Download BODY PARAGRAPHS

Oreskes Material
Contents
Oreskes FRANKEN-PAPER .....................................................................................2
ORESKES – Combined Charting ..............................................................................5
SCHEDULE .............................................................................................................10
CLAIMS & STRATEGIES .....................................................................................10
Strategies to look for in Oreskes’ “Climate Change: How do we know we’re not
wrong?” ....................................................................................................................13
Oreskes FRANKEN-PAPER
INTRODUCTION
■ 1. The rhetoric of arguments both for and against climate change makes it hard for the general public to
determine credible sources on the topic. Attempting to discern a scientific consensus amid a contentious
political atmosphere only increases the challenge of dividing fact from fiction. In an excerpt titled, “The
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong,” professor and
environmental author Naomi Oreskes argues that, indeed, there is a scientific consensus on human-induced
climate change which threatens natural environments. Oreskes dispels the misconception of a lack of a
scientific consensus on climate change by illustrating the public’s confusion concerning scientific research,
compiling evidence from scientific journals to prove contrarians have misled the public about climate
change’s validity, and pointing out that even though future predictions about climate change always involve
uncertainty, a consensus about its existence still permeates the scientific community. Oreskes develops her
argument in a logical and well organized method, attempting to warn the public to heed to a scientific
consensus that humans are negatively impacting the climate.
■ 2. The topic of global climate change, as evidenced by its growing popularity in both academic journals and
mainstream media, is an important one, and as students and rhetoricians alike, it should pique our interest.
UCSD professor Naomi Oreskes ably manages this task by asserting her argument; she compels us to
consider if the scientific consensus surrounding global climate change is wrong. Ultimately, Oreskes comes to
the conclusion that the consensus is in fact not wrong, and arrives at this stance by examining several
scientific methods and essentially, putting scientific consensus to the test in each scenario. She does this in
order to demonstrate the reality of this accordance among scientists, and further, implores us to examine the
implications of this notion. By examining and analyzing Oreskes’ claims, evidence, and rhetorical strategies,
we can begin to understand how this poignant argument is crafted, both consciously and unconsciously, to
influence its readership of incipient college students and seasoned scholars alike.
BODY PARAGRAPHS – Claims & Evidence
■ 3. After establishing that a consensus exists on human-induced climate change, Oreskes attempts to explain
why the public is misinformed on the topic by claiming that “contrarians” distort the issue even though “most
of them are not climate scientists and therefore have little (or no) basis to claim to be experts on the subjects
on which they boldly pronounce” (74). She supports this claim by giving examples of contrarians like
Frederick Seitz, a physicist, and Michael Crichton, a novelist, who are outspoken, but far from authorities.
Oreskes also calls attention to the evidence used by such contrarians, saying that “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” (75). She then elaborates on this point by saying that the contrarians’ arguments are not
published in scientific journals and therefore unreliable. Finally, Oreskes picks apart the “disingenuous”
arguments that contrarians sometimes make by pointing out that an article often cited as an argument against
human-induced climate change actually states explicitly that they do no such thing. These examples help
explain the root of the average American’s confusion about the consensus while discrediting Oreskes’s
opposition.
■4 One of Oreskes’ most persuasive and well-supported claims is that there is no longer any legitimate debate
within the scientific community regarding whether or not human-induced climate change is occurring. To
bolster this claim, she provides a study she herself conducted of articles published in a database of respected
and peer-reviewed science journals, namely the Institute for Scientific Information. The conclusion she draws
from her study is, as she acknowledges, “remarkable” (71) in that there is not a single article which refutes or
even challenges the idea that human-induced climate change is occurring. She acknowledges, however, that
this may be difficult for her audience to believe, and so clarifies by detailing precisely how she analyzed and
