In the Fox News article, U.N.’s Global Warming Report Under Fresh Attack for Rainforest Claims, Gene Koprowski’s argument subtly uses an implied value system that comes across in the facts the author chooses, the histories he explains, and the quotes he includes. Koprowski chiefly uses facts from the U.N. ‘s 2007 Fourth Assessment Project that was put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This study reported that “40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.” Because this article positions itself against this claim, Koprowski swiftly uses another fact to disrepute the previous study, writing that the percent determination was actually based on an unrelated World Wildlife Federation study called “Global Review of Forest Fires,” that “had nothing to do with the issue of global warming”.
Koprowski then references two previous scandals surrounding the IPCC’s reports. The first concerning emails between U.K. and U.S. climate change scientists that showed that they had conspired to hide declining temperatures and the second in which the IPCC wrote that the Himalayan glaciers were melting because of climate change but was recently disproved (Koprowski does not say by whom).
Koprowski values shrewd examination of climate change claims. By not only citing the example of the most recent IPCC mishap, but previous examples as well, he subtly builds a case for scientific incompetence and perhaps vested interests from the IPCC concerning climate change. He relies on the assumption that the audience is familiar with the previous two IPCC reports and harbors some skepticism towards global warming reports. Because Koprowski is mainly focusing on the most recent IPCC study and the Amazon facts, he doesn’t give much background to the other cases but uses those to reinforce his general argument that the IPCC and the U.N. have a continued history of skewing climate change evidence. He also introduces players who are critical of the IPCC that add human tact to the issue and say what Koprowski only implies, like this statement from Andrew Wheeler, “If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it’s the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months.”
Koprowski values justice, i.e., honest reports and relevant data and employs loci of the existent—that which is concrete holds more value that that which is possible.
Jeff Goodell is far more explicit about the values that underlie his Rolling Stone article, "As The World Burns,” and his facts, histories, and expert testimonies indicate his strong argumentative position. Goodell juxtaposes expectations with realities surrounding climate change legislation in the United States and clearly hopes to clarify and provide a truthful account of what goes on behind the scenes. According to Goodell, the oil and coal industries are in league with lobbyists and the Republican Party—who all want climate change policy to fail in order to protect their financial interests. The Obama administration and environmentalists, on the other hand, want to push climate change legislation forward but are fighting an uphill battle against aggressive lobbyists, industry money, and biased economic reports.
Goodell’s facts include financial figures (“All told, the climate bill now contained $60 billion in support for coal—far more than the aid given to wind, solar, and all other forms for renewable energy combined.”), economic reports (According to an analysis by Stanford University economists, polluters received $134 billion in allowances that weren't necessary to ensure America's industrial stability.”), before-and-after aspects of the climate bill, and expert analysis.
Goodell values justice, in this case public accountability and legislature untainted by industry interests. The loci of essence come across in Goodell’s fiery attack on the energy industry, lobbyists, and the GOP. He attacks what he sees as fundamentally corrupt values and also presents a strong case against those values. Goodell assumes that his audience is familiar with the legislative proceedings regarding climate change. His appeal, while supported by facts and expert testimony among other things, has a very clear emotional aspect and his facts are couched in emotional language. After citing the findings from an energy industry-funded study that predicted a $1,500 increase in the average electric bill if the original climate bill passed, Goodell fires back, “This, of course, was complete bullshit. The most credible analysis of the bill, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the measure would cost most families no more than $175 a year”. His critical evaluation of the energy industry and their capacity to influence the climate change bill are evidently driven by strong opposing values that are heavily rooted in facts and historical analysis.
Koprowski then references two previous scandals surrounding the IPCC’s reports. The first concerning emails between U.K. and U.S. climate change scientists that showed that they had conspired to hide declining temperatures and the second in which the IPCC wrote that the Himalayan glaciers were melting because of climate change but was recently disproved (Koprowski does not say by whom).
Koprowski values shrewd examination of climate change claims. By not only citing the example of the most recent IPCC mishap, but previous examples as well, he subtly builds a case for scientific incompetence and perhaps vested interests from the IPCC concerning climate change. He relies on the assumption that the audience is familiar with the previous two IPCC reports and harbors some skepticism towards global warming reports. Because Koprowski is mainly focusing on the most recent IPCC study and the Amazon facts, he doesn’t give much background to the other cases but uses those to reinforce his general argument that the IPCC and the U.N. have a continued history of skewing climate change evidence. He also introduces players who are critical of the IPCC that add human tact to the issue and say what Koprowski only implies, like this statement from Andrew Wheeler, “If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it’s the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months.”
Koprowski values justice, i.e., honest reports and relevant data and employs loci of the existent—that which is concrete holds more value that that which is possible.
Jeff Goodell is far more explicit about the values that underlie his Rolling Stone article, "As The World Burns,” and his facts, histories, and expert testimonies indicate his strong argumentative position. Goodell juxtaposes expectations with realities surrounding climate change legislation in the United States and clearly hopes to clarify and provide a truthful account of what goes on behind the scenes. According to Goodell, the oil and coal industries are in league with lobbyists and the Republican Party—who all want climate change policy to fail in order to protect their financial interests. The Obama administration and environmentalists, on the other hand, want to push climate change legislation forward but are fighting an uphill battle against aggressive lobbyists, industry money, and biased economic reports.
Goodell’s facts include financial figures (“All told, the climate bill now contained $60 billion in support for coal—far more than the aid given to wind, solar, and all other forms for renewable energy combined.”), economic reports (According to an analysis by Stanford University economists, polluters received $134 billion in allowances that weren't necessary to ensure America's industrial stability.”), before-and-after aspects of the climate bill, and expert analysis.
Goodell values justice, in this case public accountability and legislature untainted by industry interests. The loci of essence come across in Goodell’s fiery attack on the energy industry, lobbyists, and the GOP. He attacks what he sees as fundamentally corrupt values and also presents a strong case against those values. Goodell assumes that his audience is familiar with the legislative proceedings regarding climate change. His appeal, while supported by facts and expert testimony among other things, has a very clear emotional aspect and his facts are couched in emotional language. After citing the findings from an energy industry-funded study that predicted a $1,500 increase in the average electric bill if the original climate bill passed, Goodell fires back, “This, of course, was complete bullshit. The most credible analysis of the bill, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the measure would cost most families no more than $175 a year”. His critical evaluation of the energy industry and their capacity to influence the climate change bill are evidently driven by strong opposing values that are heavily rooted in facts and historical analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment