1.) John Hepburn - "After the Thaw"
2.) George Will - "Let Cooler Heads Prevail"
After reading each article, answer the following questions:
1.) What is the argument of the article?
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?
Post your answers in the "COMMENTS" section of this entry before class on Monday.
15 comments:
After The Thaw - John Hepburn
1) Hepburn believes Global Warming to be very real. He proses that individual change is not enough; he believes a more radical solution is necessary to combat climate change.
2) Hepburn repeatedly emphasizes human extinction in his article. He gives a mixture of scientific research along with moral duty.
3) I myself do believe personally that Global Warming is real and needs to be addressed, however, I'm not sure I find Hepburn's article to be convincing. I honestly don't see how convincing one can be concerning this topic. You're either against it or believe it; whatever position you take you will cater to that feeling. Hepburn's article does try hard to convince people that it is our duty to enact change, however, I feel he comes off rather "cheesy"in his explanation.
Let Cooler Heads Prevail-George Will
1) Will's main argument is that Americans are receiving fabricated information by the media concerning Global Warming. He talks about how journalists promote anxiety within the American public.
2) Will supports his argument by proposing that the real "money-makers" in this "con job" are in fact the scientists, not oil or coal companies. He also then proceeds to dismiss Global Warming as a bad thing, he asks the question whether Global Warming is really bad?
3) Because I believe Global Warming to be very real it's almost impossible for me to find Will's argument convincing. While Hepburn supports his argument with scientific evidence Will seems to support his argument more with his theory rather than sound evidence.
After the Thaw by John Hepburn
1) Argument of article? – The central argument is that we need to help stop the spread of global warming if not for ourselves then for the generations to come. It really needs to be brought to everyone’s attention and needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. Many people don’t have very great of an understanding of the problem.
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? – Statistics and comparisons were used to persuade the reader as well as a sympathetic reasoning by bringing up our great-grandchildren asking questions about why we let them down in trying to drastically stop global warming.
3) Is the article convincing? – I found the article convincing in the sense that global warming is definitely a problem that needs attention, but the statistic saying 50% of all species will be extinct in less than 100 years is a little unbelievable for me. Also, the neurologist removing 90% of your brain analogy seemed a little drastic compared to what it was referring to. I did agree with his opinion that our political leaders aren’t doing enough to prevent global warming because of what a ‘stranglehold’ the coal and oil companies have on our economy.
Let Cooler Heads Prevail by George F. Will
1) Argument of article? – The argument of Will’s article is that global warming isn’t nearly as big of a problem as the media is making it out to be.
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? – One major technique used was the ‘global cooling’ articles that came out in the 1970’s. Another was the 1 degree Fahrenheit increase of Earth’s temperature. He argues how hard it is to measure it, and 1 degree happens to be the margin of error.
3) Is the article convincing? – I think this article is much more convincing than Hepburn’s because it offers more realistic statistics and comparisons. I’m more likely to believe that global warming is hardly something to worry about, rather than 50% of our species will be dead under 100 years.
After the Thaw- John Hepburn
1. The article argues that global warming is definitely happening, and at a much faster rate than most know. Global warming is such a wide spread problem that it is going to take the entire world to help change the effects of global warming. It calls for political action to help in educating and ultimately changing the way the world uses energy and other things that change the climate.
2. The author uses legitimate, educated scientists to prove his point. He doesn't just list hear-say facts, he gets the actual truth from people who know first hand. Hepburn also uses a lot of facts, like how fast the extinction rate is happening and how many other extinctions have occurred over the Earth's history.
3. I do find the article convincing. Since Hepburn uses scientific knowledge to back up his point, it is believable. I believe global warming is occurring anyway, his facts and stories just help strengthen my ideas.
Let Cooler Heads Prevail- George Will
1. The article argues that global warming is just a natural phase that the earth goes through, and that there is nothing that can be done by humans to help stop or change it. It also argues that no matter how much effort America puts into it, it will still not be enough to change anything because of all the other countries still releasing toxic gases.
2. The author uses past evidence, that the earth was was once cooling, to suggest that it's just a climatic event that occurs periodically.
3. Although I believe global warming is happening, this article is also convincing. I never knew that during the 1970's the Earth was said to be cooling. That makes me think that maybe it is just a climatic event that happens no matter what effect the people have on it.
After the Thaw
1.) The argument of this article is that humans are causing global warming and that it is occurring at a faster rate than what we think. He also argues that we need to begin to make radical changes and that the government should get involved in transforming the economy so we can become a more “earth friendly” society.
2.) Hepburn’s use of scientific facts was the main technique he used to persuade readers. He gave many examples about the permafrost melting and how it would impact our society. He also used facts to try to scare readers. For example he stated that it has been estimated that 50% of all species will be dead within 100 years if global warming continues and that we are creating the sixth mass wave of extinctions in the history of the earth.