categorized her data. She acknowledges that many of the papers did not explicitly support the idea of humaninduced climate change, but counters that this is, in many ways, further proof that she is correct. Scientists,
she argues, “generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on
matters about which everyone agrees” (10). That they do not feel it is necessary to openly argue that humaninduced climate change is occurring, then, merely indicates that it has become an underlying warrant within
the scientific community. Oreskes likewise points out that, despite the fact that some of the scientists who
penned these articles may not have been in agreement with the consensus, none argued against it because “a
skeptical motivation does not constitute scientific evidence” (72-3). Despite their skepticism, they were
unable to uncover any evidence to refute the consensus position.
5 ■ One of the claims Oreskes makes is that climate science rests on a strong inductive base (81). She
provides context and examples for what the inductive model is, using David Hume and the idea of comparing
numbers of swans to make her point clear to a lay reader. She then goes on to provide relevant evidence from
a number of studies that chart climate change, and shares the statistics that show how temperatures have been
making dramatic shifts since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
6 ■ If a scientific consensus on climate change exists, how come the general public is not aware of this
consensus? One reason Oresekes presents as an explanation for this discrepancy is that scientists are not
effective at presenting their findings to the public. In the past this lack of publicizing scientific findings may
not have presented a problem for the average educated individual, as the “total number of scientists in the
world was very small” and because “many scientists used language that was accessible to scientists in other
disciplines as well as to serious amateurs,” meaning that educated individuals had a reasonable opportunity to
learn about and understand current scientific research without the scientists having to make a deliberate effort
to circulate and explain the findings (70). However, the same is not true today. Because the scientific
community has grown in both size and complexity, the average educated person is unable to independently
keep apprized of current scientific research. Yet Oreskes brings out that “most scientists consider their “real”
work to be the production of knowledge, not its dissemination.” She even alludes to the existence of
professional peer pressure in the scientific community that discourages scientists from publicizing their
findings to a broader audience for fear of ““politicizing” the science and compromising their objectivity” (77).
As a result, scientists have not adjusted their role as researchers to include disseminators of information and
have left themselves open for misrepresentation by contrarians and “politically motivated think-tanks” who
have economic interests in creating the impression of scientific uncertainty.
BODY PARAGRAPHS – Strategies
7 ■ One of the most powerful strategies that Oreskes employs is control over the definition of the terms that
frame the argument on Global Climate Change (GCC). At each step in the text, Oreskes is careful to be clear
and to establish a foundation of support for her arguments. For instance, Oreskes begins the body of the
chapter with a section completely dedicated to the idea of consensus. Oreskes bases her claim that a scientific
consensus exists on GCC by defining the very idea of a consensus in terms that can (and will) be more easily
supported by the kinds of evidence that Oreskes is able to provide. Oreskes claims that consensus is achieved
in scientific literature, conference papers, and “in the hallways of ...university departments, research institutes,
and government agencies” (pp. 67). She establishes control over the term consensus by framing it in a context
with which she is familiar and assumes her lay audience is not. She is open about the difficulty of scientific
“outsiders” in accessing these contexts, a point that supports another major claim that lay people are
misinformed on climate science because of the lack of public access, accidental or intentional, to the context
in which she argues consensus is formed. One of Oreskes major pieces of evidence in supporting the
existence of a consensus on GCC is her study of major scientific papers on the subject (pp. 70). This evidence
is lent credibility and power because it so neatly and clearly conforms to Oreskes own definition of scientific
consensus. It is a definition that keeps the important idea of consensus under her influence, and out of reach
for her opposition, who would likely include scientific papers and hallway conversations between colleagues
as only a part of a more broadly located consensus.
8 ■ Oreskes provides powerful evidence showing there is scientific consensus on human-induced climate
change, but notes that Americans “believe that scientists are still divided about the issue” (4). Oreskes
attributes our confusion to a few things. First, she points out the attention the media pays to “a handful of
dissenters” (12), climate scientists who disagree with the consensus. Next, she discusses the “significant
number of contrarians” who are “not climate scientists and there have little (or no) basis to claim to be
experts” (12-13). The use of the word “contrarian” suggests that these people are obstinate, that they disagree
for the sake of disagreeing. By casting them in this light, she contrasts them with the scientists who “are
finely honed specialists trained to create new knowledge” (15). In other words, the scientists work to create
new knowledge to benefit humankind, and contrarians work against that knowledge. Oreskes casts these
contrarians in a negative light by comparing them to contrarians in other fields, such as those who promote
“the reality of UFOs or the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of the Soviet Union” (13). By using
this analogy and comparing their views to views her audience is likely to find ridiculous, she pushes them to
the fringe. Yet, these contrarians are not just silly. Oreskes also portrays them as “determined and wellfinanced” (15) representatives, willing to misrepresent scientific information for financially motivated
corporations such as ExxonMobil, which in 2004 ran a misleading advertising campaign in the New York
Times. These advertisements were “carefully worded . . . written and formatted to look like newspaper
columns and so-called op-ed pieces” (16) and argued that “climate science was far too uncertain to warrant
action on it” (16). She notes that this information clearly contradicted the views climate scientists, who “have
concluded that existing research warrants that decisions and policies be made today” (16). By contrasting the
scientifically based conclusions of scientists “trained to create new knowledge” (15) against corporations and
individuals who misrepresent that knowledge for questionable motives, she strengthens the credibility of the
scientists and the scientific information they provide.
CONCLUSION
9 ■ In conclusion…Oreskes’s chapter, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know
We’re Not Wrong,” is an important text and an effective argument. It is an important text because it addresses
a popular and seemingly controversial topic in an effort to inform, clarify and validate scientific positions on
climate change. But global warming is not only popular or controversial, it is a subject of considerable
importance to our nation (and the world) due to the implications of ignoring it, if, as Oreskes argues, human
activities are a significant contributing factor. The text is an effective argument because Oreskes’s primary
appeal is reasonable and logical, which may stand in contrast to the ubiquitous emotional appeals (for and
against) swirling in public discourse. Oreskes builds her personal ethos with this reasoned approach and, by
avoiding a sky-is-falling message, plus her impressive academic credentials, she creates credibility; even
those who disagree with her are likely to listen. Oreskes invites readers to think through the issue with her
and, by so doing, she gives respect to the reader and to the issue at hand.
10 ■ In conclusion, the chapter by Oreskes is one very important given that its importance and topic of global
warming. The author teaches the readers about the scientists’ believes on the climate change and shows much
evidence to proof their points. The global warming is very important to the people, too, because we are
causing it by our activities and if we do not stop, it cause many problems at the world. The author argues very
strong, and very convinced the reader because she is logical thinking and has much ethos as a professor.
Anyone who read this article will think on the serious global warming and the many problems.
11 ■ Indeed, the only conclusion one can reach after reading her essay is that we are responsible for climate
change, and that “There is no reason to think otherwise” (93). We, as readers, are left with wordless
agreement or a sense that we are irrational. She ends with the idea that all of the objections have been swept
away, leaving only her final rallying cry. This final paragraph is but the last demonstration of how effective
Oreskes’s article, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?”
truly is. Through continuous appeals to logos, an effective use of definitions and explanations framed in terms
any layperson can understand, a convincing argument against the qualifications of the only people who refute
the existence of anthropogenic climate change, and the carefully placed use of rhetorical questions, Oreskes
illuminates and clarifies the true position of the scientific community on climate change today: there is a
consensus. The only debate remaining is what we will do with that information.
ORESKES – Combined Charting
Pages 65 – 66 Chris
Paragraphs 1 -2 Major move is introductory - presenting the topic to be discussed, establishing key background
information (the emergence of consensus).
Micro-level moves: there’s also a muted “centrality move” (establishing this is an issue that matters), presentation of
evidence (quote from reports) and a claim (all but a few climate scientists agree…)
Paragraph 3 Establishes key problem/describes the exigency (or “felt difficulty,” to use Dewey’s phrase.) Does
this via contrast (scientific consensus vs. polls showing most Americans think scientists are divided on the issue)
and explanation of why this is a problem (popular doubt has been used to justify refusal to join world in addressing
the problem.)
Paragraph 4 Uses metadiscourse to establish the context for her chapter – describes the work of the book her
chapter is part of. Orients readers of the book by describing how her chapter will fit into the larger framework of the
book.
Paragraph 5 Contrasts what her chapter will focus on with issues addressed in other chapters of the book
(“establishes niche”). Introduces the central question addressed in her article (might the consensus be wrong), a
question that is also at the heart of the argument she will advance. Establishes that the question is worth asking by
presenting examples from the past where expert opinion turned out to be wrong.
Pages 69-70 in Oreskes (Michelle)
MACRO This is the section where she sets the stage for mention of her abstract study. She identifies a potential
rebuttal to her argument on climate change and indirectly explains how she will disprove it.
MICRO 1. Finishes providing examples of various scientific groups that have publicly confirmed that climate
change is occurring. It also includes a prolepsis—natural influences cannot explain the increase in temperatures.
2. She explains why the reports by these groups are credible. Then includes a prolepsis—setting up her next section.
She will disprove why it could be the case that scientists are downplaying dissenting opinions.
3. She explains why published scholarly work is credible and that she will turn tot his source for her support.
4. Oreskes discusses how science used to be before the 20 th century. People could more easily consume it. She
provides to publications as examples.
5. Then she contrasts the old ways with contemporary science—much harder to penetrate. Also uses a citation,
which adds credibility.
6. She then describes how technology allows researchers an easy way to analyze the modern-day loads of scientific
information.
pg. 71-72 Daniela
Pg. 71 EVIDENCE (LOGOS): Oreskes displays charted data that gives a visual breakdown of scientific categories
of analysis in climate change studies. She appears to be fair here (ETHOS) by presenting results of those both
supporting the consensus as well as refuting it, etc. However, the fact that no one can or has been able to refute the
statement that “global climate change is occurring and human activities are part of the reason why” gives a good hint
that Oreskes may be positioned on the side of the consensus supporters.
Pg. 72 1st PARAGRAPH(ADDRESSES 100% CONCENSUS, BUT RESEARCH IS STILL ACTIVE): The
PURPOSE of the first paragraph is to clarify to the reader the mental process of the scientific community, as a
whole, as a movement. Scientists look for truth in unsettled issues rather than remain on one issue, which answer
everyone already agrees on.
2nd PARAGRAPH(EXPLAINS THAT EVIDENCE PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE IS HUMAN-INDUCED,
NOT A NATURAL OCCURRENCE): This paragraph, now nicely set up by the first, is used to make a point—that
“authors evidently accept the premise that climate change is real and want to track, evaluate, and understand its
impacts.” This leads into Oreskes’ argument that because none of the papers deal with the possibility of natural
variance as a cause to climate change, that it isn’t a possibility at all. Clearly, climate change is human-induced.
3rd PARAGRAPH(ASSERTS AGAIN THAT EVIDENCE PROVES THAT NO ONE IS REFUTING THE FACT
THERE IS A CONCENSUS): She gives percentage data (LOGOS) on the papers focused on aspects of climate
change(at the beginning and at the very end of the paragraph). She notes that concerns of climate change have
increased, since more and more papers are being done on it. She sets up her point that even those papers who may be
perceived to be “neutral” (those only investigating better methods for effects of climate change) do not openly share
an opinion about the consensus. Therefore, because no one argues against it, even those neutral, then it must exist.
Some ETHOS is definitely portrayed here because Oreskes is trying to be fair and represent all sides of the
consensus argument—those for it, against it, and neutral as well.
p.73-4 Matt
Macro: This is where Oreskes recognizes her opposition, those who believe there is debate on climate change and
would thus question the validity of her study that finds a unanimous consensus.
Micro: 1. Oreskes begins by addressing what she assumes is her readers’ skepticism and writes in an informal,
slightly sarcastic tone. It is somewhat of a prolepsis – readers are not arguing against her position so much as they
are questioning hers, and Oreskes anticipates that and addresses it in the following paragraphs.
2. She explains why her study is credible, citing three outside sources.
3. She identifies where in her study the consensus lies – in the recognition of the existence of climate change – and
where there is debate – on the rate at which it is changing. She uses the analogy to evolution to elucidate her claim.
4. She explains how her study was conducted and the directions she gave to participants. This provides readers with
the statistics of her study and provides them the opportunity to evaluate the validity of her study.
5. She finally returns to a point she made elsewhere in the text about the small dissenting, contrarian population who
her study did not find but she still acknowledges exists, although she claims the media gives this minority too great
an emphasis.
81-82, Nick
Begins mid paragraph on induction
Paragraph one concludes examples of induction
“Other things being equal, the more we know about a subject, and the longer we have studied it, the more likely out
conclusions about it are to me true.” (pp. 81)
Rhetorical Question: “Does climate science stand up to the inductive model? Yes.”
Cites temperature change over 150 years of records
lists 8 citations
Prolepsis of reliability of early records
rebuttal with more recent data sets
4 citations
Corroboration with tree rings
Intro deduction
“Deduction is drawing logical inferences from a set of premises.”
Outlines the theory behind using deductions in science
hyothetico-deductive model
Sherlock Holmes
Testing of a hypothesis by determining if deductions based on the hypothesis are correct
Begins intro of Semmelweis example
82 – 84 (Fran)
Par 51 (bottom of 82): Oreskes provides an example of deduction by telling the story of Ignaz Semmelweis. She
generates reader interest by creating the mystery of the dying mothers.
Par 52 (middle 83): The story continues and concludes, giving the reader a concrete illustration of deduction in
action while implying an analogy between the importance of hand washing and climate change to make climate
change seem just as relatable and universally recognized.
Par 53 (bottom 83): Oreskes claims that climate change stands up to the standards of deduction. She supports this
claim with the research of early and mid-twentieth century scientists whose predictions of global warming and rising
seas have come true. She quotes Roger Revelle on potential changes and shows that his predictions came true with a
long list of sources. The sheer number of names mentioned in this paragraph creates the impression of a consensus
and builds ethos.
Par 54 (mid 84): Oreskes provides a second example, of the prediction that polar amplification would melt the
poles faster than other climate changes are felt. She defines “albedo” and “polar amplification.” She provides studies
that support the polar amplification prediction.
Page 85-86 Kristen
Para 1 and 2: Revisits Semmelweis in order to illustrate the fallacy of the hypothetico deductive model;
corroborates with appeal to authority by mentioning James Lister, Robert Koch, and Louis Paster; definition of
falsificationism
Para 3: Rhetorical questions; by arguing by definition, demonstrates shortcomings of falsificationism
Page 86 Para 1: Definition of model calibration; claims that models are heuristic in nature
Para 2: Reason: that models cannot be proved right or wrong; definition of ensembles, and example
Para 3: Presents data, from credible source (enhancing ethos) with chart found on following page
Pages 87 – 88 Stephanie
• Focuses on presenting various climate models, run by both the general public and trained climate scientists, as
evidence of the inescapability of climate change.
• But differentiates between this and tempo and mode, which is where she contends the debate within the scientific
community resides.
• Describes in detail the conclusions which can be drawn from the model runs.
• Qualifies argument by admitting the limitations of climate models - that it is nearly impossible to know for certain
how soon the atmosphere will double in CO2 levels.
• Admits the possibility that every one of these climate models is wrong.
p. 91-93: "Inference to the Best Explanation," Maggie
Paragraph 67 on pg 91: Oreskes provides a warrant: that the best explanation is the one consistent with the
evidence. Examples: The supernatural cannot be explained with evidence, so is not the best explanation. & The
theory of expanding earth fits some but not all of the evidence of continental drift. Authority's definition of best:
from Peter Lipton.
Paragraph 68 on pg. 91:
Strategy-- audience inclusion: "our problem" "gets us thinking".
Paragraph 68 (cont) on pg 92: Philosophers' definition of "best explanation." Explains that this definition from
philosophers fits with--supports--the scientific models Oreskes has already given us-- applies inductive reasoning.
Paragraph 69 on pg 92: Prolepsis: contrarians provide an explanation, but it is not the "best" explanation.
