whenever you’re evaluating a claim, keep an eye out for the following:
· Whether evidence is offered to support the claim
· Whether there are any obvious inaccuracies
· Whether the claim is an observation or an inferred conclusion
The process of evaluating a source also relies on two essential questions:
1. Is the source likely to have accurate information and authentic knowledge?
2. Is there reason to think that the source might be intentionally misleading?
Expertise
Expert: someone who knows more than most people about a specific subject
Expert opinion doesn’t guarantee truth, but it is usually a reliable guide to it. You must have good reasons to be skeptical of a claim held by experts in the field.
If you’re having trouble deciding if someone is truly an expert, here are some things to look for:
· Education from reputable institutions or in relevant programs
· Experience—the more in the field, the better
· Professional accomplishments that are directly relevant
· Reputation among peers
Limits of Expertise
Expertise adds credibility, but it only goes so far. As a critical thinker, you’ll want to keep an eye out for the ways that the credibility of experts is damaged.
Expertise loses credibility when the expert
· makes a claim outside their area of expertise (remember the fallacy of unqualified authority);
· makes simple factual errors or mistakes in logic or reasoning;
· seems to be speaking from an emotional orientation;
· has a clear conflict of interests (e.g., being paid to present a specific view);
· doesn’t provide sufficient support for tenuous claims; or
· holds a view in direct opposition to most other experts in the same subject area.
Questions to Ask When Evaluating Websites
· Who is speaking or writing?
· Who is the intended audience?
· Where are they speaking or writing?
· Who has invested the time and/or money to disseminate this?
· What’s the site’s reputation? If you’re not sure, you can search to see if the site is ever referenced by other sites you already find credible.
· Is the site well-produced and free of sloppy writing, spelling errors, and editorial mistakes?
· Does the author or speaker offer any credentials lending credibility to their claims?
· Could the information be outdated? For example, a 2004 article reviewing the best earbuds on the market is most likely no longer accurate.
· What person or organization created, sponsors, or vouches for the credibility of information on this website or page? And if they have a strong perspective from one side of a controversial issue, what other sources could help round out the picture?
Examples of Rhetorical Techniques Used to Persuade
Emotive Language
· Also called “loaded language”
· Language with strong connotations that produces certain emotions
· People often have immediate emotional reactions to certain words, and speakers and writers can take advantage of such reactions in their word selection
· Politics and advertising use emotive language a lot
· Sometimes emotive language is blended into observational statements so that the speaker seems to be merely stating a fact when they’re actually issuing a personal opinion
· Watch out for arguments that rely heavily on emotive language, especially if the emotive language is in place of factual information and reasoning
· We often have psychological tendencies to react to emotive language without taking into account other considerations
Innuendo
Innuendo is when you heavily imply something without actually saying it. The advantage of using innuendo is in being able to plant an idea in your audience’s mind without having gone on record as actually saying it. Scare quotes can sometimes function as innuendo; so can downplaying your opponent or target.
Loaded Questions
A loaded question is when you pose a question that contains an unjustified assumption.
Are you sure?
If you confirm, all of the multiple-choice questions you’ve answered on this page will be reset, and your score for these questions will return to zero.
Are you sure you want to proceed? If so, please press Reset Answers.
Case Study / 10.2 Multiple Perspectives Questions: 0 of 5 complete (0%) | 0 of 4 correct (0%)
Multiple Perspectives
When the topic at hand is a complicated scientific issue, it is important to understand the fundamentals before considering arguments from opposing sides. The first video below explores how the American public actually feels about the issue of climate change. Is it simply a matter of being “for” or “against” global warming, or is the debate much more complicated than that? What are the different positions that various voices in the United States take on this issue?
Watch the video below, and then answer the following questions.
Vimeo video. http://vimeopro.com/yalefes/videos/video/31750421. Uploaded by the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. For a text transcript, follow the link below.
What organization conducted this study?
· the Pew Research Center
· the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
· the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
· the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Save
Which of the following is one of the Six Americas described in the video?
· Engaged
· Confident
· Dismissive
· Optimistic
Save
Which is the largest of the Six Americas?
· Dismissive
· Concerned
· Alarmed
· Doubtful
Save
A person who has heard of the issue of climate change but is not interested enough to learn anything substantial about it would most likely be placed in which category?
· Concerned
· Dismissive
· Alarmed
· Disengaged
Top of Form
As a critical thinker, how much should knowledge about how other Americans feel about this issue affect your own position? Explain your answer. 📖
Case Study / 10.3 Exploring the Context Questions: 0 of 5 complete (0%) | 0 of 5 correct (0%)
Exploring the Context
The information provided in this chapter is not intended to be a thorough examination of climate change science. However, having a basic understanding of what people are talking about when they refer to “climate change” can make it easier to dissect the arguments people make on this topic. The following page from the EPA’s website provides some context for the issue and explores some of the basic scientific concepts related to the debate on climate change.
Go to the webpage below, click on “Show All Responses,” and read the questions and answers. Then answer the following questions.
This website is run by which of the following organizations?
· the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
· the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
· the United States Environmental Protection Agency
· the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
Save
How does the site support its claim that there is a scientific consensus?
· It asserts that every scientist agrees by this point on all the major facts about climate change.
· It describes how the major scientific organizations in the United States, and many independent ones as well, have issued statements agreeing that climate change is happening, it’s mostly human-caused, and it presents significant risks.
· It points out that many of the major scientific organizations in the United States have come to an agreement about exactly how much the earth will warm, how quickly it will warm, and what the consequences of the warming will be in specific regions of the world.
· It admits that most scientists don’t see eye to eye on this issue, and therefore there is almost nothing that they agree on.
Save
According to this site, what is primarily responsible for rising temperatures in recent years?
· a rise in greenhouse gases
· the melting of polar ice caps
· natural variations in the earth’s climate
· fluctuations in the sun’s energy
Save
According to the site, what impact does an excess of carbon dioxide have on the earth?
· It creates a hole in the ozone layer.
· It makes plants grow better.
· It lowers the sea level.
· It traps heat and thus makes the earth’s temperature rise.
Save
What actions does the site recommend for addressing this issue?
· Stop all emissions of carbon dioxide.
· Encourage individuals to drive less and to install solar panels.
· Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at the government, community, business, and individual levels.
· Develop better technology to more accurately measure the earth’s temperature.
Case Study / 10.4 Taking Sides Questions: 0 of 10 complete (0%) | 0 of 2 correct (0%)
Taking Sides
If you’re trying to persuade people to feel a certain way about a controversial issue, how do you convince them? There are many organizations that take a strong stance on the issue of climate change, and they produce material aimed to sway audiences toward one side or the other. This provides rich fodder to practice the critical thinking skills you’ve developed during this course. As you watch the following videos, pay close attention to the specific arguments that are being pitched. Do any of the arguments contain fallacies? Are the persuasive techniques in these videos always logical, or are some emotional?
Watch the video below, and then answer the following questions.
YouTube video. https://youtu.be/UvLt3nU14W4. Uploaded February 2, 2009, by HeartlandTube. To activate captions, first click the play button and then click the CC button in the embedded player. For a text transcript, follow the link below.
Top of Form
Using this Climate and Energy Policy page, identify the organization that created this video, explain their stated position on the topic of climate change, and then describe the extent to which you believe this stated purpose affects their credibility.
No response saved yet. Save Draft Post ?
Bottom of Form
Which of the following summarizes the central argument of this video?
· The science is too ambiguous for us to have any idea what’s going on with the climate, so there’s no reason to take action on climate change.
· The so-called “global warming crisis” is really an alarmist hoax promoted by financially motivated politicians and corporations.
· If we don’t do something about global warming, crops will dry up, animals will die, and children will go hungry.
· Global warming is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, and it is not caused by human activity.
Save
This video asserts that those who believe in climate change are claiming that the earth is on fire, the planet is dying, and it’s our fault for living. Explain how this characterization of the opposing side is arguably an example of the “straw man” fallacy.
No response saved yet. Save Draft Submit ?
At one point in the video, the narrator says, “Are the people who say they want to save the planet finally going to tell you that many times the only thing that’s green about their solutions is the money lining the pockets of corporations heavily invested in so-called “green” technologies? And are they going to admit that the cost of force-feeding these technologies into every aspect of our lives could bankrupt a world already teetering on financial ruin?” Explain how these function as loaded questions.
No response saved yet. Save Draft Submit ?
Watch the video below, and then answer the following questions.
YouTube video. https://youtu.be/43cyNWLVuac. Uploaded November 28, 2012, by Climate Reality. To activate captions, first click the play button and then click the CC button in the embedded player. For a text transcript, follow the link below.