3.) I found this article pretty convincing. The scientific evidence of ice caps and permafrost melting is hard to dispute and makes his argument that global warming is occurring and is a problem very legitimate. Although, I do believe that humans are having a negative impact on the earth’s climate this article did not look at the possibility of the earth just going through a natural warming cycle.
Let Cooler Heads Prevail
1.) The argument of this article is that global warming may just be a natural process of the earth if it even is occurring at all and that journalist are just hyping everyone up for no reason. He also states that the rising temperature of the earth may just be a miscalculation and that if global warming is occurring the effects may not all be bad.
2.) Will uses some facts but mainly relies on ideas and analysis of past thoughts and scientific evidence. He states that the one degree that scientists claim the earth’s temperature has increased by may just be apart of the margin of error and really isn’t that significant. He also brings up the idea that taking the temperature of a constantly moving and changing earth is very difficult to do and it is probably very hard to get accurate results. One of Will’s most prevailing points is that in the 1970s many scientist and journalist believed that the earth was having a major cool down, but it didn’t. Will also points out that the earth naturally goes though warm and cool periods.
3.) Although I do believe that humans are having an impact on the earth in a negative way I also find some of Will’s arguments convincing. I found it very interesting that they thought the earth was cooling down significantly in the 1970s and it made me think that maybe we are overreacting to the earth heating up like the people in the 70s reacted to the climate change. I do believe that global warming may be in part because of a natural change in the earth but I also think that this article ignores important evidence of the melting ice caps and glaciers. It also does not look at the effects that a one-degree increase in temperature can have on the ecosystems on the earth.
After the Thaw- John Hepburn
1. The argument Hepburn makes is that global warming is effecting life on earth faster than we think. He says the world needs to take drastic steps in order to combat the problem, small steps will not be enough, and everyone has their own individual role in doing so.
2. Hepburn does a good job of trying to scare the reader by comparing the upcoming human extinction to that of the dinosaurs. He quotes a world famous paleoanthropologist, Dr. Richard Leakey, and states that 50% of animal species that exist today will be extinct in the next 100 years.
3. I find the article convincing. I am not very informed about global warming, so being moderate and reading what Hepburn had to say, made me think. It was straight forward, and made a lot of sense using many resources to persuade.
Let Cooler Heads Prevail- George Will
1. The argument of Will's article is that global warming consists of a one degree increase per decaded that simply could be a margin of error. He believes it is journalists and the media promote false messages to society about the issue in order to scare them.
2. WIll gives many quotes from magazines from the 1970s, all in which believe the world was going through global cooling. He questions whether global warming is actually a threat. Instead of the money-makers being the oil and coal industry owners, its the scientists.
3. I find this article more convincing than the first. Will makes his point very legitimate using facts and statistics, even though it seems like it is more his own personal theory.
Rachel Post
“After the Thaw”
1.) What is the argument of the article?
The argument is that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately, because it is causing the sixth wave of extinctions.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The writer argues using easily understandable evidence.
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?
I do find the article convincing, because I believe that global warming is a problem that is going to affect me in the future. His proposals aren’t specific enough, but I do agree that our politicians need to take steps immediately and lead us in combating this major problem.
“Let Cooler Heads Prevail”
1.) What is the argument of the article?
The argument is that global warming is not as big of a problem as journalists tout, and may not even be a problem at all.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The writer minimizes evidence and uses examples of the global cooling phenomenon from the ‘70s to try to argue that global warming is a hoax.
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?
I don’t because evidence proves that global warming does exist. The evidence that Will uses is one small take on the issue. He conveniently forgot to talk about all of the other evidence that global warming exists, like diminished numbers of animals that are affected by global warming.
First Article
1. The argument of this article is that global warming is a real and serious issue that confronts our generation as well as future generations. The article also argues that we need to do something drastic about this before it is too late.
2. To persuade the reader, the author brings in a lot of facts and statistics that support the idea that global warming is real. The author also tries to reason with the audience to persuade them that there is something that can be doe and that we need to change drastically and change soon.
3. I do find the article convincing because there is a lot of evidence such as facts and statistics that support the author’s claim. It is also convincing because the author makes the reader feel guilty, but ensures them that something can be done as long as he or she has courage and is willing to do whatever it takes to stop global warming.
Second Article
1. The argument of this article is that global warming may or may not be real, but in either case, the climate change is not worth spending trillions of dollars of technology on.
2. To persuade the reader, the author used criticism and other select cases of media to support the argument. The author compared the media that this issue is receiving with media (that was wrong) concerning similar issues in the past. The author reasons with the audience that all the money and time spent on global warming may not be worth it in the end and that the earth has always had climate changes like this.
3. I do not find the argument convincing because the author does not bring in enough evidence to support the claim. The author spends more time criticizing the opposing views on global warming.
“After the Thaw”
1. The central argument of this article is that humans are changing the climate of the earth, and unless we do something to repair the damages of this, the world will be changed, for the worst, forever.
2. The article attempts to further this argument by citing various studies done about how the earth’s climate has changed and how that change will affect the creatures that live on this planet. The author also continuously makes accusations and very pointed assumptions such as “To draw the blunt but obvious conclusion - humans are now causing the sixth mass wave of extinctions in the 4 billion year history of life on earth.” in order to make his argument seem important.
3. I find the article somewhat convincing, but it does lack in some areas. One of these areas is the refuting of the other side of the argument. This author only states that his side is right. He states that humans are causing global warming and climate change, but he does not address the fact that it is possible that this is a natural phenomenon and is just Earth’s way of natural selection. He mentions that this may be the sixth extinction period in Earth’s history. Humans weren’t around for the first five, so they couldn’t have caused those. Who’s to say that humans are the reason why it may be happening now? However, he does do a good job at making his point seem important. If he would address the other end of the debate, though, I think this article would be much more convincing.
“Let Cooler Heads Prevail”
1. The central argument of this article seems to be that perhaps global warming is not a big concern; perhaps it isn’t even happening at all.
2. This article, unlike the first, is very good at refuting the other side of the argument. This article talks about how many people wouldn’t even know about the idea of global warming if not for Magazines and journalism running amok. The author brings up the point that thirty years ago everybody thought the earth’s temperature was dropping and that we were headed for another Ice Age. He mentions that the scientists were “so certain” back then that the Ice Age was approaching, and look! They were wrong! So now, how can these same scientists be “so certain” that global warming is approaching? He brings up the point that perhaps a lot of the panic about global warming is coming from coal and oil producers, who definitely have something to gain by claiming that their business helps to reduce pollutants in the atmosphere, and can therefore help fight global warming.
3. It’s difficult to say whether this article was convincing or not. It had a decent argument, but the author’s apparent arrogance about the situation is a little bothersome. He seems so certain that global warming is not an issue that he doesn’t even consider it a possibility. Yes, he does a good job at refuting some of the evidence that global warming is happening, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s right. I think this article could be more convincing if the author was not so absolutely certain about his position that he is unwilling to consider the possibility that he may be wrong.
After The Thaw - John Hepburn
1) Hepburn feels Global Warming is an urgent and very serious threat. He calls for immediate action to try and slow the detrimental effects warming is having/going to have on the planet.
2) He uses information put out by scientists about human and animal extinction that global warming could potentially cause, he also speaks about a world for future generations, calling up a moral duty to change and protect what we have left.
3) I found the article somewhat convincing. I feel like Global Warming is an eminent and important issue that should be addressed as soon as possible. For once I believe we should do something before the problem gets really bad, instead of letting it catch up with us and then, after something terrible has happened, finally decide to try and fix it. The article felt like one man's commentary and fear about the future and I feel like that fear is justified. I agree with what he is saying but i feel like if I didn't already believe global warming was an issue, this article would not have completely convinced me. He calls upon our "moral integrity" a little too much instead of relying on a few more facts on the subject.
Let Cooler Heads Prevail - George Will
1) Will claims that the media is magnifying the issues at hand. He says that the earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling, and that the call for immediate action against global warming is corporation driven and that Americans should not get instantly worked up and scared. He says that the issue is not as big as everyone is trying to make it.
2) He puts emphasis on the fact that the issue is propaganda, and also asks wether or not it is a truly bad thing if global warming should happen.
3) There is simply too much evidence to support the idea that global warming is really happening, none of which Will addresses at all. I was not convinced at all of what he was saying and found his article silly. Why would scientists create such propaganda if it weren't true, what do they have to gain from such a huge lie? Have scientists ever created a lie that big before? Where is the evidence that this is propaganda? In the ice caps melting at a faster rate than ever before? With species falling into extinction at a faster rate than we have seen in our human existence? I mean, really...
Joe Dust
John Hepburn - "After the Thaw"
1.) What is the argument of the article?
The argument of the article is that the earth, is in fact, under-going climactic changes that could very possibly result in mass extinctions never been recorded since the dinosaurs. To solve this, he states that we should not look to small changes in our daily lives, but more upscale construction that would require cooperation from the government, businesses, and the average consumer alike. And it must be done quickly.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The author uses personal experience and data recieved from scientific sources that show very large changes in the past four decades that have resulted in many extinctions and disturbed weather patterns due to human technology. He also uses examples that are horrific and unbelievable, such as "how mass extinctions like the ones occuring now, have not been experienced on this earth since the fall of the dinosaurs." Just very dramatic and chaotic scenarios of what has happened because of our use of oil.
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?