Paragraph 70 on pg 92: Rhetorical questions used as transition, leading to an accusation... Paragraph 70 (cont) pg
93: "Indeed, the only reason we might think otherwise is to avoid committing to action." [CODA: CALL TO
ACTION]
Paragraph 71 on pg 93: (FINAL Paragraph): Shift from logos to pathos/rhetoric/poetry (if you will). Short
sentence with syntactical repetition ("sea level to change, ice to melt, and climate to change"). Refers to history, a
warrant now proven invalid (that we could not change earth processes), moves to present day. Pathos: uses us/we.
Ethos: We have caused it, we must fix it (also known as the Uncle Ben from Spiderman-- "With great power comes
great responsibility.")
TA/ITC Notes on Prereading, Surveys, Jig Saw work, etc.
Pre-reading – find source, author, genre, date, audience, skim/scan title, headings, etc.
Book Title= Climate Change: What it Means for us, our children, and our grandchildren
Publisher = MIT press series
Series = American and Comparative Environmental Policies
Look at the book – what do you make of the picture on the cover? What does the table of
contents tell you?
Section headings:
1. The scientific consensus on climate change
2. How do we know we’re not wrong?
3. The inductive and deductive models of science
4. Falsificationism
5. Consilience of evidence
6. Inference to the best explanation
7. Conclusion
Looks at the works cited page – who/what kind of texts are cited?
Pre-discussion/Questionnaire
1. What is a consensus? Is there a scientific consensus on climate change (analysis of
title)? Why would the author phrase the subtitle “How do we know we're not wrong?” vs.
How we know we're right? What might this indicate about the methodology she uses to
achieve her findings? (inductive vs. deductive)
2. How might the author establish the reality of a consensus? (evidence)
3. Have you heard of these terms and what do they mean? How do they differ, if at all?
Climate change? Global warming? Human-induced climate change? (definition)
4. Do the general public and the scientific community share the same view of climate
change? How do you know? Why or why not? (audience) What might account for any
discrepancy between these groups?
5. What do you think motivated Oreskes’ argument/chapter? Is Oreskes
agreeing/disagreeing with something? What?
6. How do those who believe in climate change feel it affects the earth? (background
info from student)
How much certainty is there about
Global warming; Rise in greenhouse gases; Causes of global warming; Long term consequences
of global warming; Solution to the problem; Prospects of implementing a solution
Do you think most scientists agree that the world is warming due to increase in greenhouse
gases? About MMCC? What % do you think agree? Is there “a lot of disagreement among
scientists” on global warming.
How “personally concerned” are you about global warming? (Pew Research Center – US = 19%
vs Japan 66%)
Should GW be a top priority for president and congress?
How certain is the science of climate change? Who disputes climate change – what people,
groups, etc.
What reasons do people give who dispute climate change? What do you think of media coverage
of the issue?
JIG SAW: Assign students to research key words, or research key concepts and references.
Vocabulary for Oresekes. E.g., induction/deduction; conflate; fallacy of affirming the consequent
(if p, q; q, thus p) consilience; hypothetico-deductive model; tempo and mode; model calibration
(86)
American Enterprise Institute; Popper and falsificationism; George Marshall Institute, Michael
Crichton, Ads by PR firms made to look like editorials;
Assign students to research Oresekes, her work, the book, controversy surrounding her,
connections to Gore, etc.
SCHEDULE
Tues 09/21:
the
identifying argument and claims, drafting the introduction; templates and
rhetorical précis; managing quotations, working on the body section.
Thur. 09/23 drafting the body section and conclusion; identifying strategies, and
analyzing how they work and why they were chosen. MLA formatting and
more on quotations (bring They Say/I Say, and Keys for Writers)
Tue 09/28
Drafting continued. Peer workshops. Bring 4 copies of draft, plus
collection of
homework and in-class writing (“journal”). Sign up for conference time.
Thur. 09/30 Individual conferences with instructor –.
& Fri. 10/01
Tues. 10/05
Final draft due
CLAIMS & STRATEGIES
Identifying claims – a good rule of thumb is to look for the following cues:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
question/answer or problem/solution pattern
self-identification (“my point here is that…”)
emphasis/repetition (“it must be stressed that…”)
approval (“Olson makes some important and long overdue amendments to work on …”)
metalanguage that explicitly uses the language of argument (“My argument consists of three
main claims. First, that…”
Examples – what cues can you find?
1. “What is the scientific consensus on climate change, and how do we know it exists?” 66
2. “This latter point is crucial and merits underscoring…” 74
3. “It is important to distinguish among what is happening now…” 77
4. “Year after year, the evidence that global warming is real and serious has only strengthened.
Perhaps that is the strongest argument of all. Contrarians have repeatedly tried to falsify the
consensus, and they have repeatedly failed.” (89)
5. “This book deals with…this chapter addresses a different question: might the scientific
consensus be wrong?” (66)
6. “First, let’s make clear what the scientific consensus is…Second, to say that global warming is
real and happening is no the same as agreeing about what will happen in the future…” (73)
7. “This suggests something discussed elsewhere in this book…” (74)
8. “Is there disagreement over the details of climate change? Yes. Does this… 76
9. “So why does the public have the impression of disagreement among scientists? (76)
OVERALL argument: A valid and overwhelming scientific consensus exists for HIGCC, a
consensus based on research that passes all relevant tests for reliability, and provides us with the
best “basis for reasoned action.”
OVERALL evidence: all leading scientific organizations agree; study of abstracts from 10 year
sample of peer reviewed journals shows not one denying reality of HIGCC; review of criteria for
evaluating scientific knowledge (induction, deduction, etc.) shows the science is reliable.
Some Claims & Sub-Claims – How Would You Rank These in Importance?
■ The public falsely believes that there is disagreement due to conceptual “conflations” made by
contrarians (scientific and political uncertainty; mode and tempo; current science versus predicting
future), misleading arguments put forward by interest groups, and the failure of scientists to
communicate with public, which is in part due to the “double bind” scientists find themselves in.
(76 - 78)
■ While just about all climate scientists agree on the reality of HIGCC, debate continues on tempo
and mode (74)
■ Politically motivated groups have tried to manufacture uncertainty and mislead the public
through a variety of strategies (75, 78)
■ In any scientific debate some “intellectual outliers” will always exist, but that does not mean we
should reject the consensus view. (79)
■ No scientific conclusion can ever be proven, uncertainty is unavoidable, and new evidence may
lead us to change our views, but GCC is not a mere “belief,” and is instead our best current
understanding, and “best basis for reasoned action.” (79)
■ The common /traditional view of the scientific method is wrong; there is no one single scientific
method that will guarantee validity. Instead, there is a collection of standards and methods for
evaluating scientific reliability, and HIGCC passes all of these, while the theories advanced by
contrarians do not (80 - 93)
■ HIGCC stands up to the inductive model – it can be shown to rest on a strong inductive base.
(81)
■ HIGCC stands up to the deductive model, supporting predictions and hypotheses that have been
shown to be valid (83-84).
■ HIGCC stands up to falsificationism (85, 89.)
■ Theories of HIGCC are supported by consilience of evidence, with many different, independent
lines of evidence pointing in the same direction (90, 91).
■ HIGCC supports “inference to the best explanation,” i.e. it can be shown to be the best of
competing explanations, where “best” is judged in terms the various criterion previously invoked
(91, 92). The alternative theories presented by contrarians, e.g. natural variation, are not good
explanations as they are inconsistent with so much of what we know.
■ Contrarian arguments are based not on good reasons, but on the desire to avoid having to act.
(93)
■ Scientists reason in ways that are comparable to the way lawyers reason – they look for
independent lines of evidence that hold together (90).
What is she doing, and why is she doing it?
P. 69 These kinds of reports [by all the main scientific organizations specializing in climate
change research] 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. Nevertheless, it could be the case that
they downplay dissenting opinions. One way to test that hypothesis…”
P. 75: 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.
76. 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).
79. 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 scientists
in the late 1960s, a handful of persistent resisters clung to the older views, and some
idiosyncratics held to alternative theoretical positions…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
classrooms to the theory of earth expansion? Of course not. That would be silly and a waste of
time.
Strategies to look for in Oreskes’ “Climate Change: How do we
know we’re not wrong?”
Metadiscourse – Language about language. Metadiscourse announces what the writer is
doing, helping you to recognize the author’s plan. (Example: In my paper . . .)
Metadiscourse can be used both to announce the overall project or purpose of the paper
and to announce its argument. Metadiscourse also provides signposts along the way,
guiding the reader to what will come next and showing how that is connected to what has
come before.


