After reading Richard Linzen's blog post, No Global Warming, and David Biello's article in the Scientific American, State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario, I honestly smirked about both for just a moment. These two appeal arguments, representing distinct global trends, were slightly informative about the state of the environment. They were however biased and for a better use of words, "climatic".
Linzen's article while seemingly informative at first, wasn't persuasive on the grounds of unfounded global warming trends. He seems more in tune to discrediting both Al Gore and Bill Clinton in their attempts at revitalizing the global warming initiative. Because Al Gore is promoting his docu-drama, “An Inconvenient Truth,” in hopes of awakening humanity to the adversities of global warming, Linzen uses the pen to destroy Gore's pleas of global help, not to support his own cause of un-disruptive global warming effects. Linzen does make note of many cited references, all the while kicking in a dig at Gore and his initiates in the process. Yes, Linzen does site many sources for different inconsistent trends but what one should take into account are some of those sources. I am not implying that they aren't reliable sources, but a blog is a biased opinion of the host and the host's sources.
A unique example of source use in Linzen's blog is that of Greg Holland. "To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can’t think of anything else." This statement is ironic to Linzen's entire argument of unfounded global warming trends. Essentially by dissecting this comment, first things first, using the comment, "because he can't think of anything else" in a persuasive cited blog argument is rather uncoupling, unpersuasive, and tacky. I am well aware of what he is implying with arguments of "lassitude" but it seems that he would use a solid, verifiable source to gain ground for unfounded global warming versus borderline sources that are refutable and don't scientifically support his position. Yikes!!
After reading Linzen's blog, I then progressed to David Biello's article in Scientific American. First and foremost, this article is biased, but with a scientific approach versus the appeal of character defamation. Biello is trying to inform society about global warming trends through the appeals of logic and ethos. It is fair to say that his resources seem to be a little bit more reputable, but that consideration is apparent with the medium of a scientific journal. Biello is referencing the "IPCC Synthesis Report" in order to strengthen his claim of pre-existing damage and what can possibly continue if we aren't sensitive and take action to the problems of global warming. This report is a reliable source for the world, not just an individual's opinion. The IPCC Report is a scientific community report that highlights the most important deterrents in the global warming crisis. Strength to Biello's article is the individual sub-headings of specific transitional trends in global warming, which are highlighted straight from this report.
Biello cites Stephen Schneider,"We are above the high scenario now," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an IPCC lead author. "This is not a safe world." When Biello used Schneider as a reference, it further enforced the validity of his argument. He used a guiding force and lead author for a document that "130 Nations" are reviewing in order to address global warming concerns. This alone shows the seriousness of his plight in addressing global warming.
While both entries keep the reader engaged, it was for very different reasons. Global warming is a massive social issue. We are all affected by published documentation and in addition all have opinions on that documentation. With that in mind, I would prefer to hear facts from verifiable sources that are part of a scientific community that is pursuant in their motivations of saving the planet. That is my preference. I will avoid the soap-box media drama that prefers to undermine individuals, instead of giving cold-heard facts!
Works Cited
Biello, David. State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario. November 27, 2007. 4 December 2010.< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case
Lindzen, Richard. No Global Warming. 26 October 2006. 04 December 2010.
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/richard-lindzen-no-global-warming/
Linzen's article while seemingly informative at first, wasn't persuasive on the grounds of unfounded global warming trends. He seems more in tune to discrediting both Al Gore and Bill Clinton in their attempts at revitalizing the global warming initiative. Because Al Gore is promoting his docu-drama, “An Inconvenient Truth,” in hopes of awakening humanity to the adversities of global warming, Linzen uses the pen to destroy Gore's pleas of global help, not to support his own cause of un-disruptive global warming effects. Linzen does make note of many cited references, all the while kicking in a dig at Gore and his initiates in the process. Yes, Linzen does site many sources for different inconsistent trends but what one should take into account are some of those sources. I am not implying that they aren't reliable sources, but a blog is a biased opinion of the host and the host's sources.
A unique example of source use in Linzen's blog is that of Greg Holland. "To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can’t think of anything else." This statement is ironic to Linzen's entire argument of unfounded global warming trends. Essentially by dissecting this comment, first things first, using the comment, "because he can't think of anything else" in a persuasive cited blog argument is rather uncoupling, unpersuasive, and tacky. I am well aware of what he is implying with arguments of "lassitude" but it seems that he would use a solid, verifiable source to gain ground for unfounded global warming versus borderline sources that are refutable and don't scientifically support his position. Yikes!!
After reading Linzen's blog, I then progressed to David Biello's article in Scientific American. First and foremost, this article is biased, but with a scientific approach versus the appeal of character defamation. Biello is trying to inform society about global warming trends through the appeals of logic and ethos. It is fair to say that his resources seem to be a little bit more reputable, but that consideration is apparent with the medium of a scientific journal. Biello is referencing the "IPCC Synthesis Report" in order to strengthen his claim of pre-existing damage and what can possibly continue if we aren't sensitive and take action to the problems of global warming. This report is a reliable source for the world, not just an individual's opinion. The IPCC Report is a scientific community report that highlights the most important deterrents in the global warming crisis. Strength to Biello's article is the individual sub-headings of specific transitional trends in global warming, which are highlighted straight from this report.
Biello cites Stephen Schneider,"We are above the high scenario now," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an IPCC lead author. "This is not a safe world." When Biello used Schneider as a reference, it further enforced the validity of his argument. He used a guiding force and lead author for a document that "130 Nations" are reviewing in order to address global warming concerns. This alone shows the seriousness of his plight in addressing global warming.
While both entries keep the reader engaged, it was for very different reasons. Global warming is a massive social issue. We are all affected by published documentation and in addition all have opinions on that documentation. With that in mind, I would prefer to hear facts from verifiable sources that are part of a scientific community that is pursuant in their motivations of saving the planet. That is my preference. I will avoid the soap-box media drama that prefers to undermine individuals, instead of giving cold-heard facts!
Works Cited
Biello, David. State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario. November 27, 2007. 4 December 2010.< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case
Lindzen, Richard. No Global Warming. 26 October 2006. 04 December 2010.
Joe’s blog is well constructed and offers the reader an opportunity to further research the issues. Joe invites the reader to look at more scientific detail with respect to the issue. I would differ with Joe as I believe that some of the scientists are funded with political dollars and as platforms to launch political careers. Joe has mentioned that this issues is global and as a small part of the larger picture it is difficult to determine the facts.
ReplyDeleteI found this blog very interesting and I really enjoyed the humor infused throughout. I couldn’t help but chuckle out loud at the pun in the opening paragraph. While I believe we both had similar opinions toward each of the papers, I slightly differed in that given my disposition, I am not fond of the techniques used by Lindzen and found it very difficult to get through the paper as a whole. I also didn’t pick up as you did the references to other blogs. I agree that the concise and factual representation of the large scientific group findings in Biello’s document was a much more appealing argument.
ReplyDelete