I find the article more interesting than convincing. He brings up many disturbing events that are almost too bad to be true. It was almost too difficult to read because I didn't want to believe what he said was actually happening. But as an environmentalist, I do take some of his sources as valid.
George Will - "Let Cooler Heads Prevail"
1.) What is the argument of the article?
Basically, the media and the government have worked up a scheme that the earth is experiencing major climactic shifts that will destroy all life as we know it. They've done it before, and they are doing it now.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The author uses petty examples such as a scientific journal from the 80's that stated we were going into an iceage. However, Mr. Will only takes a snippet of the quote and transforms it into some old 1950's horror film; scary, but completley untrue. The actual quote immensely digresses this horror film portrayal and looks a lot more realistic. He also uses statistics from an unknown source stating that 85% of americans believe that global warming is happening. He then blows it back by saying that this is all due to the media exaggerating the problem and that all those poor americans are just falling into their little trap. It seems to me that assumptions are sporadically spewed throughout this whole article, whether they are "backed" or not.
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?
Not at all. In fact, I find the guy a nutcase. He believes its all a conspiracy developed by the american government and media, and it shouldn't even be something to worry. I mean, we've seen it in the past, sort of! Not only that, he refuses to look at any of the countless scientific studies that show validity in that global warming is happeing. There was an excellent comment on the article that portrays exactly what I would say to the guy: "Learn the science before you speak."
“After the Thaw”- John Hepburn
1) What is the argument of the article? ’
The author argues that his generation will be responsible for dangerous changes in the environment, if they do not change their lifestyle habits.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The author is intimate with his audience. He is constantly using personal anecdotes even though the article is to be somewhat formal or informative. The author also presents evidence to support his claims on global warming.
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?
I find the article somewhat convincing. The evidence used to support his claims was effective but the many different anecdotes were a little annoying.
“Let Cooler Heads Prevail”- George Will
1.) What is the argument of the article?
The argument of this article is that global warming may not exist. Moneymaking companies and “crusading journalist” push the idea of global warming.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The author uses sarcasms to persuade the reader. He critiques previous scientist failures, suggesting that they could be wrong again about global warming. For example, he compares taking a humans temperature to taking the earths. He suggests that the likely hood of accuracy is slim. The author also suggests another interesting point. He questions whether or not people recognize the 1-degree difference in the earth.
3.) Do you find the article convincing? Why or why not?
This article is poorly written and not convincing at all. The author backs up his claim with no factual evidence, just observations. Just because people do not feel the 1-degree increase in temperature does not mean it is not occurring. The world is constantly revolving, but if I do not feel it moving does that mean it is not?
1. Hapburn argues how if we dont do anything about global warming then we only making life worse for ourselves and generations to come.
2. Hepburn gives stats from scientific research and also really brings in and stresses how it effects humans.
3. I think Global Warming is real and needs to be delt with, but I dont find Hepburns article convincing. People either notice the problem or chose to ignore it thinking it will cure itself. This article tries to convince people what he is thinking is right, but his reasoning behind his statement is weak.
1. The argument of this article is that Global Warming doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as a lot of people make it.
2. Will stresses the point that he doesn't think Global Warming is a bad thing, and is just another way for people to voice their opinion in the world.
3. Since I think Global Warming is an issue I dont find Will's argument convincing at all. Hepburn atleast used research, Will just voices an opinion.
After the Thaw:
1. The argument of this article is that Global Warming is a serious threat and that if it is going to be stopped, then the entire world has to work together.
2. Hepburn not only uses scientific facts to get his argument across to the readers, but he also brings up extinction as a means to try and scare or instill fear in the readers.
3. I did find the article convincing since the author used statistics and facts instead of simply giving his opinion over and over as an argument.
Let Cooler Heads Prevail
1. George argues that Global Warming is simply a natural phase that the Earth goes through and that the media is simply making it into a much bigger and more complicated idea.
2. George looks into the past and points out that only about 40 years ago, it was thought that the world was going through major cooling but it did not end up happening. He says that global warming is simply a natural phase that the Earth goes through. He also questions the scientists' motives who support global warming because they are actually the ones making all the money.
3. I find this article more convincing than the first one. By pointing out the fear of global cooling in the 1970's, Will does a good job setting up global warming as a compliment to this as part of Earth's natural cycle.
The first argument was that we are the problem when it comes to green house gases and global warming is real and we have to change our economic way of living if we want to stop it. He uses facts and basically scare tactics to make people believe him. It seems like a lot of jargon. In my case it is hard for an average Joe to identify and be on the same level with his “research” so I am not convincing by this article.
The second article is questioning the concept of global warming being something we control. Instead it presents the idea of global warming as something that is natural and something that is always happening. It uses facts to contradict what scientist have said or researched. It reminds me of an old saying you can’t prove something right but you can prove it wrong. It convinced me better then the first article simply because it came with facts that could prove the misguided theories wrong.
Post a Comment