Before reading these two articles I have to admit that I have never researched Global Warming on my own and for the most part have not really cared. I have seen movies like “2012” and “The day after tomorrow” and while I enjoyed them from a entertainment side, I never considered that these event would actually happen.
After reading these two articles I must say that they did not change my mind. The first article by Lindzen was much more persuasive than the second article by Biello. Lindzen uses a lot more specific, factual examples in his writing while Biello makes claims without backing them up. A clear example is his reference to an interview with Mr. Gore, “Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” one way or the other and went on to claim–in his defense–that scientists “don’t know. … They just don’t know.” (Lindzen) He also notably points out the fact that there is a lack of facts, “In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming” (Lindzen). Lindzen then proceeds to add facts to support his claim that the Global Warming Crisis is a hoax, “Since abut 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. and, frankly, we don’t know why.” (Lindzen).
Biello, though he may try to sound factual by stating claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang (IPCC), he does not show you where or how the IPCC got this information. Biello claims that, “Climate change is "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” and “the IPCC stated that human-induced warming is having a discernible influence on the planet, from species migration to thawing permafrost.” These both sound threatening but as a non member of the scientific world how do I know I can trust the IPCC to be honest. Where are they getting these facts?
I am not one to trust another’s word simply because they come from some fancy organization and can impress with their number of members. I want to see simple, laid out facts with at least references to a study conducted that lead them to their conclusions, Lindzen did this much better than Biello.
LSTD 1243-103 Comp II Blog – Unit Three response to Sarah Lindhe's blog
ReplyDeleteSarah,
One thing I have found very interesting about the blogging assignments is the diversity of classmates' opinions and interpretation of the assignments. I have made it a personal point not to read other blogs before I write mine to ensure I minimize their influence on my writing.
I liked your analysis of the articles. Although I chose not to use actual quotes in my blog, many of the ones you referenced were sticking points for me as well. I have to say, I laughed out loud by your use of "some fancy organization!" Since starting college, I have frequently seen an overuse of "credible" sources (used as a means to influence an audience) which seem to lack published, concrete research to back-up their claims.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI must say that I do appreciate your refreshing opinion on the article reviews. While I must admit I do disagree, the reasons are a little bit different.
My directive for disagreement on persuasion of Lindzen's article was that it was a blog and traditionally blogs are biased by their authors, because they are personal insights and feelings.
I do appreciate Biello's article because it does offer a proven document that the reader is able to research on their own, without Biello's signatory bias.
While your point is refreshing about not requiring certain documented information in order to be convinced of a political or scientific forum, I look for un-refuted analysis by persuasion. I have a tendency to try to stick to statistical information and signature documents as my key persuaders.
Just as we are peers to one another's blogs, our opinions will vary and agree to disagree. This is similar to these two articles. They are advocating for two different views of a global issue through persuasion. I suppose the bottom line is who the better persuader portrays their view as....we all have certain values that will validate their influence on our opinions. This was interesting look at both articles!
Very informative Post!
Well done Sarah!!! Here in tree hugging, liberal minded Seattle, despite the increase in snow or increase in freezing temperatures over the last few years, you will always hear some non-sense about global warming. Like I wrote in my blog and like you wrote in yours, it's not enough to spout off some organization with a fancy title as your credible source. I can sum this all up by writing this: we read two articles on global warming; one talked about the facts over time (a long time), the other hypothesized what might or could happen in the future if habits are changed. I prefer using hard facts from trends and data instead of fear and irrational thought as a determinate to what I believe. Remember the globe is warming … it always has been.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your assessment of the two articles. I also believe in show me; don't tell me when it comes just about everything. What I have learned is expect what you inspect! Additionally neither one of the two authors really addressed the issue of human population increase over the past 100 years. They also didn’t mention any type of geological evidence that showed weather patterns over the course of the Earth’s four billion plus years of existence. Unlike you, I hear about global warming almost every day, mainly due to my sister who is Biology major.
ReplyDelete