RWS Handbook Fall2010 Combined

1

1

RWS 100 Table of Contents

PG

1. Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How

Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?”

2. Bleich, “Californiaʹs Higher‐Education Debacle”

3. Some Quotations on Rhetoric, Writing & Argument

4. Key Rhetorical Terms and Concepts

5. PACES: Project, Argument, Claims, Evidence, Strategies

6. Basic Components of Argument

7. I Know What it Says, But What Does it Do?

8. Charting a Text 9. Jeremy Rifkin, “A Change of Heart About Animals”

10. Charting Example: Rifkin’s “Change of Heart about

Animals”

11. Aristotelian Appeals: Logos, Ethos, Pathos 12. Describing relationships between texts

13. Introduction to Rhetorical Strategies 14. Rhetorical Strategies for Film/Visual Texts

15. The Rhetorical Strategy of Metadiscourse

16. Rhetorical Strategies: Sample Analyses of Rifkin Strategies

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

The material in this reader was prepared by Chris Werry, Rose Burt, Alicia Upano, and Melissa Watson, and draws from/remixes/takes inspiration from work done by a great many members of the RWS department.

2

2

4The Scientific Consensus on Climate

Change: How Do We Know We’re

Not Wrong?

Naomi Oreskes

In December 2004, Discover magazine ran an article on the top

science stories of the year. One of these was climate change,

and the story was the emergence of a scientific consensus over

the reality of global warming. National Geographic similarly

declared 2004 the year that global warming ‘‘got respect’’

(Roach 2004).

Many scientists felt that respect was overdue: as early as

1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

had concluded that there was strong scientific evidence that

human activities were affecting global climate. By 2007, the

IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report noted it is ‘‘extremely un-

likely that the global climate changes of the past fifty years can

be explained without invoking human activities’’ (Alley et al.

2007). Prominent scientists and major scientific organizations

have all ratified the IPCC conclusion. Today, all but a tiny

handful of climate scientists are convinced that earth’s climate

is heating up and that human activities are a significant cause.

Yet many Americans continue to wonder. A recent poll

reported in Time magazine (Americans see a climate problem

2006) found that only just over half (56 percent) of Americans

think that average global temperatures have risen despite the

fact that virtually all climate scientists think that they have.1

3

More startlingly, a majority of Americans believe that scientists

are still divided about the issue. In some quarters, these doubts

have been invoked to justify the American refusal to join the

rest of the world in addressing the problem.

This book deals with the question of climate change and

its future impacts, and by definition predictions are uncertain.

People may wonder why we should spend time, effort, and

money addressing a problem that may not affect us for years

or decades to come. Several chapters in this book address that

question—explaining how some harmful effects are already

occurring, how we can assess the likely extent of future harms,

and why it is reasonable to act now to prevent a worst-case

scenario from coming true.

This chapter addresses a different question: might the scien-

tific consensus be wrong? If the history of science teaches any-

thing, it’s humility. There are numerous historical examples

where expert opinion turned out to be wrong. At the start

of the twentieth century, Max Planck was advised not to go

into physics because all the important questions had been

answered, medical doctors prescribed arsenic for stomach ail-

ments, and geophysicists were confident that continents could

not drift. Moreover, in any scientific community there are al-

ways some individuals who depart from generally accepted

views, and occasionally they turn out to be right. At present,

there is a scientific consensus on global warming, but how do

we know it’s not wrong?

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Let’s start with a simple question: What is the scientific con-

sensus on climate change, and how do we know it exists?

Scientists do not vote on contested issues, and most scientific

66 Naomi Oreskes

4

questions are far too complex to be answered by a simple yes

or no, so how does anyone know what scientists think about

global warming?

Scientists glean their colleagues’ conclusions by reading their

results in published scientific literature, listening to presenta-

tions at scientific conferences, and discussing data and ideas in

the hallways of conference centers, university departments, re-

search institutes, and government agencies. For outsiders, this

information is difficult to access: scientific papers and confer-

ences are by experts for experts and are difficult for outsiders

to understand.

Climate science is a little different. Because of the political

importance of the topic, scientists have been unusually moti-

vated to explain their research results in accessible ways, and

explicit statements of the state of scientific knowledge are easy

to find.

An obvious place to start is the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), already discussed in previous chap-

ters. Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organiza-

tion and the United Nations Environment Program, the IPCC

evaluates the state of climate science as a basis for informed

policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and pub-

lished scientific literature (IPCC 2005). The IPCC has issued

four assessments. Already in 2001, the IPCC had stated un-

equivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that

earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. This view

is expressed throughout the report, but the clearest statement

is: ‘‘Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of

atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant

energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50

years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse

gas concentrations’’ (McCarthy et al. 2001, 21). The 2007

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change 67

5

IPCC reports says ‘‘very likely’’ (Alley et al. 2007). The IPCC

is an unusual scientific organization: it was created not to

foster new research but to compile and assess existing knowl-

edge on a politically charged issue. Perhaps its conclusions

have been skewed by these political concerns, but the IPCC

is by no means alone it its conclusions, and its results have been

repeatedly ratified by other scientific organizations.

In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in

the United States whose membership’s expertise bears directly

on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm

the IPCC conclusion. One is the National Academy of Sciences

report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key

Questions (2001), which originated from a White House re-

quest. Here is how it opens: ‘‘Greenhouse gases are accumulat-

ing in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities,

causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temper-

atures to rise’’ (National Academy of Sciences 2001, 1). The re-

port explicitly addresses whether the IPCC assessment is a fair

summary of professional scientific thinking and answers yes:

‘‘The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of

the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in

greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current

thinking of the scientific community on this issue’’ (National

Academy of Sciences 2001, 3).

Other U.S. scientific groups agree. In February 2003, the

American Meteorological Society adopted the following state-

ment on climate change: ‘‘There is now clear evidence that the

mean annual temperature at the Earth’s surface, averaged over

the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years.

There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse

gases has increased over the same period. . . . Because human

activities are contributing to climate change, we have a col-

68 Naomi Oreskes

6

lective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully con-

sidered response actions’’ (American Meteorological Society

2003). So too says the American Geophysical Union: ‘‘Scien-

tific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot

explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures

observed during the second half of the 20th century’’ (Ameri-

can Geophysical Union Council 2003). Likewise the American

Association for the Advancement of Science: ‘‘The world is

warming up. Average temperatures are half a degree centigrade

higher than a century ago. The nine warmest years this century

have all occurred since 1980, and the 1990s were probably the

warmest decade of the second millennium. Pollution from

‘greenhouse gases’ such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane

is at least partly to blame’’ (Harrison and Pearce 2000). Cli-

mate scientists agree that global warming is real and substan-

tially attributable to human activities.

These kinds of reports and statements are drafted through a

careful process involving many opportunities for comment,

criticism, and revision, so it is unlikely that they would diverge

greatly from the opinions of the societies’ memberships. Never-

theless, it could be the case that they downplay dissenting

opinions.2

One way to test that hypothesis is by analyzing the contents

of published scientific papers, which contain the views that are

considered sufficiently supported by evidence that they merit

publication in expert journals. After all, any one can say any-

thing, but not anyone can get research results published in a

refereed journal.3 Papers published in scientific journals must

pass the scrutiny of critical, expert colleagues. They must be

supported by sufficient evidence to convince others who know

the subject well. So one must turn to the scientific literature to

be certain of what scientists really think.


7

Before the twentieth century, this would have been a trivial

task. The number of scientists directly involved in any given

debate was usually small. A handful, a dozen, perhaps a hun-

dred, at most, participated—in part because the total number

of scientists in the world was very small (Price 1986). More-

over, because professional science was a limited activity, many

scientists used language that was accessible to scientists in

other disciplines as well as to serious amateurs. It was rela-

tively easy for an educated person in the nineteenth or early

twentieth century to read a scientific book or paper and under-

stand what the scientist was trying to say. One did not have to

be a scientist to read The Principles of Geology or The Origin

of Species.

Our contemporary world is different. Today, hundreds of

thousands of scientists publish over a million scientific papers

each year.4 The American Geophysical Union has 41,000

members in 130 countries, and the American Meteorological

Society has 11,000. The IPCC reports involved the partici-

pation of many hundreds of scientists from scores of countries

(Houghton, Jenkins, and Ephraums 1990; Alley et al. 2007).

No individual could possibly read all the scientific papers on a

subject without making a full-time career of it.

Fortunately, the growth of science has been accompanied

by the growth of tools to manage scientific information. One

of the most important of these is the database of the Institute

for Scientific Information (ISI). In its Web of Science, the ISI

indexes all papers published in refereed scientific journals every

year—over 8,500 journals. Using a key word or phrase, one

can sample the scientific literature on any subject and get an

unbiased view of the state of knowledge.

Figure 4.1 shows the results of an analysis of 928 abstracts,

published in refereed journals during the period 1993 to 2003,

70 Naomi Oreskes

8

produced by a Web of Science search using the keyword phrase

‘‘global climate change.’’5 After a first reading to determine ap-

propriate categories of analysis, the papers were divided as fol-

lows: (1) those explicitly endorsing the consensus position, (2)

those explicitly refuting the consensus position, (3) those dis-

cussing methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring,

or predicting climate change, (4) those discussing potential or

documenting actual impacts of climate change, (5) those deal-

ing with paleoclimate change, and (6) those proposing mitiga-

tion strategies. How many fell into category 2—that is, how

many of these papers present evidence that refutes the state-

ment: ‘‘Global climate change is occurring, and human activ-

ities are at least part of the reason why’’? The answer is

remarkable: none.

Figure 4.1A Web of Science analysis of 928 abstracts using the keywords‘‘global climate change.’’ No papers in the sample provided scientificdata to refute the consensus position on global climate change.


9

A few comments are in order. First, often it is challenging to

determine exactly what the authors of a paper do think about

global climate change. This is a consequence of experts writing

for experts: many elements are implicit. If a conclusion is

widely accepted, then it is not necessary to reiterate it within

the context of expert discussion. Scientists generally focus their

discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered

rather than on matters about which everyone agrees.

This is clearly the case with the largest portion of the papers

examined (approximately half of the total)—those dealing with

impacts of climate change. The authors evidently accept the

premise that climate change is real and want to track, evaluate,

and understand its impacts. Nevertheless, such impacts could,

at least in some cases, be the results of natural variability

rather than human activities. Strikingly, none of the papers

used that possibility to argue against the consensus position.

Roughly 15 percent of the papers dealt with methods, and

slightly less than 10 percent dealt with paleoclimate change.

The most notable trend in the data is the recent increase

in such papers; concerns about global climate change have

given a boost to research in paleoclimatology and to the devel-

opment of methods for measuring and evaluating global tem-

perature and climate. Such papers are essentially neutral:

developing better methods and understanding historic climate

change are important tools for evaluating current effects, but

they do not commit their authors to any particular opinion

about those effects. Perhaps some of these authors are in fact

skeptical of the current consensus, and this could be a motiva-

tion to work on a better understanding of the natural climate

variability of the past. But again, none of the papers used that

motivation to argue openly against the consensus, and it would

be illogical if they did because a skeptical motivation does not

72 Naomi Oreskes

10

constitute scientific evidence. Finally, approximately 20 percent

of the papers explicitly endorsed the consensus position, and

an additional 5 percent proposed mitigation strategies. In

short, the basic reality of anthropogenic global climate change

is no longer a subject of scientific debate.6

Some readers will be surprised by this result and wonder

about the reliability of a study that failed to find any argu-

ments against the consensus position when such arguments

clearly exist. After all, anyone who watches the evening news

or trolls the Internet knows that there is enormous debate

about climate change, right? Well, no.

First, let’s make clear what the scientific consensus is. It is

over the reality of human-induced climate change. Scientists

predicted a long time ago that increasing greenhouse gas emis-

sions could change the climate, and now there is overwhelming

evidence that it is changing the climate and that these changes

are in addition to natural variability. Therefore, when contra-

rians try to shift the focus of attention to natural climate vari-

ability, they are misrepresenting the situation. No one denies

the fact of natural variability, but natural variability alone

does not explain what we are now experiencing. Scientists

have also documented that some of the changes that are now

occurring are clearly deleterious to both human commu-

nities and ecosystems (Arctic Council 2004). Because of global

warming, humans are losing their homes and hunting grounds,

and plants and animals are losing their habitats (e.g., Kolbert

2006; Flannery 2006).

Second, to say that global warming is real and happening

now is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in

the future. Much of the continuing debate in the scientific com-

munity involves the likely rate of future change. A good anal-

ogy is evolution. In the early twentieth century, paleontologist


11

George Gaylord Simpson introduced the concept of ‘‘tempo

and mode’’ to describe questions about the manner of evolu-

tion—how fast and in what manner evolution proceeded. Biol-

ogists by the mid-twentieth century agreed about the reality of

evolution, but there were extensive debates about its tempo

and mode. So it is now with climate change. Virtually all pro-

fessional climate scientists agree on the reality of human-

induced climate change, but debate continues on tempo and

mode.

Third, there is the question of what kind of dissent still

exists. The analysis of the published literature presented here

was done by sampling, using a keyword phrase that was in-

tended to be fair, accurate, and neutral: ‘‘global climate

change’’ (as opposed to, for example, ‘‘global warming,’’

which might be viewed as biased). The total number of papers

published over the last ten years having anything at all to do

with climate change is probably over ten thousand, and no

doubt some of the authors of the other over nine thousand

papers have expressed skeptical or dissenting views. But the

fact that the sample turned up no dissenting papers at all dem-

onstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now ex-

ceedingly minor.

This suggests something discussed elsewhere in this book—

that the mass media have paid a great deal of attention to a

handful of dissenters in a manner that is greatly disproportion-

ate with their representation in the scientific community. The

number of climate scientists who actively do research in the

field but disagree with the consensus position is evidently very

small.

This is not to say that there are not a significant number of

contrarians but to point out that most of them are not climate

scientists and therefore have little (or no) basis to claim to be

74 Naomi Oreskes

12

experts on the subjects on which they boldly pronounce. Some

contrarians, like the physicist Frederick Seitz, were once active

scientific researchers but have long since retired (and Seitz

never actually did research in climate science; he was a solid-

state physicist). Others, like the novelist Michael Crichton, are

not scientists at all. What Seitz and Crichton have in common,

along with most other contrarians, is that they do no new sci-

entific research. They are not producing new evidence or new

arguments. They are simply attacking the work of others and

mostly doing so in the court of public opinion and in the mass

media rather than in the halls of science.

This latter point is crucial and merits underscoring: the vast

majority of materials denying the reality of global warming do

not pass the most basic test for what it takes to be counted as

scientific—namely, being published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Contrarian views have been published in books and pamphlets

issued by politically motivated think-tanks and widely spread

across the Internet, but so have views promoting the reality of

UFOs or the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of

the Soviet Union.

Moreover, some contrarian arguments are frankly disin-

genuous, giving the impression of refuting the scientific consen-

sus when their own data do no such thing. One example will

illustrate the point. In 2001, Willie Soon, a physicist at the

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, along with

several colleagues, published a paper entitled ‘‘Modeling Cli-

matic Effects of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions:

Unknowns and Uncertainties’’ (Soon et al. 2001). This paper

has been widely cited by contrarians as an important example

of a legitimate dissenting scientific view published in a peer-

review journal.7 But the issue actually under discussion in the

paper is how well models can predict the future—in other


13

words, tempo and mode. The paper does not refute the consen-

sus position, and the authors acknowledge this: ‘‘The purpose

of [our] review of the deficiencies of climate model physics and

the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement. Our

review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence

on global climate’’ (Soon et al. 2001, 259; see also Soon et al.

2002).

The authors needed to make this disclaimer because many

contrarians do try to create the impression that arguments

about tempo and mode undermine the whole picture of global

climate change. But they don’t. Indeed, one could reject all cli-

mate models and still accept the consensus position because

models are only one part of the argument—one line of evi-

dence among many.

Is there disagreement over the details of climate change? Yes.

Are all the aspects of climate past and present well understood?

No, but who has ever claimed that they were? Does climate

science tell us what policy to pursue? Definitely not, but it does

identify the problem, explain why it matters, and give society

insights that can help to frame an efficacious policy response

(e.g., Smith 2002).

So why does the public have the impression of disagreement

among scientists? If the scientific community has forged a

consensus, then why do so many Americans have the impres-

sion that there is serious scientific uncertainty about climate

change?8 There are several reasons. First, it is important to dis-

tinguish between scientific and political uncertainties. There are

reasonable differences of opinion about how best to respond to

climate change and even about how serious global warming is

relative to other environmental and social issues. Some people

have confused—or deliberately conflated—these two issues.

76 Naomi Oreskes

14

Scientists are in agreement about the reality of global climate

change, but this does not tell us what to do about it.

Second, climate science involves prediction of future effects,

which by definition is uncertain. It is important to distinguish

among what is known to be happening now, what is likely to

happen based on current scientific understanding, and what

might happen in a worst-case scenario. This is not always easy

to do, and scientists have not always been effective in making

these distinctions. Uncertainties about the future are easily con-

flated with uncertainties about the current state of scientific

knowledge.

Third, scientists have evidently not managed well enough to

explain their arguments and evidence beyond their own expert

communities. The scientific societies have tried to communicate

to the public through their statements and reports on climate

change, but what average citizen knows that the American Me-

teorological Society even exists or visits its home page to look

for its climate-change statement?

There is also a deeper problem. Scientists are finely honed

specialists trained to create new knowledge, but they have little

training in how to communicate to broad audiences and even

less in how to defend scientific work against determined and

well-financed contrarians. Moreover, until recently, most scien-

tists have not been particularly anxious to take the time to

communicate their message broadly. Most scientists consider

their ‘‘real’’ work to be the production of knowledge, not its

dissemination, and often view these two activities as mutually

exclusive. Some even sneer at colleagues who communicate to

broader audiences, dismissing them as ‘‘popularizers.’’

If scientists do jump into the fray on a politically contested

issue, they may be accused of ‘‘politicizing’’ the science and


15

compromising their objectivity.9 This places scientists in a

double bind: the demands of objectivity suggest that they

should keep aloof from contested issues, but if they don’t get

involved, no one will know what an objective view of the mat-

ter looks like. Scientists’ reluctance to present their results to

broad audiences has left scientific knowledge open to misrepre-

sentation, and recent events show that there are plenty of peo-

ple ready and willing to misrepresent it.

It’s no secret that politically motivated think-tanks such as

the American Enterprise Institute and the George Marshall In-

stitute have been active for some time in trying to communicate

a message that is at odds with the consensus scientific view

(e.g., Gelbspan 1997, 2004). These organizations have success-

fully garnered a great deal of media attention for the tiny num-

ber of scientists who disagree with the mainstream view and

for nonscientists, like novelist Michael Crichton, who pro-

nounce loudly on scientific issues (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004).

This message of scientific uncertainty has been reinforced by

the public relations campaigns of certain corporations with a

large stake in the issue.10 The most well known example

is ExxonMobil, which in 2004 ran a highly visible advertis-

ing campaign on the op-ed page of the New York Times.

Its carefully worded advertisements—written and formatted

to look like newspaper columns and called op-ed pieces by

ExxonMobil—suggested that climate science was far too un-

certain to warrant action on it.11 One advertisement concluded

that the uncertainties and complexities of climate and weather

means that ‘‘there is an ongoing need to support scientific re-

search to inform decisions and guide policies’’ (Environmental

Defense 2005). Not many would argue with this commonsense

conclusion. But our scientists have concluded that existing re-

search warrants that decisions and policies be made today.12

78 Naomi Oreskes

16

In any scientific debate, past or present, one can always find

intellectual outliers who diverge from the consensus view. Even

after plate tectonics was resoundingly accepted by earth scien-

tists in the late 1960s, a handful of persistent resisters clung to

the older views, and some idiosyncratics held to alternative the-

oretical positions, such as earth expansion. Some of these men

were otherwise respected scientists, including Sir Harold Jef-

freys, one of Britain’s leading geophysicists, and Gordon J. F.

MacDonald, a one-time science adviser to Presidents Lyndon

Johnson and Richard Nixon; they both continued to reject

plate tectonics until their dying day, which for MacDonald

was in 2002. Does that mean that scientists should reject plate

tectonics, that disaster-preparedness campaigns should not use

plate-tectonics theory to estimate regional earthquake risk, or

that schoolteachers should give equal time in science class-

rooms to the theory of earth expansion? Of course not. That

would be silly and a waste of time.

No scientific conclusion can ever be proven, and new evi-

dence may lead scientists to change their views, but it is no

more a ‘‘belief’’ to say that earth is heating up than to say that

continents move, that germs cause disease, that DNA carries

hereditary information, and that HIV causes AIDS. You can al-

ways find someone, somewhere, to disagree, but these conclu-

sions represent our best current understandings and therefore

our best basis for reasoned action (Oreskes 2004).

How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?

Might the consensus on climate change be wrong? Yes, it could

be, and if scientific research continues, it is almost certain that

some aspects of the current understanding will be modified,

perhaps in significant ways. This possibility can’t be denied.


17

The relevant question for us as citizens is not whether this sci-

entific consensus might be mistaken but rather whether there is

any reason to think that it is mistaken.

How can outsiders evaluate the robustness of any particular

body of scientific knowledge? Many people expect a simple an-

swer to this question. Perhaps they were taught in school that

scientists follow ‘‘the scientific method’’ to get correct answers,

and they have heard some climate-change deniers suggesting

that climate scientists do not follow the scientific method (be-

cause they rely on models, rather than laboratory experiments)

so their results are suspect. These views are wrong.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no scientific method

(singular). Despite heroic efforts by historians, philosophers,

and sociologists, there is no answer to what the methods and

standards of science really are (or even what they should be).

There is no methodological litmus test for scientific reliability

and no single method that guarantees valid conclusions that

will stand up to all future scrutiny.

A positive way of saying this is that scientists have used a va-

riety of methods and standards to good effect and that philoso-

phers have proposed various helpful criteria for evaluating the

methods used by scientists. None is a magic bullet, but each

can be useful for thinking about what makes scientific informa-

tion a reliable basis for action.13 How does current scientific

knowledge about climate stand up to these diverse models of

scientific reliability?

The Inductive and Deductive Models of Science

The most widely cited models for understanding scientific rea-

soning are induction and deduction. Induction is the process of

generalizing from specific examples. If I see 100 swans and

they are all white, I might conclude that all swans are white. If

80 Naomi Oreskes

18

I saw 1,000 white swans or 10,000, I would surely think that

all swans were white, yet a black one might still be lurking

somewhere. As David Hume famously put it, even though the

sun has risen thousands of times before, we have no way to

prove that it will rise again tomorrow.

Nevertheless, common sense tells us that the sun is extremely

likely to rise again tomorrow, even if we can’t logically prove

that it’s so. Common sense similarly tells us that if we had seen

ten thousand white swans, then our conclusion that all swans

were white would be more robust than if we had seen only

ten. Other things being equal, the more we know about a sub-

ject, and the longer we have studied it, the more likely our con-

clusions about it are to be true.

How does climate science stand up to the inductive model?

Does climate science rest on a strong inductive base? Yes.

Humans have been making temperature records consistently

for over 150 years, and nearly all scientists who have looked

carefully at these records see an overall increase since the

industrial revolution about 0.6� to 0.7�C (1.1� to 1.3�F)

(Houghton, Jenkins, and Ephraums 1990; Bruce et al. 1996;

Watson et al. 1996; McCarthy et al. 2001; Houghton et al.

2001; Metz et al. 2001; Watson 2001; Weart 2003). The em-

pirical signal is clear, even if not all the details are clear.

How reliable are the early records? How do you average the

data to be representative of the globe as a whole, even though

much of the early data comes from only a few places, mostly

in Europe? Scientists have spent quite a bit of time addressing

these questions; most have satisfied themselves that the empiri-

cal signal is clear. But even if scientists doubted the older

records, the more recent data show a strong increase in tem-

peratures over the past thirty to forty years, just when the

amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases in the


19

atmosphere was growing dramatically (McCarthy et al. 2001;

Houghton 2001; Metz et al. 2001; Watson 2001).

Moreover these records—based on measurements with

instruments, such as thermometers—are corroborated by inde-

pendent evidence from tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs. A

recent paper by Jan Esper at the Swiss Federal Research Center

and colleagues at Columbia University, shows, for example,

that tree rings can provide a reliable, long-term record of tem-

perature variability that largely agrees with the instrumental

records over the past 150 years (Esper, Cook, and Schweing-

ruber 2003).

While many scientists are happy simply to obtain consistent

results—often no trivial task—others may deem it important

to find some means to test whether their conclusions are right.

This has led to the view that the core of scientific method is

testing theories through logical deductions.

Deduction is drawing logical inferences from a set of

premises—the stock-in-trade of Sherlock Holmes. In science,

deduction is generally presumed to work as part of what

has come to be known as the hypothetico-deductive model—

the model you will find in most textbooks that claim to

teach the scientific method. In this view, scientists develop

hypotheses and then test them. Every hypothesis has logical

consequences—deductions—and one can try to determine

whether the deductions are correct. If they are, they support

the hypothesis. If they are not, then the hypothesis must be

revised or rejected. It’s especially good if the prediction is

something that would otherwise be quite unexpected because

that would suggest that it didn’t just happen by chance.

The most famous example of successful deduction in the his-

tory of science is the case of Ignaz Semmelweis, who in the

1840s deduced the importance of hand washing to prevent the

spread of infection (Gillispie 1975; Hempel 1965). Semmelweis

82 Naomi Oreskes

20

had noticed that many women were dying of fever after giving

birth at his Viennese hospital. Surprisingly, women who had

their infants on the way to the hospital—seemingly under

more adverse conditions—rarely died of fever. Nor did women

who gave birth at another hospital clinic where they were

attended by midwives. Semmelweis was deeply troubled by

this.

In 1847, a friend of Semmelweis, Jakob Kolletschka, cut his

finger while doing an autopsy and soon died. Autopsy revealed

a pathology very similar to the women who had died after

childbirth; something in the cadaver had apparently caused his

death. Semmelweis knew that many of the doctors at his clinic

routinely went directly from conducting autopsies to attending

births, but midwives did not perform autopsies, so he hypothe-

sized that the doctors were carrying cadaveric material on their

hands, which was infecting the women (and killed his friend).

He deduced that if physicians washed their hands before

attending the women, then the infection rate would decline.

They did so, and the infection rate did decline, demonstrating

the power of the hypothetico-deductive method.

How does climate science stand up to this standard? Have

climate scientists made predictions that have come true? Abso-

lutely. The most obvious is the fact of global warming itself. As

already has been noted in previous chapters, scientific concern

over the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is

based on physics—the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In

the early twentieth century, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius

predicted that increasing carbon dioxide from the burning of

fossil fuels would lead to global warming, and by midcentury,

a number of other scientists, including G. S. Callendar, Roger

Revelle, and Hans Suess, concluded that the effect might soon

be quite noticeable, leading to sea level rise and other global

changes. In 1965, Revelle and his colleagues wrote, ‘‘By the


21

year 2000, the increase in atmospheric CO2 . . .may be suffi-

cient to produce measurable and perhaps marked change in cli-

mate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the

temperature and other properties of the stratosphere’’ (Revelle

1965, 9). This prediction has come true (Fleming 1998; Weart

2003; McCarthy et al. 2001; Houghton et al. 2001; Metz et al.

2001; Watson 2001).

Another prediction fits the category of something unusual

that you might not even think of without the relevant theory.

In 1980, climatologist Suki Manabe predicted that the effects

of global warming would be strongest first in the polar regions.

Polar amplification was not an induction from observations

but a deduction from theoretical principles: the notion of ice-

albedo feedback. The reflectivity of a material is called its

albedo. Ice has a high albedo. It reflects sunlight back into

space much more effectively than grass, dirt, or water, and

one reason polar regions are as cold as they are is that snow

and ice are very effective in reflecting solar radiation back into

space. But if the snow starts to melt and bare ground (or water)

is exposed, the reflection effect diminishes. Less ice means less

reflection, which means more solar heat is absorbed, leading

to yet more melting in a positive feedback loop. So once warm-

ing begins, its effects are more pronounced in polar regions

than in temperate ones. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

concluded in 2004 that this prediction has also come true

(Manabe and Stouffer 1980, 1994; Holland and Bitz 2003;

Arctic Council 2004).

Falsificationism

Ignaz Semmelweis is among the famous figures in the history of

science because his work in the 1840s foreshadows the germ

84 Naomi Oreskes

22

theory of disease and the saving of millions of human lives. But

the story has a twist because Semmelweis was right for the

wrong reason. Cadaveric matter was not the cause of the infec-

tions: germs were. In later years, this would be demonstrated

by James Lister, Robert Koch, and Louis Pasteur, who realized

that hand washing was effective not because it removed the

cadaveric material but because it removed the germs associated

with that material.

The story illustrates the fundamental logical flaw with the

hypothetico-deductive model—the fallacy of affirming the con-

sequent. If I make a prediction, and it comes true, it does not

prove that my hypothesis was correct; my prediction may

have come true for other reasons. The other reasons may be re-

lated to the hypothesis—germs were associated with cadaveric

matter—but in other cases the connection may be entirely co-

incidental. I can convince myself that I have proved my theory

right, but this would be self-deception. This realization led the

twentieth-century philosopher Karl Popper to suggest that you

can never prove a theory true but you can prove it false—a

view known as falsificationism (Popper 1959).

How does climate science hold up to this modification?

Can climate models be refuted? Falsification is a bit of a prob-

lem for all models—not just climate models—because many

models are built to forecast the future and the results will

not be known for some time. By the time we find out whether

the long-term predictions of a model are right or wrong, that

knowledge won’t be of much use. For this reason, many mod-

els are tested by seeing if they can accurately reproduce past

events. In principle, this should be an excellent test—a climate

model that failed to reproduce past temperature records might

be considered falsified—but in reality, it doesn’t work quite

that way.


23

Climate models are complex, and they involve many

variables—some that are well measured and others that are

not. If a model does not reproduce past data very well, most

modelers assume that one or more of the model parameters

are not quite right, and they make adjustments in an attempt

to obtain a better fit. This is generally referred to as model cal-

ibration, and many modelers consider it an essential part of the

process of building a good model. But the problem is that cali-

bration can make models refutation-proof: the model doesn’t

get rejected; it gets revised. If model results were the only basis

for current scientific understanding, they would be grounds for

some healthy skepticism. Models are therefore best viewed as

heuristic devices: a means to explore what-if scenarios. This is,

indeed, how most modelers use them: to answer questions like

‘‘If we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, what is

the most likely outcome?’’

One way in which modelers address the fact that a

model can’t be proved right or wrong is to make lots of

different models that explore diverse possible outcomes—

what modelers call ensembles. An example of this is

hclimateprediction.neti, a Web-based mass-participation ex-

periment that enlists members of the public to run climate

models on their home computers to explore the range of likely

and possible climate outcomes under a variety of plausible

conditions.

Over ninety thousand participants from over 140 countries

have produced tens of thousands of runs of a general circula-

tion model produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Pre-

diction and Research. Figure 4.2 presents some initial results,

published in the journal Nature in 2005, for a steady-state

model in which atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled relative

to preindustrial levels and the model earth is allowed to adjust.

86 Naomi Oreskes

24

The results in black are the climateprediction.net’s mass-

participation runs; the results in grey come from runs made by

professional climate scientists at the Hadley Centre on a super-

computer (Stainforth et al. 2005).

What does an ensemble like this show? For one thing, no

matter how many times you run the model, you almost always

get the same qualitative result: the earth will warm. The unan-

swered question is how much and how fast—in other words,

tempo and mode.

Figure 4.2Changes in global mean surface temperature (C�) after carbon dioxidevalues in the atmosphere are doubled. The black lines show the resultsof 2,579 fifteen-year simulations by members of the general publicusing their own personal computers. The grey lines show comparableresults from 127 thirty-year simulations completed by Hadley Centrescientists on the Met Office’s supercomputer (hwww.metoffive.gov.uki). Figure prepared by Ben Sanderson with help from thehclimateprediction.neti project team.Source: Reproduced by permission fromhhttp://www.climateprediction.net/science/results_cop10.phpi.


25

The models vary quite a bit in their tempo and mode, but

nearly all fall within a temperature range of 2� to 8�C (4� to

14�F) within fifteen years after the earth’s atmosphere reaches

a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Moreover, most of the runs

are still warming at that point. The model runs were stopped

at year 15 for practicality, but most of them had not yet

reached equilibrium: model temperatures were still rising. Look

again at figure 4.2. If the general-public model runs had been

allowed to continue out to thirty years, as the Hadley Centre

scientists’ model runs do, many of them would apparently

have reached still higher temperatures, perhaps as high as 12�C.

How soon will our atmosphere reach a CO2 level of twice

the preindustrial level? The answer depends largely on how

much carbon dioxide we humans put into the atmosphere—a

parameter that cannot be predicted by a climate model. Note

also that in these models CO2 does not continue to rise: it is

fixed at twice preindustrial levels. Most experts believe that

unless major steps are taken quickly, atmospheric CO2 levels

will go well above that level. If CO2 triples or quadruples, then

the expected temperature increase will also increase. No one

can say precisely when earth’s temperature will increase by

any specific value, but the models indicate that it almost surely

will increase. With very few exceptions, the models show the

earth warming, and some of them show the earth warming

very quickly.

Is it possible that all these model runs are wrong? Yes,

because they are variations on a theme. If the basic model

conceptualization was wrong in some way, then all the models

runs would be wrong. Perhaps there is a negative feedback

loop that we have not yet recognized. Perhaps the oceans can

absorb more CO2 than we think, or we have missed some

other carbon sink (Smith 2002). This is one reason that con-

88 Naomi Oreskes

26

tinued scientific investigation is warranted. But note that

Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar predicted global warming

before anyone ever built a global circulation model (or even

had a digital computer). Climate models give us a tool for

exploring scenarios and interactions, but you don’t need a cli-

mate model to know that global warming is a real problem.

If climate science stands with or without climate models,

then is there any information that would show that climate

science is wrong? Sure. Scientists might discover a mistake

in their basic physical understanding that showed they had

misconceptualized the whole issue. They could discover that

they had overestimated the significance of carbon dioxide and

underestimated the significance of some other parameter. But if

such mistakes are found, there is no guarantee that correcting

them will lead to a more optimistic scenario. It could well be

the case that scientists discover neglected factors that show

that the problem is even worse than we’d supposed.

Moreover, there is another way to think about this issue.

Contrarians have put inordinate amounts of effort into trying

to find something that is wrong with climate science, and de-

spite all this effort, they have come up empty-handed. Year

after year, the evidence that global warming is real and serious

has only strengthened.14 Perhaps that is the strongest argument

of all. Contrarians have repeatedly tried to falsify the consen-

sus, and they have repeatedly failed.

Consilience of Evidence

Most philosophers and historians of science agree that there is

no iron-clad means to prove a scientific theory. But if science

does not provide proof, then what is the purpose of induction,

hypothesis testing, and falsification? Most would answer that,


27

in various ways, these activities provide warrant for our views.

Do they?

An older view, which has come back into fashion of late, is

that scientists look for consilience of evidence. Consilience

means ‘‘coming together,’’ and its use is generally credited to

the English philosopher William Whewell, who defined it as

the process by which sets of data—independently derived—

coincided and came to be understood as explicable by the

same theoretical account (Gillispie 1981; Wilson 1998). The

idea is not so different from what happens in a legal case.

To prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a

prosecutor must present a variety of evidence that holds to-

gether in a consistent story. The defense, in contrast, might

need to show only that some element of the story is at odds

with another to sow reasonable doubt in the minds of the

jurors. In other words, scientists are more like lawyers than

they might like to admit. They look for independent lines of ev-

idence that hold together.

Do climate scientists have a consilience of evidence? Again

the answer is yes. Instrumental records, tree rings, ice cores,

borehole data, and coral reefs all point to the same conclusion:

things are getting warmer overall. Keith Briffa and Timothy

Osborn of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East

Anglia compared Esper’s tree-ring analysis with six other

reconstructions of global temperature between the years 1000

and 2000 (Briffa and Osborn 2002). All seven analyses agree:

temperatures increased dramatically in the late twentieth cen-

tury relative to the entire record of the previous millennium.

Temperatures vary naturally, of course, but the absolute mag-

nitude of global temperatures in the late twentieth century was

higher than any known temperatures in the previous one thou-

90 Naomi Oreskes

28

sand years, and many different lines of evidence point in this

direction.

Inference to the Best Explanation

The various problems in trying to develop an account of how

and why scientific knowledge is reliable have led some philoso-

phers to conclude that the purpose of science is not proof, but

explanation. Not just any explanation will do, however; the

best explanation is the one that is consistent with the evidence

(e.g., Lipton 1991). Certainly, it is possible that a malicious

or mischievous deity placed fossils throughout the geological

record to trick us into believing organic evolution, but to a sci-

entist this is not the best explanation because it invokes super-

natural effects, and the supernatural is beyond the scope of

scientific explanation. (It might not be the best explanation to

a theologian, either, if that theologian was committed to heav-

enly benevolence.) Similarly, I might try to explain the drift of

the continents through the theory of the expanding earth—as

some scientists did in the 1950s—but this would not be the

best explanation because it fails to explain why the earth has

conspicuous zones of compression as well as tension. The phi-

losopher of science Peter Lipton has put it this way: every set of

facts has a diversity of possible explanations, but ‘‘we cannot

infer something simply because it is a possible explanation. It

must somehow be the best of competing explanations’’ (Lipton

2004, 56).

Best is a term of judgment, so it doesn’t entirely solve our

problem, but it gets us thinking about what it means for a

scientific explanation to be the best available—or even just

a good one. It also invites us to ask the question, ‘‘Best for


29

what purpose?’’ For philosophers, best generally means that an

explanation is consistent with all the available evidence (not

just selected portions of it), that the explanation is consistent

with other known laws of nature and other bodies of accepted

evidence (and not in conflict with them), and that the explana-

tion does not invoke supernatural events or causes that virtu-

ally by definition cannot be refuted. In other words, best can

be judged in terms of the various criterion invoked by all the

models of science discussed above: Is there an inductive basis?

Does the theory pass deductive tests? Do the various elements

of the theory fit with each other and with other established sci-

entific information? And is the explanation scientific in the

sense of being potentially refutable and not invoking unknown,

inexplicable, or supernatural causes?

Contrarians have tried to suggest that the climate effects we

are experiencing are simply natural variability. Climate does

vary, so this is a possible explanation. No one denies that. But

is it the best explanation for what is happening now? Most cli-

mate scientists would say that it’s not the best explanation. In

fact, it’s not even a good explanation—because it is inconsis-

tent with much of what we know.

Should we believe that the global increase in atmospheric

carbon dioxide has had a negligible effect even though basic

physics indicates otherwise? Should we believe that the correla-

tion between increased CO2 and increased temperature is just a

weird coincidence? If there were no theoretical reason to relate

them and if Arrhenius, Callendar, Suess, and Revelle had not

predicted that all this would all happen, then one might well

conclude that rising CO2 and rising temperature were merely

coincidental. But we have every reason to believe that there is

a causal connection and no good reason to believe that it is a

coincidence. Indeed, the only reason we might think otherwise

92 Naomi Oreskes

30

is to avoid committing to action: if this is just a natural cycle in

which humans have played no role, then maybe global warm-

ing will go away on its own in due course.

And that sums up the problem. To deny that global warming

is real is precisely to deny that humans have become geological

agents, changing the most basic physical processes of the earth.

For centuries, scientists thought that earth processes were so

large and powerful that nothing we could do would change

them. This was a basic tenet of geological science: that human

chronologies were insignificant compared with the vastness of

geological time; that human activities were insignificant com-

pared with the force of geological processes. And once they

were. But no more. There are now so many of us cutting down

so many trees and burning so many billions of tons of fossil

fuels that we have indeed become geological agents. We have

changed the chemistry of our atmosphere, causing sea level to

rise, ice to melt, and climate to change. There is no reason to

think otherwise.

Notes

1. Contrast this with the results of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, which stateunequivocally that average global temperatures have risen (Houghtonet al. 2001; Alley et al. 2007).

2. It must be acknowledged that in any area of human endeavor,leadership may diverge from the views of the led. For example, manyCatholic priests endorse the idea that priests should be permitted tomarry (Watkin 2004).

3. In recent years, climate-change deniers have increasingly turned tononscientific literature as a way to promulgate views that are rejectedby most scientists (see, for example, Deming 2005).

4. An e-mail inquiry to the Thomson Scientific Customer TechnicalHelp Desk produced this reply: ‘‘We index the following number of


31

papers in Science Citation Index—2004, 1,057,061 papers; 2003,1,111,398 papers.’’

5. The analysis begins in 1993 because that is the first year for whichthe database consistently published abstracts. Some abstracts initiallycompiled were deleted from our analysis because the authors of thosepapers had put ‘‘global climate change’’ in their key words, but theirpapers were not actually on the subject.

6. This is consistent with the analysis of historian Spencer Weart,who concluded that scientists achieved consensus in 1995 (see Weart2003).

7. In e-mails that I received after publishing my essay in Science(Oreskes 2004), this paper was frequently invoked.

8. And we do. According to Time magazine, a recent Gallup pollreported that ‘‘64 percent of Americans think scientists disagree withone another about global warming’’ (Americans see a climate problem2006).

9. Objectivity certainly can be compromised when scientists addresscharged issues. This is not an abstract concern. It has been demon-strated that scientists who accept research funds from the tobacco in-dustry are much more likely to publish research results that deny ordownplay the hazards of smoking than those who get their fundsfrom the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society,or other nonprofit agencies (Bero 2003). On the other hand, there is alarge difference between accepting funds from a patron with a clearlyvested interest in a particular epistemic outcome and simply tryingone’s best to communicate the results of one’s research clearly and inplain English.

10. Some petroleum companies, such as BP and Shell, have refrainedfrom participating in misinformation campaigns (see Browne 1997).Browne began his 1997 lecture by focusing on what he accepted as‘‘two stark facts. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmo-sphere is rising, and the temperature of the Earth’s surface is increas-ing.’’ For an analysis of diverse corporate responses, see Van denHove et al. (2003).

11. For an analysis of one ad, ‘‘Weather and Climate,’’ see Environ-mental Defense (2005). An interesting development in 2003 was thatInstitutional Shareholders Services advised ExxonMobil shareholdersto ask the company to explain its stance on climate-change issues and

94 Naomi Oreskes

32

to divulge financial risks that could be associated with it (see ISS in fa-vor of ExxonMobil 2003).

12. These efforts to generate an aura of uncertainty and disagreementhave had an effect. This issue has been studied in detail by academicresearchers (see, for example, Boykoff and Boykoff 2004).

13. Reliable is a term of judgment. By reliable basis for action, I meanthat it will not lead us far astray in pursuing our goals, or if it doeslead us astray, at least we will be able to look back and say honestlythat we did the best we could given what we knew at the time.

14. This is evident when the three IPCC assessments—1990, 1995,2001—are compared (Houghton et al. 1990; Bruce et al. 1996; Wat-son et al. 1996; Houghton et al. 2001; Metz et al. 2001; Watson2001; see also Weart 2003).

References

Alley, Richard et al. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical sciencebasis: Summary for policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change. Geneva: IPCC Secretariat. hhttp://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdfi (accessed March 31, 2007).

American Geophysical Union Council. 2003. Human impacts ofclimate. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. hwww.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.htmli (accessed March 1,2005).

American Meteorological Society. 2003. Climate change research:Issues for the atmospheric and related sciences. Bulletin of the Amer-ican Meteorological Society 84. hhttp://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.htmli (accessed May 1, 2006).

Americans see a climate problem. Time.com, March 26. hhttp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1176967,00.htmli (ac-cessed May 1, 2006).

Arctic Council. 2004. Arctic climate impact assessment. Arctic Council,Oslo, Norway. hhttp://www.acia.uaf.edui (accessed March 14, 2005).

Bero L. 2003. Implications of the tobacco industry documents forpublic health and policy. Annual Review of Public Health 24: 267–88.


33

Boykoff, M. T., and J. M. Boykoff. 2004. Balance as bias: Globalwarming and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change14: 125–36.

Briffa, K. R., and T. J. Osborn. 2002. Blowing hot and cold. Science295: 2227–28.

Browne, E. J. P. 1997. Climate change: The new agenda. Paper pre-sented at Stanford University, May 19, Group Media and Publica-tions, British Petroleum Company.

Bruce, James P., Hoesung Lee, and Erik F. Haites, eds. 1996. Climatechange 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate change.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Deming, David. 2005. How ‘‘consensus’’ on global warming is usedto justify draconian reform. Investor’s Business Daily, March 18, A16.

Environmental Defense. 2005. Too slick: Stop ExxonMobil’sglobal warming misinformation campaign. hhttp://actionnetwork.org/campaign/exxonmobil?source=edac2i (accessed March 14, 2005).

Esper, J., E. R. Cook, and F. H. Schweingruber. 2003. Low-frequencysignals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past tempera-ture variability. Science 295: 2250–53.

Flannery, Tim. 2006. The weather makers: How man is changing theclimate and what it means for life on earth. New York: AtlanticMonthly Press.

Fleming, James Rodger. 1998. Historical Perspectives on ClimateChange. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gelbspan, Ross. 1997. The heat is on: The high stakes battle overearth’s threatened climate. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gelbspan, Ross. 2004. Boiling point: How politicians, big oil andcoal, journalists, and activists are fueling the climate crisis—andwhat we can do to avert disaster. New York: Basic Books.

Gillispie, Charles C., ed. 1975. Semmelweis. In Dictionary of scientificbiography. Vol. 12. New York: Scribner.

Gillispie, Charles C., ed. 1981. Dictionary of scientific biography. Vol.12. New York: Scribner.

Harrison, Paul, and Fred Pearce. 2000. AAAS atlas of population andenvironment. Berkeley: University of California Press. hhttp://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.htmli (accessed May 1, 2006).

96 Naomi Oreskes

34

Hempel, Carl. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation, and otheressays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.

Holland, M. M., and C. M. Bitz. 2003. Polar amplification of climatechange in coupled models. Climate Dynamics 21: 221–32.

Houghton, J. T., G. J. Jenkins, and J. J. Ephraums, eds. 1990.Scientific assessment of climate change: Report of Working Group I.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Lin-den, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C. A. Johnson, eds. 2001. Climatechange 2001: The scientific basis (Third Assessment Report). Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. AboutIPCC, February 7. hhttp://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htmi (accessedMarch 1, 2005).

ISS in favor of ExxonMobil global warming proposals. PlanetArk, May 19. hhttp://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20824/story.htmi (accessed March 14, 2005).

Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2006. Field notes from a catastrophe. New York:Bloomsbury.

Lipton, Peter. 1991. Inference to the best explanation. Oxford:Routledge.

Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the best explanation. 2nd ed. Ox-ford: Routledge.

Manabe, S., and R. J. Stouffer. 1980. Sensitivity of a global climatemodel to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Journalof Geophysical Research 85(C10): 5529–54.

Manabe, S., and R. J. Stouffer. 1994. Multiple-century response of acoupled ocean-atmosphere model to an increase of atmospheric car-bon dioxide. Journal of Climate 7(1): 5–23.

McCarthy, James J., Osvaldo F. Canziani, Neil A. Leary, DavidJ. Dokken, and Kasey S. White, eds. 2001. Climate change 2001:Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Metz, Bert, Ogunlade Davidson, Rob Swart, and Jiahua Pan, eds.2001. Climate change 2001: Mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


35

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Science of ClimateChange. 2001. Climate change science: An analysis of some key ques-tions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Oreskes, N. 2004. Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus onclimate change. Science 306(5702): 1686.

Popper, K. R. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London:Hutchinson.

Price, Derek de Solla. 1986. Little science, big science—and beyond.New York: Columbia University Press.

Revelle, Roger. 1965. Atmospheric carbon dioxide. In Restoring thequality of our environment: A report of the Environmental PollutionPanel, 111–33. Washington, DC: President’s Science Advisory Com-mittee.

Roach, John. 2004. The year global warming got respect. NationalGeographic, December 29. hhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1229_041229_climate_change_consensus.htmli (ac-cessed February 24, 2005).

Smith, Leonard A. 2002. What might we learn from climate forecasts?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (suppl. 1): 2487–92.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, S. B. Idso, K. Y. Kondratyev, and E. S. Pos-mentier. 2001. Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon di-oxide emissions: Unknowns and uncertainties. Climate Research 18:259–75.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, S. B. Idso, K. Y. Kondratyev, and E. S. Pos-mentier. 2002. Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon di-oxide emissions: Unknowns and uncertainties, reply to Risbey. ClimateResearch 22: 187–88.

Stainforth, D., T. Aina, C. Christensen, M. Collins, N. Faull, D. J.Frame, J. A. Kettleborough, S. Knight, A. Martin, J. M. Murphy, C.Piani, D. Sexton, L. A. Smith, R. A. Spicer, A. J. Thorpe, and M. R.Allen. 2005. Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to ris-ing levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433: 403–06.

Van den Hove, Sybille, Marc Le Menestrel, and Henri-Claude de Bet-tignies. 2003. The oil industry and climate change: Strategies and eth-ical dilemmas. Climate Policy 2: 3–18.

Watkin, Daniel J. 2004. Roman Catholic priests’ group calls forallowing married clergy members. New York Times, April 28, B5.

98 Naomi Oreskes

36

Watson, Robert T., ed. 2001. Climate change 2001: Synthesis report.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Watson, R. T., Marufu C. Zinyowera, and Richard H. Moss, eds.1996. Climate change 1995: Impacts, adaptations and mitigation ofclimate change—Scientific-technical analyses. Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weart, Spencer R. 2003. The discovery of global warming. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The unity of knowledge. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.


37

3

Jeff Bleich, “California's higher-education debacle.” Los Angeles Times, November 04, 2009. Watching the decline of the California State University system from within its boardroom mirrors the erosion of the California dream. [1] For nearly six years, I have served on the Board of Trustees of the California State University system - the last two as its chairman. This experience has been more than just professional; it has been a deeply personal one. With my term ending soon, I need to share my concern -- and personal pain -- that California is on the verge of destroying the very system that once made this state great. [2] I came to California because of the education system. I grew up in Connecticut and attended college back East on partial scholarships and financial aid. I also worked part time, but by my first year of grad school, I'd maxed out my financial aid and was relying on loans that charged 14% interest. Being a lawyer had been my dream, but my wife and I could not afford for me to go to any law schools back East. [3] I applied to UC Berkeley Law School because it was the only top law school in the U.S. that we could afford. It turned out to be the greatest education I have ever received. And I got it because the people of California -- its leaders and its taxpayers -- were willing to invest in me. [4] For the last 20 years, since I graduated, I have felt a duty to pay back the people of this state. When I had to figure out where to build a practice, buy a home, raise my family and volunteer my time and energy, I chose California. I joined a small California firm -- Munger, Tolles & Olson -- and eventually became a partner. This year, American Lawyer magazine named us the No. 1 firm in the nation. [5] That success is also California's success. It has meant millions of dollars in taxes paid to California, hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer time donated to California, houses built and investments made in California, and hundreds of talented people attracted to work in and help California. [6] My story is not unique. It is the story of California's rise from the 1960s to the 1990s. Millions of people stayed here and succeeded because of their California education. We benefited from the foresight of an earlier generation that recognized it had a duty to pay it forward. [7] That was the bargain California made with us when it established the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960. By making California the state where every qualified and committed person can receive a low-cost and high-quality education, all of us benefit. Attracting and retaining the leaders of the future helps the state grow bigger and stronger. Economists found that for every dollar the state invests in a CSU student, it receives $4.41 in return. [8] So as someone who has lived the California dream, there is nothing more painful to me than to see this dream dying. It is being starved to death by a public that thinks any government service -- even public education -- is not worth paying for. And by political leaders who do not lead but instead give in to our worst, shortsighted instincts. [9] The ineffective response to the current financial crisis reflects trends that have been hurting California public education for years. To win votes, political leaders mandated long prison sentences that forced us to stop building schools and start building prisons. This has made us dumber but no safer. Leaders pandered by promising tax cuts no matter what and did not worry

38

4

about how to provide basic services without that money. Those tax cuts did not make us richer; they've made us poorer. To remain in office, they carved out legislative districts that ensured we would have few competitive races and leaders with no ability or incentive to compromise. Rather than strengthening the parties, it pushed both parties to the fringes and weakened them. [10] When the economy was good, our leaders failed to make hard choices and then faced disasters like the energy crisis. When the economy turned bad, they made no choices until the economy was worse. [11] In response to failures of leadership, voters came up with one cure after another that was worse than the disease -- whether it has been over-reliance on initiatives driven by special interests, or term limits that remove qualified people from office, or any of the other ways we have come up with to avoid representative democracy. [12] As a result, for the last two decades we have been starving higher education. California's public universities and community colleges have half as much to spend today as they did in 1990 in real dollars. In the 1980s, 17% of the state budget went to higher education and 3% went to prisons. Today, only 9% goes to universities and 10% goes to prisons. [13] The promise of low-cost education that brought so many here, and kept so many here, has been abandoned. Our K-12 system has fallen from the top ranks 30 years ago to 47th in the nation in per-pupil spending. And higher education is now taking on water. [14] At every trustees meeting over the last six years, I have seen the signs of decline. I have listened to the painful stories of faculty who could not afford to raise a family on their salaries; of students who are on the financial edge because they are working two jobs, taking care of a child and barely making it with our current tuitions. I have seen the outdated buildings and the many people on our campuses who feel that they have been forgotten by the public and Sacramento. [15] What made California great was the belief that we could solve any problem as long as we did two things: acknowledged the problem and worked together. Today that belief is missing. California has not acknowledged that it has fundamentally abandoned the promise of the Master Plan for Higher Education. And Californians have lost the commitment to invest in one another. That is why we have lost our way in decision after decision. [16] Today, everyone in our system is making terrible sacrifices. Employee furloughs, student fee increases and campus-based cuts in service and programs are repulsive to all of us. Most important, it is unfair. The cost of education should be shared by all of us because the education of our students benefits every Californian. [17] We've gone from investing in the future to borrowing from it. Every time programs and services are cut for short-term gain, it is a long-term loss. [18] The solution is simple, but hard. It is what I'm doing now. Tell what is happening to every person who can hear it. Beat this drum until it can't be ignored. Shame your neighbors who think the government needs to be starved and who are happy to see Sacramento paralyzed. We have to wake up this state and get it to rediscover its greatness. Because if we don't, we will be the generation that let the promise for a great California die.

39

Some Quotations on Rhetoric, Writing & Argument

Aristotle: “Let rhetoric be defined as the faculty of observing in any case all of the available means of persuasion.”

Eagleton: “Rhetoric, which was the received form of critical analysis all the way from ancient society…examined the way discourses are constructed in order to achieve certain effects. It was not worried about whether its objects of inquiry were speaking or writing, poetry or philosophy, fiction or historiography: its horizon was nothing less than the field of discursive

practices in society as a whole, and its particular interest lay in grasping such practices as forms of power and performance…It saw speaking and writing not merely as textual objects, to be aesthetically contemplated or endlessly deconstructed, but as forms of activity inseparable from the wider social relations between writers and readers, orators and audiences.” Bizzell & Herzberg: “Rhetoric has a number of overlapping meanings…the use of language, written or spoken, to inform or persuade; the study of the persuasive effects of language; the study of the relation between language and knowledge; the classification and use of tropes and figures…Nor does this list exhaust the definitions that might be given. Rhetoric is a complex discipline with a long history.” Graff: “Argument literacy is central to being educated.” Lasch: “If we insist on argument as the essence of education, we will defend democracy not as the most efficient but as the most educational form of government, one that extends the circle of debate as widely as possible and thus forces all citizens to articulate their views, to put their views at risk, and to cultivate the virtues of eloquence, clarity of thought and expression, and sound judgment.” E. M. Forster: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?” Anne Morrow Lindbergh: “I must write it all out, at any cost. Writing is thinking. It is more than living, for it is being conscious of living.” Sizer: “Writing is the litmus paper of thought…the very center of schooling.”

Stephen Colbert: “My rhetoric teacher, Professor Crawley, ordered my mind. Simplicity of language, supporting ideas, synthesizing an effective conclusion—that’s what I learned from him.”

National Commission on Writing: “If students are to make knowledge their own, they must struggle with the details, wrestle with the facts, and rework raw information and dimly understood concepts into language they can communicate to someone else. In short, if students are to learn, they must write…The reward of disciplined writing is the most valuable job attribute of all: a mind equipped to think.” Young & Sullivan: “Why write? One important reason is that unless we do there are mental acts we cannot perform, thoughts we cannot think, inquiries we cannot engage in.”

5

40

Rhetoric:

Some Definitions o The term rhetoric refers to the study, uses, and effects of written, spoken,

and visual language (DRWS) o the study of/ability to use language effectively o Aristotle: “the faculty of observing in any case all of the available means of

persuasion” Rhetorical Analysis: Rhetorical analysis looks not only at what a text says, but at what it does. It

includes consideration of the claims, devices and strategic “moves” an author makes in hopes of persuading an audience. Many claims and arguments within texts are implied rather than explicit; performing rhetorical analyses on texts helps us to get a better sense of how, why, and to what extent an argument is effective. Consider how a text works to convince its audience of the argument at hand. What, besides simply using logic, do authors use to help win a crowd? This work may include describing an author’s argument, use of evidence, rhetorical strategies, textual arrangement, or the complex relationships between author, audience, text, context, and purpose.

Some words used to describe what a text does

Argues, appeals to authority, assumes, challenges, complicates, constructs an analogy, contrasts, presents counterexamples, defines, distinguishes (between), extends, forecasts, frames, implies, parodies, problematizes,

qualifies, rebuts, ridicules, stresses, supports, synthesizes, theorizes The Rhetorical Situation - The circumstances in which one communicates (see below).

KEY RHETORICAL TERMS & CONCEPTS

Entry points for analysis: writer- age, experience, gender, locations, political

beliefs, education, etc. purpose- to persuade, entertain, inform, educate, call

to action, shock, etc. audience- age, experience, gender, locations, political

beliefs, education, expectations, etc. text/subject- broad, narrow, depends on situation context- the “situation” generating need; time,

location, current events, cultural significance (adapted from Tony Burman)

writer audience

context

text/subject

purpose

6

41

https://blackboard.sdsu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_14583_1&content_id=_300902_1


PACES: Project, Argument, Claims, Evidence, Strategies

Project: An author’s project describes the kind of work she sets out to do – her purpose and

the method she uses to carry it out. It is the overall activity that the writer is engaged in‐‐researching, investigating, experimenting, interviewing, documenting, etc. Try to imagine what the author’s goals or hypotheses were as she wrote the text. To articulate a project—and to write an account— you need a verb, such as “researches,” “investigates,” “studies,” “presents,” “connects A with B,” etc.

Argument: In the broadest sense, an argument is any piece of written, spoken, or visual

language designed to persuade an audience or bring about a change in ideas/attitudes. Less broadly, in academic writing the argument often refers to the main point, assertion or conclusion advanced by an author, along with the evidence and reasoning by which this is established. Arguments are concerned with contested issues where some degree of uncertainty exists (we don’t argue about what is self‐evident or agreed upon).

Claims: To make a claim is to assert that something is the case, and to provide evidence for

this. Arguments may consist of numerous claims and sometimes also sub‐claims. Claims in academic writing often consist of an assertion, the staking out of a position, the solution to a problem, or the resolution of some shortcoming, weakness or gap in existing research. Often comes with self‐identification (“my point here is that…”) emphasis (“It must be stressed that…”) approval (“Olson makes some important and long overdue amendments to work on …”) or a problem/solution framework.

Evidence: The component of the argument used as support for the claims made. Evidence is

the support, reasons, data/information used to help persuade/prove an argument. To find evidence in a text, ask what the author has to go on. What is there to support this claim? Is the evidence credible? Some types of evidence: facts, historical examples/comparisons, examples, analogies, illustrations, interviews, statistics (source & date are important), expert testimony, authorities, anecdotes, witnesses, personal experiences, reasoning, etc.

7

Strategies: Rhetorical Strategy: a particular way in which authors craft language—both

consciously and subconsciously—so as to have an effect on readers. Strategies are means of persuasion, ways of gaining a readers’ attention, interest, or agreement. Strategies can be identified in the way an author organizes her text, selects evidence, addresses the reader, frames an issue, presents a definition, constructs a persona or establishes credibility, appeals to authority, deals with opposing views, uses “meta‐discourse,” makes particular use of style and tone, draws on particular tropes and images, as well as many of the other textual choices that can be identified.

Hmm..

42


BASIC COMPONENTS OF ARGUMENT

Qualifiers Rebuttals Reasons Claims ARGUMENT

& Evidence Strategies & Moves

ARGUMENT: In the broadest sense, an argument is any piece of written, spoken, or visual language designed to persuade an audience or bring about a change in ideas/attitudes. Less broadly, in academic writing “argument” often refers to the main point, assertion or conclusion advanced by an author, along with the evidence and reasoning by which this is established. Arguments are concerned with contested issues where some degree of uncertainty exists (we don’t argue about what is self-evident or agreed upon). Describing the main argument is NOT the same as describing what a text is “about.” Arguments (and claims) usually advance debatable propositions. For example: “The U.S. should pull troops out of Iraq as we are stuck in the middle of a civil war that must be solved politically rather than militarily,” or “We must increase the number of troops in Iraq in order to complete the mission and prevent the conflict from spreading into a regional war that could inflame the entire middle east.” Each of these is an assertion that stakes out a position. Each can be debated. CLAIM: Something the writer wants the audience to believe. Usually consists of an assertion, the staking out of a position, the solution to a problem, or the resolution of some shortcoming, weakness or gap in existing research. Often comes with self-identification (“my point here is that…”) emphasis (“It must be stressed that…”) approval (“Olson makes some important and long overdue amendments to the basic position outlined by…”) or a problem/solution framework. REASONS: statements that justify the claim, or explain why a claim should be believed. A reason is evidence, information, justification or data given to support a claim. To find reasons, ask why the claim can be made. What have you got to go on? What is there to support the claim? QUALIFIERS/QUALIFICATION: this is where the author clarifies the nature, scope or extent of her claims, or sets out the conditions under which she makes her claim. Often the place where the author adds “nuance” to her claims. Example of unqualified argument: “video games incite violence and should be banned.” Qualified argument: “certain extreme video games may desensitize some impressionable young people to violence. While most games are innocent fun, and may even teach useful skills, those that realistically simulate murder should be banned for children under 14.” REBUTTALS: Writers often try to anticipate objections to their arguments – they understand that their audience, and other authors, may not agree with them. They may thus address counterarguments and objections, and provide rebuttals to these objections/counterarguments. This is often a clever rhetorical strategy. Introducing the reader to positions opposed to your own, and showing you can deal with them can work to 'inoculate' the reader against counterarguments. It demonstrates that the author is aware of opposing views, and is not trying to 'sweep them under the table'. It is also likely to make the writer's argument seem 'balanced' or 'fair' to readers, and as a consequence be more persuasive. STRATEGIES: means of persuasion, ways of gaining a readers’ attention, interest, or agreement. They can be identified in the textual choices an author makes – the way she organizes her text, selects evidence, frames an issue, establishes credibility, deals with opposing views, appeals to authority, etc.

8

43

9

“I know what it says … but what does it do?”

Verbs that can be used to describe what a text does: Acknowledges Advocates Amplifies Analyzes Argues (Constructs an) Analogy Asserts Assumes Attacks Challenges Claims Clarifies Compares Complicates Concedes Concludes Contrasts Contradicts (Presents) Counterarguments

(Presents) Counterexamples

Debates Deconstructs Defines Defends Discusses Distinguishes

(between) Exaggerates Examines Exemplifies Explains Extends Forecasts Faults Frames Identifies Illustrates Introduces Implies Infers

Investigates Justifies Outlines Parodies Predicts Problematizes Proposes (Sets up a) parallel Qualifies Questions Rebuts Refines Repeats Reframes Ridicules Satirizes Stresses Summarizes Supports Synthesizes Theorizes

(Try to AVOID: thinks, believes, says, states, etc!)

Consider using the following construction:

This paragraph [VERB] [IDEA] by [EXPLAIN HOW] .

Also see They Say/ I Say for verbs organized by use for when authors make claims, are in agreement, question or disagree, and when them make recommendations (see page

37).

44

10

is

Charting a Text Chartingi involves annotating a text in order to show the “work” each paragraph, group of paragraphs, or section is doing. Charting helps identify what each part of the text doing as well as what it is saying—helping us move away from summary to analysis. There are two strategies for charting that we’ll look at: macro-charting and micro-charting. MACRO-CHARTING

How do we do macro-charting? • Break text down into sections--identify “chunks” or parts of the text

that seem to work together to DO something for the overall argument.

• Draw lines between sections and label each one, annotating them with “doing” verbs: providing context, making a claim, supporting a claim, rebutting counter argument, illustrating with personal anecdote, describing the issue, etc.

Why do we do macro-charting?

• Macro-charting helps with understanding structure of argument, as well as locating claims, supporting evidence, and main argument.

• Macro-charting guides students toward identifying relationships between ideas.

• Macro-charting brings awareness that behind every sentence there is an author with intent who makes rhetorical choices to achieve his/her aims.

MICRO-CHARTING

How do we do micro-charting? • Break down sections of text by paragraph to analyze what each

paragraph is doing for the overall argument. • Detail the smaller “moves” and strategies made within paragraphs:

note when, where, and how and author makes a claim, cites evidence, and/or supports his/argument using a rhetorical strategy.

Why do we do micro-charting?

• Micro-charting can serve as a way to thoroughly understand in a detailed way how a text is put together.

• Micro-charting encourages readers to look more carefully and closely at a text and helps us to focus our reading on tasks asked for in prompts.

• Micro-charting brings awareness of the specific rhetorical choices made throughout a text (addressing particular audiences by making deliberate moves).

i Adapted from work by Micah Jendian and Katie Hughes

45

11

A Change of Heart About Animals They are more like us than we imagined, scientists are finding

Jeremy Rifkin, Los Angeles Times, September 1, 2003. Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century (Tarcher Putnam, 1998), is the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C. [1] Though much of big science has centered on breakthroughs in biotechnology, nanotechnology and more esoteric questions like the age of our universe, a quieter story has been unfolding behind the scenes in laboratories around the world — one whose effect on human perception and our understanding of life is likely to be profound. [2] What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined. They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love — and these findings are changing how we view animals. [3] Strangely enough, some of the research sponsors are fast food purveyors, such as McDonald's, Burger King and KFC. Pressured by animal rights activists and by growing public support for the humane treatment of animals, these companies have financed research into, among other things, the emotional, mental and behavioral states of our fellow creatures. [4] Studies on pigs' social behavior funded by McDonald's at Purdue University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other. The lack of mental and physical stimuli can result in deterioration of health. [5] The European Union has taken such studies to heart and outlawed the use of isolating pig stalls by 2012. In Germany, the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human contact each day and to provide them with toys to prevent them from fighting. [6] Other funding sources have fueled the growing field of study into animal emotions and cognitive abilities. [7] Researchers were stunned recently by findings (published in the journal Science) on the conceptual abilities of New Caledonian crows. In controlled experiments, scientists at Oxford University reported that two birds named Betty and Abel were given a choice between using two tools, one a straight wire, the other a hooked wire, to snag a piece of meat from inside a tube. Both chose the hooked wire. Abel, the more dominant male, then stole Betty's hook, leaving her with only a straight wire. Betty then used her beak to wedge the straight wire in a crack and bent it with her beak to produce a hook. She then snagged the food from inside the tube. Researchers repeated the experiment and she fashioned a hook out of the wire nine of out of 10 times. [8] Equally impressive is Koko, the 300-pound gorilla at the Gorilla Foundation in Northern California, who was taught sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands several thousand English words. On human IQ tests, she scores between 70 and 95. [9] Tool-making and the development of sophisticated language skills are just two of the many attributes we thought were exclusive to our species. Self-awareness is another. [10] Some philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that other animals are not capable of self-awareness because they lack a sense of individualism. Not so, according to new studies. At the Washington National Zoo, orangutans given mirrors explore parts of their bodies

46

12

they can't otherwise see, showing a sense of self. An orangutan named Chantek who lives at the Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to groom his teeth and adjust his sunglasses. [11] Of course, when it comes to the ultimate test of what distinguishes humans from the other creatures, scientists have long believed that mourning for the dead represents the real divide. It's commonly believed that other animals have no sense of their mortality and are unable to comprehend the concept of their own death. Not necessarily so. Animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks. [12] We also know that animals play, especially when young. Recent studies in the brain chemistry of rats show that when they play, their brains release large amounts of dopamine, a neurochemical associated with pleasure and excitement in human beings. [13] Noting the striking similarities in brain anatomy and chemistry of humans and other animals, Stephen M. Siviy, a behavioral scientist at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, asks a question increasingly on the minds of other researchers. "If you believe in evolution by natural selection, how can you believe that feelings suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings?" [14] Until very recently, scientists were still advancing the idea that most creatures behaved by sheer instinct and that what appeared to be learned behavior was merely genetically wired activity. Now we know that geese have to teach their goslings their migration routes. In fact, we are finding that learning is passed on from parent to offspring far more often than not and that most animals engage in all kinds of learned experience brought on by continued experimentation. [15] So what does all of this portend for the way we treat our fellow creatures? And for the thousands of animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments? Or the millions of domestic animals raised under the most inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and human consumption? Should we discourage the sale and purchase of fur coats? What about fox hunting in the English countryside, bull fighting in Spain? Should wild lions be caged in zoos? [16] Such questions are being raised. Harvard and 25 other U.S. law schools have introduced law courses on animal rights, and an increasing number of animal rights lawsuits are being filed. Germany recently became the first nation to guarantee animal rights in its constitution.

[17] The human journey is, at its core, about the extension of empathy to broader and more inclusive domains. At first, the empathy extended only to kin and tribe. Eventually it was extended to people of like-minded values. In the 19th century, the first animal humane societies were established. The current studies open up a new phase, allowing us to expand and deepen our empathy to include the broader community of creatures with whom we share the Earth.

47

Example of Charting: Rifkin’s “A Change of Heart about Animals”

1 Though much of big science has centered on breakthroughs in

biotechnology, nanotechnology and more esoteric questions like the age of our universe, a quieter story has been unfolding behind the scenes in laboratories around the world – one whose effect on human perception and our understanding of life is likely to be profound.

13

2 What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined….and these findings are changing how we view animals.

3 Strangely enough, some of the research sponsors are fast food

purveyors, such as McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC. Pressured by animal rights activists and by growing public support for the humane treatment of animals, these companies have financed research into, among other things, the emotional, mental and behavioral states of our fellow creatures.

4 Studies on pigs’ social behavior funded by McDonald’s at Purdue

University, for example, have found that they crave affection and are easily depressed if isolated or denied playtime with each other. The lack of mental and physical stimuli can result in deterioration of health.

5 The European Union has taken such studies to heart and outlawed the

use of isolating pig stalls by 2012. In Germany, the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human contact each day and to provide them with toys to prevent them from fighting.

6 Other funding sources have fueled the growing field of study into

animal emotions and cognitive abilities. 7 Researchers were stunned recently by findings (published in the

journal Science) on the conceptual abilities of New Caledonian crows.

Paragraphs 1-3 introduce the background and scope of the topic, state the main claim, and present the main source of evidence that will be used to support the claim.

Micro-Charting Macro-Charting

Paragraphs 4-5 deliver the first set of evidence: research and policies based on findings that pigs need social attention (from humans or other pigs) to maintain mental and physical health.

Paragraphs 4-14 work to support the author’s claim with evidence.

Comment [M1]: Rifkin introduces topic, establishes context and tries to gain reader’s interest/attention by establishing significance of issue – its “profound” effect on “human perception” and “understanding of life.”

Comment [M2]: He states his main claim here by citing the findings of research (notice he appears to be merely reporting findings instead of advancing a position). He also reestablishes the importance of these findings stating that the way “we view animals” is changing. Using “we” aligns the author with his audience.

Comment [M3]: The author builds credibility for his research by noting that prominent fast food companies funded some of the research. This might suggest to readers that the studies performed are particularly reliable given how unlikely it is that these companies would benefit from results suggesting animals experience stress, affection, excitement, or love.

Comment [M4]: Rifkin cites his first major piece of evidence by referring to research conducted both by fast food companies and an esteemed university.

Comment [M5]: He amplifies the effects such research has prompted by naming other parts of the world that have “taken such studies to heart.” Readers might consider the claim to hold more weight as other developed countries have responded.

Comment [M6]: With this paragraph, the author signals to the reader that evidence on animal emotions and cognitive abilities are forthcoming in this text.

48

In controlled experiments, scientists at Oxford University reported that two birds named Betty and Abel were given a choice between using two tools, one a straight wire, the other a hooked wire, to snag a piece of meat from inside a tube. Both chose the hooked wire. Abel, the more dominant male, then stole Betty’s hook, leaving her with only a straight wire. Betty then used her beak to wedge the straight wire nine of out of 10 times.

14

8 Equally impressive is Koko, the 300-pound gorilla at the Gorilla Foundation in Northern California, who was taught sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands several thousand English words. On human IQ tests, she scores between 70 and 95.

9 Tool-making and the development of sophisticated language skills are

just two of the many attributes we thought were exclusive to our species. Self-awareness is another.

10 Some philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that

other animals are not capable of self-awareness because they lack a sense of individualism. Not so, according to new studies. At the Washington National Zoo, orangutans given mirrors explore parts of their bodies they can’t otherwise see, showing a sense of self. An orangutan named Chantek who lives at the Atlanta Zoo used a mirror to groom his teeth and adjust his sunglasses.

11 Of course, when it comes to the ultimate test of what distinguishes

humans from the other creatures, scientists have long believed that mourning for the dead represents the real divide. It’s commonly believed that other animals have no sense of mortality and are unable to comprehend the concept of their own death. Not necessarily so. Animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.

12 We also know that animals play, especially when young. Recent

studies in the brain chemistry of rats show that when they play, their brains release large amounts of dopamine, a neurochemical associated with pleasure and excitement in human beings.

13 Noting the striking similarities in brain anatomy and chemistry of

humans and other animals, Stephen M. Siviy, a behavioral scientist at

Comment [M7]: Rifkin cites another example of research from an important authority (Oxford) supporting his claim that animals may be more like humans than previously believed.

Comment [M8]: Example uses actual names of the animals, personalizing the issue and appealing to pathos.

Comment [M9]: The author cites here a second example illustrating cognitive abilities in animals using the actual name of the animal, but this time it is from a famous example of research that might be more familiar to readers. The author likely hopes the above two examples will act as powerful evidence in support of animal cognitive abilities.

Comment [M10]: This paragraph acts as a transition between Rifkin’s examples illustrating animal emotions and cognitive abilities to his examples illustrating self-awareness in animals and rebutting objections.

Comment [M11]: Rifkin anticipates, acknowledges/ reveals and rebuts a common objection to idea of similarities between humans an animals

Comment [M12]: This example is the first of three that are likely meant to elicit the most interest and surprise from readers as they illustrate behaviors in animals that are very human.

Comment [M13]: The author challenges and rebuts opposing arguments. He does so gently, hedging his rebuttal (“not necessarily so.” The elephant example is also an appeal to pathos.

Comment [M14]: Rifkin quotes an authority on the subject to help support a more controversial notion – that humans and animals have evolved similar capacity for emotion. Note how this is framed as a question, and thus is somewhat qualified.

6-8 enhance examples in par. 4-5 (on social behavior) by providing additional evidence focusing on linguistic and cognitive abilities in animals.

In 9-14 Rifkin acknowledges and rebuts common objections to the idea that there are key similarities between humans and animals. Rifkin rejects the idea that language, self-awareness, emotion, play, and the ability to pass on knowledge via teaching are the sole possession of humans, and provides further support for his main claims.

49

Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, asks a question increasingly on the minds of other researchers. “If you believe in evolution by natural selection, how can you believe that feelings suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings?”

14 Until very recently, scientists were still advancing the idea that most

creatures behaved by sheer instinct and that what appeared to be learned behavior was merely genetically wired activity. Now we know that geese have to teach their goslings their migration routes. In fact, we are finding that learning is passed on from parent to offspring far more often than not and that most animals engage in all kinds of learned experience brought on by continued experimentation.

15

15 So what does all of this portend for the way we treat our fellow

creatures? And for the thousands of animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments? Or the millions of domestic animals raised under the most inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and human consumption? Should we discourage the sale and purchase of fur coats? What about fox hunting in the English countryside, bull fighting in Spain? Should wild lions be caged in zoos?

16 Such questions are being raised. Harvard and 25 other U.S. law

schools have introduced law courses on animal rights, and an increasing number of animal rights lawsuits are being filed. Germany recently became the first nation to guarantee animal rights in its constitution.

17 The human journey is, at its core, about the extension of empathy to

broader and more inclusive domains. At first, the empathy extended only to kin and tribe. Eventually it was extended to people of like-minded values. In the 19th century, the first animal humane societies were established. The current studies open up a new phase, allowing us to expand and deepen our empathy to include the broader community of creatures with whom we share the Earth.

Comment [M15]: The author acknowledges the past belief that animals behaved by instinct.

Comment [M16]: The author rebuts this idea by providing scientific findings regarding the migration routes of geese. Again, using “we,” the author aligns himself with both the audience (general readers) and scientists as he claims that most animals learn from parents rather than acting solely on instinct. This supports his claim that animals are more like humans than previously believed.

Comment [M17]: He questions what should be done in the future as a result of these new findings. Also sets up a stark contrast in tone (touching portrayals of animals vs. pain, slaughter etc.) He avoids explicitly stating what changes are needed, although from selection and framing of questions we can infer this. Rifkin tries to lead the reader gently toward consideration of his position, and knows that a stronger stance might alienate many people.

Comment [M18]: Rifkin shows that change has already been enacted in the U.S. and these changes have been initiated by prominent law schools. Rifkin seems to forecast that similar changes will continue occurring.

Comment [M19]: This is Rifkin’s second attempt at using research from another country. This approach might be aimed at guiding readers to ask themselves, “If Germany’s doing it, why aren’t we?”

Comment [M20]: In his final paragraph, the author alludes to previous human progress in political and ethical domains. His statement in the last sentence invites readers to think of a new relationship with animals as part of this history, and to advance this pattern of progress by treating animals better.

In par. 15-17 the author presents an implicit critique of current treatment of animals and concludes by questioning what should be done in light of recent findings. He suggests a possible future that links better treatment of animals with past moments of human progress and political/ethical reforms.

50

16

Aristotelian Appeals: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos Whenever you read an argument you must ask yourself, “Is this persuasive? If so, why? And to whom?” There are many ways to appeal to an audience. Among them are appealing to logos, ethos, and pathos. These appeals are identifiable in almost all arguments.

To Appeal to LOGOS

(logic, reasoning)

To Develop or Appeal to ETHOS

(character, ethics)

To Appeal to PATHOS

(emotion) : the argument itself; the reasoning the author uses; logical evidence

: how an author builds credibility & trustworthiness

: words or passages an author uses to activate emotions

Types of LOGOS Appeals

Ways to Develop ETHOS

Types of PATHOS Appeals

Theories / scientific facts Indicated meanings or

reasons (because…) Literal or historical

analogies Definitions Factual data & statistics Quotations Citations from experts &

authorities Informed opinions Examples (real life

examples) Personal anecdotes

Author’s profession /

background Author’s publication Appearing sincere, fair

minded, knowledgeable Conceding to opposition

where appropriate Morally / ethically

likeable Appropriate language for

audience and subject Appropriate vocabulary Correct grammar Professional format

Emotionally loaded

language Vivid descriptions Emotional examples Anecdotes, testimonies, or

narratives about emotional experiences or events

Figurative language Emotional tone (humor,

sarcasm, disappointment, excitement, etc.)

Effect on Audience

Effect on Audience

Effect on Audience

Evokes a cognitive, rational response. Readers get a sense of, “Oh, that makes sense” or “Hmm, that really doesn’t prove anything.”

Helps reader to see the author as reliable, trustworthy, competent, and credible. The reader might respect the author or his/her views.

Evokes an emotional response. Persuasion by emotion. (usually evoking fear, sympathy, empathy, anger,)

How to Talk About It



The author appeals to logos by defining relevant terms and then supports his claim with numerous citations from authorities. The author’s use of statistics and expert testimony are very convincing logos appeals.

Through his use of scientific terminology, the author builds his ethos by demonstrating expertise. The author’s ethos is effectively developed as readers see that he is sympathetic to the struggles minorities face.

When referencing 9/11, the author is appealing to pathos. Here, he is eliciting both sadness and anger from his readers. The author’s description of the child with cancer was a very persuasive appeal to pathos.

51

17

Describing relationships between texts

How texts “complicate,” “extend,” “illustrate” or “clarify” other texts 1) Complicate: to present evidence, arguments or claims that are at odds with an author’s position,

and which suggests the position needs to be revised or qualified. Complicating an author’s argument is not quite the same as disagreeing with it, although disagreement may be involved. It usually involves suggesting that an author has not dealt with the full complexity of an issue, has failed to consider relevant evidence, or that there is a gap, shortcoming or limitation in an author’s account. Complicating an argument may involve exposing problems, contradictions, or presenting counterexamples and counterarguments that challenge some part of the argument. - Sample Verbs: challenges, contradicts, disagrees, locates problems with, identifies shortcomings, notes that X fails to account for, notes that X ignores A, suggests that X’s account is exaggerated, is vulnerable to counterarguments/counterexamples, rests on several highly questionable assumptions

2) Extend: to advance, develop, expand or take further some element of an existing argument. Extending an argument involves presenting additional evidence or reasons that are in line with the original argument but go beyond it. - Sample Verbs: Gives additional evidence…develops, elaborates, expands, extrapolates, teases out, advances, takes further, provides additional evidence/support, supplements, etc.

3) Illustrate: to provide examples, additional evidence, cases or arguments that help explain a position; to present material that illuminates or supports what an author argues (but may not be explicitly mentioned by that author). - Sample Verbs: illuminates, exemplifies, explicates, confirms, supports, etc.

4) Clarify: to bring into focus, to help explain, illuminate, or elucidate. Providing evidence, examples, stories, cases or support that make something easier to understand or that sharpen the point made.

NOTE: As with most sets of terms, there is some overlap between them. For example, something that illustrates an argument may also clarify it. An element of an argument can thus do more than one thing. The important thing is to try to figure out the general relationship between texts/parts of texts. EXAMPLE: While Chua sees conflict between ethnicities in developing countries as driven largely by globalization and democratization, others believe that poor government is the main culprit. In “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict,” John Bowden argues that many countries composed of diverse ethnic groups have avoided conflict because their governments have created “multiethnic coalitions” which encourage different groups to “seek the large electoral middle ground.” The countries he uses as examples are all democracies. Bowden thus complicates Chua’s argument by suggesting that democracy, properly run, can prevent ethnic violence, and that the solution is thus renewed commitment to democracy rather than a retreat from it. This contrasts with Chua, who believes that in countries where there is a “market dominant minority,” popular majorities always tend toward ethnocentrism, and some form of “backlash” is very likely. Bowden, on the other hand, believes that ethnic conflict exists only when ethnicities are left out of the power structure, or when destructive “political choices” are made. He acknowledges that cultural diversity does present challenges to peace, and that certain other factors can make conflict likely. …However, Bowden insists that democracy and globalization do not lead inevitably to the kind of problems Chua outlines, and that we must focus on the underlying factors that are the real drivers of violence. Bowden thus complicates Chua’ argument in several ways; firstly, he presents evidence that is at odds with Chua’s thesis, and which can be read as questioning the extent to which it is true. Secondly, Bowden’s article suggests that Chua’s position is overstated and needs to be severely qualified. Lastly, Bowden’s article suggests that Chua has failed to deal with the full complexity of what causes ethnic violence in developing countries.

52

18

Introduction to Rhetorical Strategies Rhetorical strategy – a particular way in which writers craft language so as to have an effect on readers. Strategies are means of persuasion, ways of using language to get readers’ attention and agreement. Some Common Rhetorical Strategies Metadiscourse, definitions, tropes, key terms and categories, framing devices, appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, rebuttals, qualifications, etc. When Discussing Rhetorical Strategies, Remember to:

1. Identify rhetorical strategies 2. Describe how they work 3. Describe why they are used – what purpose do they accomplish?

