The Global Warming Argument

I have read two opposing argumentative articles that try and sway their readers on the topic of global warming. The first article is “State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario” in the Scientific American by David Biello. Biello argues that global warming is real and is dangerous. He argues that the effects of global warming are very real and are accelerating us towards catastrophe. Within his article, Biello relies greatly on logos and ethos for a pathos reaction of the reader in support of his arguments. He strives in many cases to take the reader down a path of logic to leave only one negative outcome for humanity.

Although he states many interesting facts that might draw readers toward his argument, he provides a limited amount of actual proof to back up his claims. Anything mentioned for the future is stated as “Scientists are more than XX percent certain that…” or “Scientists estimate…” without ever offering any evidence as to why the scientists make those assessments. Also, it does appear as though he intentionally tries to ignore any opposing arguments that might weaken his own. For example, his only timeframe for the trend in global warming starts in 1750 and ends in the present. He never offers what trends were like prior to that year. He also never offers any direct links between CO2 levels and global temperatures or reasons as to why temperatures have actually gone up. Additionally, he only offers one future of disaster and catastrophe and never an alternate future of moderate events.

In contrast to that article, I read “The Global Warming Myth?” by ABC’s John Stossel. In that article, Stossel tries to sway his readers to the idea that global warming may just be a myth. He openly uses a great amount of logos and pathos to help aid his argument. He suggests that although there is a bit of evidence that supports the fact that the Earth’s environment may be warming, the evidence is quite weak in supporting the idea that we are experiencing or are about to experience drastic change. His logos continues to suggest that many of the natural disasters that are being blamed on global warming are actually in trend with history as far as natural disasters go saying “There are always storms and floods. Will there be much bigger disruptions in climate? Probably not.” Stossel also touches on a few alternate arguments like the use of solar and wind power. In his argument he continues with the logic of facts to show why these options may not be a viable replacement for fossil fuel to lower CO2 emissions.

Stossel also uses pathos to appeal to his audience. He sheds light onto how the media and scientists wish to keep us all in fear with their view on the facts. He then tries to calm those fears in people by trying to draw a more direct correlation between the facts and the claims. He pokes a bit of fun at windmills calling them “giant bird-killing Cuisinarts” to bring about a light.

My purpose of writing this blog entry is not to sway your views about global warming in one direction or another. It is simply to evaluate how each argument was written and supported. In a purely objective view, I would have to say that Stossel’s article was better written to defend his argument than Biello’s. He provided a bit more evidence, drew more clear correlations and proposed alternative arguments while minimizing assumptions.