Evaluating Arguments, Values, and Facts

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.

Climate Change Research, Agendas, and Attacks: Two Approaches to Arguing the Issue

Let's take a look at two arguments surrounding climate change and how each of them disassemble and discredit the opposition's research in order to support their own claims. We'll start with an article from Rolling Stone that is in favor of legislation promoting restrictions on global warming and follow that with an article from the other side, a Fox News report that chastises the U.N. for fabricating research. By analyzing each of these articles, we'll get a look at how they construct their arguments and the assumptions they expect their readers to accept.


The Rolling Stone article, “As The World Burns,” pummels the oil, gas, and coal industries for undermining efforts to pass legislation that would curb emissions and slow global warming. The author Jeff Goodell’s argument boils down to, “The oil and coal industries deployed an unprecedented army of lobbyists, spent millions on misleading studies and engaged in outright deception to derail climate legislation.”


He writes that according to 2008’s campaign promises, this is about the time that we were expecting big changes to US and global climate change policy but due to aggressive lobbying aimed at debilitating carbon-restricting measures that would give the United States a leg up at the international climate summit in Copenhagen, all efforts at creating meaningful legislation have been stalled rerouted.


In the is article, Goodell’s claims of fact—the results of legislative votes, the dollar amounts of campaign contributions opposing a climate bill, and the number of lobbyists representing the coal and oil industries in Washington—are juxtaposed with claims of judgment like, “The Senate's failure to act helped torpedo the talks in Copenhagen, which not only failed to produce a binding treaty but postponed meaningful action until 2015. It has also left Obama with no clear strategy of how to move forward.” And “Our collective response to the emerging catastrophe verges on suicidal”.


Goodell underlines these claims with numbers and a historical analysis of congress’ actions and the concurrent actions of representatives of the coal and oil industries. He cites the results of studies on climate change and notes who they were funded by and their vested interests. In referencing those opposed to signing a climate change bill into law, Goodell writes, “The climate bill, they argued, was nothing more than a national energy tax that would cause energy prices to skyrocket and destroy American jobs. As evidence, they pointed to a study by the Heritage Foundation, long a purveyor of junk science favored by the energy industry. (The conservative think tank has received at least $500,000 from ExxonMobil and $3 million from funders with ties to Koch Industries, a major oil-refining company.) Not surprisingly, the Heritage study predicted economic disaster if the climate bill were signed into law: Electricity rates would jump by 90 percent, gas prices would increase by 74 percent, the average energy bill would rise by $1,500 a year, and as many as 2.5 million jobs would disappear.” Goodell makes skillful use of logos, by giving us the results of the study, and pathos by quickly and snidely casting those results in a disreputable light.


Goodell assumes that his readers are aware of the government’s inability to pass climate legislation and he is eager to point out the misleading tactics that have been used by its opponents. The use of this data also constitutes an ethical attack on the climate bill’s opposition. By using the phrase, “junk science favored by the energy industry,” and citing the money that various energy companies have given the Heritage Foundation, Goodell use of ethical warrants implicitly forces the reader to make a judgment against the ethics of the Foundation and of the industries that support it financially. Goodell’s very passionate attack on the industries and representatives who have worked against climate change initiatives aims to inspire, frustrate, and impassion the reader.


Gene J. Koprowski of Fox News is tackling the climate argument from a very different angle. In his article, U.N.’s Global Warming Report Under Fresh Attack for Rainforest Claims, Koprowski too uses scientific data to support his claims. His argument is riding on a wave of previous claims about misleading climate change research. “A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under new attack for yet another instance of what its critics say is sloppy science -- adding to a growing scandal that has undermined the credibility of scientists and policymakers who back the U.N.'s findings about global warming”. Koprowski approaches the issue of global warming with a large dose of skepticism and he assumes his readers will do the same. He writes that a study warning that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest is endangered by global warming was written by a “freelance journalist and green activist”—obviously hoping to undermine the credibility of the study’s author, and that the original report was, “barely related to the Amazon rainforest”.


Koprowski backs up his argument with quotes from critics of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change including a blog “skeptical of global warming” and Andrew Wheeler, the senior vice president of B&D Consulting’s Energy, Climate, and Environment practice. These sources of support appeal to the audience’s logos since the dissent stems from authoritative warrants that come from those familiar with the U.N.’s reports and well versed in approaching them from a critical angle. He also uses dissociation by taking what the reader may usually see as credible, in this case the U.N., and pinning it to the wall by exposing the flaws of its research.


Koprowski finishes his article with statistics from two recent studies that both conclude that interest in global warming has waned substantially over the past year. Initially, I wondered why Koprowski included this seemingly unrelated data but then I realized that this is another dissociative leap. By tying flawed research to studies finding dwindling public interest in climate change, Koprowski is expecting his readers to see global warming as a fringe issue that is full of misleading environmentalist propaganda and isn’t worth their time or interest.