While I was reading through the two articles I felt that the article written by Richard Lindzen was more of a disagreement of what Al Gore had reported on the subject of global warming. The other article written by David Biello was more of an ordered approach that highlighted the issues about global warming and the affects that it may bring. Richard Lindzen immediately takes jabs at Al Gore by stating “That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk” (Lindzen). I got the sense that he wasn’t there to persuade you that global warming is just speculation, but I felt as if he was attacking his opposition. David Biello had very structured approach that was easy to read and it didn’t feel like he was ranting about the subject. He referenced most of the same sources that Lindzen had listed in his article, but Biello wrote like he was stating information we should be aware of and backed it up with clear and concise wording. Biello lays out the potential risks involved with global warming and provides quotes from the IPCC to back up his statements in a more persuasive way than Lindzen. Global warming seems like a topic that many people don’t understand and Lindzen uses statements like “Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don’t know why” (Lindzen). These types of remarks do not support him very well and it makes the reader feel even less knowledgeable.
Works Cited
Lindzen, Richard. “No Global Warming”. globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com. Environment News. August 2006. Web. 03 December 2010.
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/richard-lindzen-no-global-warming/
Biello, David. “State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario”. www.scientificamerican.com. Scientific American. November 2007. Web. 03 December 2010.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case&page=2
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteVery good analysis of the two authors presenting this topic. I feel much the same way, Lindzen would have had more credibility with me if he was not on the attack against Al Gore, who I certainly am not a big fan of, and the media outlets that Lindzen felt supported a view that was opposite of his. The glaring factor that caused me to doubt his motives and objectivity was also based on his previous stance and testimony for the tobacco industry that attacked the credibility of the statistics of the relationship of smoking and health issues.
Biello, while not a subject matter expert, presented the facts in a more orderly and objective way. To me that objective analytical approach was much more persuasive than the ranting of Lindzen.
Great job analyzing these articles, we share many of the same views on the authors.
Scott
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with your perception of the two articles. Lindzen does seem focused on discrediting Al Gore and his documentary on the global warming crisis versus defending his stand on un-founded global warming trends. With such astringent credentials you would think that Lindzen would want to publish his bias in a more supported light and not defame his own person blog. It is rather sad!!
On the other note of Biello, his bias isn't as blatant and he does use key points of documented evidence to support his opinion of the continuous downfall in the global warming cycle. I have found after reading some of the blog posts that decidedly, many of us do rely on facts versus opinions in order to found our beliefs of a scientific crisis or political view.
While we both interpreted the articles in the same context, it is interesting that it was certain quotes and sources that perpetrated us to do so.
Again I appreciate your opinion and agree totally.
Thanks for the informative blog post!!