When describing why a strategy is used, you may want to consider alternative strategies, and think about how they would work differently. You may also want to consider what would happen if the strategy were left out – what difference would it make to the argument? This may help you figure out why the particular strategy was chosen. Rhetorical Strategies as Frameworks Rhetorical strategies can be identified in the ways authors create frames, choose categories and metaphors, and construct definitions. Frames are typically constructed through the use of metaphors, definitions, narratives, categories and metalinguistic commentary. They are used to get an audience to attend to certain elements of a situation and ignore others; to construct a particular way of seeing an issue, event, person or group, and to shape the way an audience understands the context of communication. They can have persuasive effects. For example:

Headings – consider the following newspaper headlines concerning the supreme court’s overruling of California’s medical marijuana medical laws: 1. Salon Magazine “Court rules against pot for sick people” 2. New York Times: “High Court Allows Prosecution of Medical Marijuana Users” 3. USA Today: “MEDICAL MARIJUANA BAN UPHELD” 4. San Diego Union Tribune: “Court OKs marijuana crackdown” 5. L.A. Times: “Justices Give Feds Last Word on Medical Marijuana” 5. Christian Science Monitor: “US Court rules against pot for sick people” 6. Christian News Source: “Medical Marijuana Laws Don't Shield Users From Prosecution” Examples from Frank Luntz (top lobbyist, pollster, architect of the contract with America) 1. Global Warming vs. Climate Change 2. Contract with America vs Policy/Platform Death Tax/Estate Tax 2. Don’t talk about deregulation or rollback, talk about “streamlining unnecessary, burdensome red tape” or “common sense legislation.” Don’t focus on process, focus on benefits; don’t focus on past or present, focus on future. Don’t talk about economics, talk about protection.

How each heading or topic is framed will have an immediate effect on the audience.

53

19

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies Rhetorical strategies can be found in just about anything we consider a “text,” including literature, advertisements, music, art, and film. Some strategies to consider*:

1. Exemplification: Provides examples or cases in point. Are there examples – facts, statistics, cases in point, personal experiences, interview questions – that were added to help the author achieve the purpose of his or her text?

2. Description: Details sensory perceptions of a person, place, or thing. Does a person, place, or thing play a prominent role in the text? Does the tone, pacing, or overall purpose of the essay benefit from sensory details?

3. Narration: Recounts an event. Is the narrator trying to report or recount an anecdote, an experience, or an event? Is it telling a story?

4. Process analysis: Explains to the reader how to do something or how something happens. Were any portions of the text more clear because concrete directions about a certain process were included?

5. Comparison and contrast: Discusses similarities and differences. Does the text contain two or more related subjects? How are they alike? different?

6. Division and classification: Divides a whole into parts or sorts related items into categories. Is the author trying to explain a broad and complicated subject? Does it benefit the text to reduce this subject to more manageable parts to focus the discussion?

7. Definition: Provides the meaning of the terms used. Who is the audience? Does the text focus on any abstract, specialized, or new terms that need further explanation so the readers understand the point?

8. Cause and effect analysis: Analyzes why something happens and describes the consequences of a string of events. Does the author examine past events or their outcomes? Is the purpose to inform, speculate, or argue about why an identifiable fact happens the way it does?

*From “Rhetorical Strategies for Essay Writing,” http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/rhetoric.htm

Rhetorical Strategies for Film/ Visual Texts In addition to the above strategies and the Aristotelian appeals, some strategies to consider for film: Music: How does the music affect the audience? In what ways does the music reinforce the visual

and/or verbal message? Does it inspire calm or fright? Is it happy or sad? Is it childish or artistic? Does it have lyrics? If so, how do they reinforce the message? Is it representative of something else (a national anthem, hymn, etc.)?

Shot Type: How does the camera angle affect the audience’s perception of what is happening? Are the shots close-ups or panoramic? What is the atmosphere of the shot (is there anything going on in the background)? How does the background (or lack thereof) affect the message? What colors are in the shot? What kind of lighting is used?

Clip Editing: How does the editor choose when to end a clip? Does it seem like more was left out? Are the clips long or short? Is anything added to the stock footage (drawings, subtitles, cartoon bubbles, etc.)?

54

20

Sequence: What is the sequencing of clips (what clips are placed back-to-back)? How does this affect the relative significance of each (dispositio)? Is there a montage effect? Are the clips presented chronologically, or do they have flashbacks/flashforwards?

Genre: How well does the film fit into a particular genre (documentary, thriller, romantic comedy, film noir, etc.)? Given the genre of the film, what strategies does the viewer expect (inventio)? Does the film ever digress from the conventions of the genre? What is the effect of the expectations and digressions on the audience’s reception of the message?

Structure: How is the content organized? Does one individual dominate the film, or are there multiple stories, voices, or protagonists? If there are multiple individuals involved, are they shown working in collaboration, are their parts parallel and interrelated, or are they disconnected? Is the point-of-view personal or formal?

Audience Knowledge: What knowledge, texts, situations, or people does the film expect the audience to be aware of? What connotations does the audience have of these other sources, and how does this affect the interpretation of what is being viewed?

Useful Links: “Writing About Film.” <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/humanities/film.shtml> “Film Analysis Web Site 2.0.” < http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/index.htm> Structure and Organization It is important to consider the organization of information and strategies in any text. Some elements of structure to consider: Type of Organization:

Topical: The argument is organized according to subtopics, like describing a baby’s bubble bath first in terms of the soap used, then the water conditions, and lastly the type of towels.

Chronological: The argument is organized to describe information in time order, like a baseball game from the first pitch to the last at-bat.

Spatial: The argument follows a visual direction, such as describing a house from the inside to the outside, or a person from their head down to their toes.

Problem – Solution: The argument presents a problem and a possible solution, such as making coffee at home to avoid spending extra money.

Cause and effect: Describes the relationship between the cause or catalyst of an event and the effect, like identifying over-consumption of candy as the cause of tooth decay.

Logical Order of Information:

Inductive: Moving from one specific example to draw a general conclusion.

Deductive: Moving from a generalized theory or assumption to decide the causes or characteristics of a specific example or event.

Linear: The argument is told in linear order, scaffolding information or reasoning.

Circular: Supporting the argument using assumptions or information from the argument itself.

Recursive: The text consistently moves forward, but circles back on specific points in the process.

55

The Rhetorical Strategy of Metadiscourse/ Metacommentary

Metadiscourse is a rhetorical strategy used in many forms of academic writing Moments in the text where the author explicitly TELLS you how to interpret her words. In academic texts, metadiscourse occurs when the author stops arguing, stands back and

tells you how to interpret his argument – where he reflects on what he is doing. This may involve making explicit his strategies (the strategy of explaining a strategy). It’s similar to the project statement in your papers.

Practicing writing metadiscourse is useful – it helps you develop your ideas, generate more text, and get a better sense of both your paper’s structure and how you might change direction. In clarifying things for your reader you do so for yourself, and in making explicit where you are going, you may see other paths. See I Say p. 126-30. Metadiscourse is often used to:

1. Ward off potential misunderstandings. 2. Anticipate and respond to objections. 3. Orient the reader by providing a “map”– where the argument is going,

where it has gone, etc. 4. Forecast & review structure and purpose 5. Qualify the nature, scope or extent of an argument 6. Alert readers to an elaboration of a previous idea. 7. Move from a general claim to a specific example. 8. Indicate that a claim is especially important

Example of Metadiscouse as rhetorical strategy 1. It is my intention in this book to show that a great…shift has taken place in America, with the result that the content of much of our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense.2. With this in view, my task in the chapters ahead is straightforward. 3. I must, first, demonstrate how, under the governance of the printing press, discourse in America was different from what it is now – generally coherent, serious and rational; and then how, under the governance of television, it has become shriveled and absurd. 4. But to avoid the possibility that my analysis will be interpreted as standard-brand academic whimpering, a kind of elitist complaint against “junk” on television, I must first explain that…I appreciate junk as much as the next fellow, and I know full well that the printing press has generated enough of it to fill the grand canyon to overflowing. 5. Television is not old enough to have matched printing’s output of junk. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.

Comment [c21]: OUTLINE PROJECT & PURPOSE

Comment [c22]: FORECAST ORGANIZATION OF ARGUMENT – map out what will happen

Comment [c23]: INSERTS CLARIFICATION and anticipates objections

Comment [c24]: DEALS WITH OBJECTIONS and clarifies position

21

56

22

Rhetorical Strategies: Sample Analyses of Strategies in Rifkin Excerpts from papers that analyze rhetorical strategies in Rifkin’s “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Rhetorical Analysis of Rifkin’s use of Rebuttals In “A Change of Heart About Animals,” a 2003 editorial published in the Los Angeles Times, Jeremy Rifkin argues that new research calls into question many of the boundaries commonly thought to exist between humans and other animals, and as a consequence humans should expand their empathy for animals and treat them better. To support this argument Rifkin points to studies suggesting that animals can acquire language, use tools, exhibit self-awareness, anticipate death, and pass on knowledge from one generation to the next. One strategy Rifkin employs to persuade his readers is to describe some of the most common objections typically raised against the idea that animals and humans share essential traits, along with rebuttals to these objections. For example, Rifkin notes that “philosophers and animal behaviorists have long argued that other animals are not capable of self-awareness because they lack a sense of individualism.” He acknowledges that “scientists have long believed” that unlike humans, animals cannot comprehend their death, and that “until very recently” scientists assumed animal behavior was based on instinct rather than learned experience. Rifkin responds to these objections, presenting counter evidence and counter claims based on new studies that he suggests undermine previous understandings of animals. This is an important strategy, for Rifkin likely knows that many of his readers come to his article assuming that fundamental differences exist between humans and animals, and when presented with an argument suggesting otherwise, would raise precisely the objections Rifkin describes. By making objections to his argument a prominent part of his text, and spending so much space responding to them, Rifkin is better able to win over his audience. Dealing with common assumptions and objections to his position is crucial to getting his audience to accept his main argument. It removes what would otherwise be a major obstacle to his audience accepting his claims. If he did not include this strategy, it is likely that these objections would occur to many readers, and they might reject his argument. Spending so much time considering opposing points of view also makes Rifkin appear balanced and fair minded, and thus may incline readers to trust him. Lastly, the way Rifkin presents objections to his argument is important strategically. Rifkin presents opposing views almost exclusively in terms of “past research” that has been superseded by more up to date work. It seems likely that some contemporary research exists that is at odds with Rifkin’s position, yet Rifkin does not discuss this, instead presenting disagreement in terms of old, outdated studies versus new, correct ones. Since many readers are likely to assume that the more up to date scientific research is, the more likely it is to be true, then associating objections with past research increases the likelihood they are seen as invalid.

57

23

Rhetorical Analysis of Rifkin’s Word Choice One strategy Rifkin employs to build the argument that animals should be treated more like humans is his subtle use of animal names when introducing data. When he offers new research about the problem solving abilities of New Caledonian crows, for example, Rifkin cleverly describes how “Abel, the more dominant male…stole Betty’s hook” in order to obtain a better feeding tool. Rifkin, of course, could have chosen to ignore the bird’s test-subject names – which in all likelihood, were arbitrarily assigned by lab technicians and remain of little importance to the conclusions of the experiment – but by including them he bestows a human quality to the animals beyond what the data suggests. He repeats this technique twice more to the same effect, once when introducing “Koko, the 300 pound gorilla,” who displays close-to-human intelligence and an impressive sign language vocabulary, and again when describing an “Orangutan named Chantek,” whose use of a mirror displays human-like self awareness. Surely the data alone make the argument that animals are, by turns, capable of human qualities of problem-solving, communication, learning, and self-awareness. By offering the names of the test animals, though, he imbues them with greater individuality, personality and dignity. Giving the animals human names invites readers to think of them in terms usually reserved only for human beings. This strategy establishes a relationship of similarity between the animals mentioned and ourselves. The more human animals seem, the more it follows that they should be treated with the empathy and dignity we assume all humans deserve. This strategy thus helps advance Rifkin’s claim that we should “expand and deepen our empathy to include the broader community of creatures with whom we share the earth.”

58

Documents

RWS Handbook Fall2010 Combined