What is Oreskes’ role in this paper? How does she enter in and guide the reader, through the
text?
What role does she adopt? What voice does she use?
Prolepsis – Anticipating the opposition’s best argument and addressing it in advance.

Oreskes uses this strategy throughout her piece. How does this help construct ethos? How
does this lead her audience to conclude that consensus can be trusted?
Questions –
Rhetorical question – A question designed to have one correct answer. The author leads
you into a position rather than stating it explicitly.
Transitional questions – Leads the reader into a new subject area or area of argument.

Oreskes fills this piece with questions. What role do these questions play? How do these
questions lead the direction of her argument?
Arrangement – Refers to the way that a speaker or author organizes or arranges an
argument. How does the speaker or author arrange the argument? Why does the speaker
or author choose this arrangement?

How does Oreskes’ organization of this chapter further her argument?
Authorities or “big names” – Refers to a speaker or author’s use of “big names” or wellknown authorities on the topic being discussed. Closely related to ethos because speakers
and author’s often try to build their own credibility or ethos by referring to big names or
authorities on their topic.



Oreskes cites many scientific organizations in this piece and includes excerpts from their
publications.
How does this appeal to authority build trust in her argument that the consensus can be
trusted?
How does this appeal tap into assumptions about scientific method
Commonplaces – Also known as hidden assumptions, hidden beliefs, and ideologies. Refers
to the assumptions, many of them unconscious, that groups of people hold in common.
What hidden assumptions or beliefs does the speaker have about the topic? How is the
speaker or author appealing to the hidden assumptions of the audience?


Who is the intended audience of this piece?
What are some assumptions of this intended audience.
Definition – How is the speaker or author defining certain terms? How has the speaker or
author chosen to define these terms for the audience?

Oreskes defines several terms in this piece, including scientific method, induction, deduction,
consilience, and falsification. How do her definitions help build her argument?
Difference – Examples of difference might include gender, race, class, ethnicity, or any other
factor that people use to separate themselves into groups. How is the speaker or author
portraying men, women, certain ethnic groups, certain social and economic classes of
people, and so on? Why is the speaker or author portraying these people or groups in these
ways?


Oreskes works to build credibility for climate scientists at the same time she works to
question the credibility of “contrarians,” who are well funded. How is she isolating these
contrarians to show they different than reasonable people who rely on scientific consensus?
She uses the term “contrarian” to refer to those who question consensus. What does this
term do?
Ethos – Refers to the credibility, character or personality of the speaker or author or
someone else connected to the argument. Ethos brings up questions of ethics and trust
between the speaker or author and the audience. How is the speaker or author building
credibility for the argument? How and why is the speaker or author trying to get the
audience to trust her or him?



How does Oreskes construct her ethos? How does this make her a reliable source of
information?
How does she build credibility for her sources?
How does she construct credibility for her argument?
Examples – What examples is the speaker or author using to build the argument? Why?

Oreskes uses examples to illustrate each defined term. How do these examples clarify her
claims? How do they build her argument?
History, context, background –What historical background is the speaker or author
providing on the topic being discussed? Why? How and why is the speaker or author building
a context for analyzing the topic?


In the first paragraph, Oreskes references 2004, the year that “global warming ‘got
respect.’” How does this build significance and create context?
Oreskes refers to past scientific discoveries in order to create historic precedence and to
illustrate claims. How do these references to history strengthen her claims and build her
argument?
Identification – This is Kenneth Burke’s term for the act of “identifying” with another person
who shares your values or beliefs. Many speakers or authors try to identify with an audience
or convince an audience to identify with them and their argument. Related to Burke’s term
scapegoat (defined later).

How does Oreskes build a connection between herself and the audience?
Logos – Loosely defined, logos refers to the use of logic, reason, facts, statistics, data, and
numbers. Very often, logos seems tangible and touchable, so much more real and “true”
than other rhetorical strategies that it does not seem like a persuasive strategy at all. How
and why is the author or speaker using logos?

Oreskes builds a very reasonable response to scientific consensus, so that it is real and
“true.” How does she do this?
Metaphors, analogies, similes – Comparisons, usually between an idea or thing that is
unknown and an idea or thing that is already familiar to the audience (e.g., “A strand of DNA
is like a ladder.”) How and why is the speaker or author using these comparisons?

What analogies or metaphors Oreskes does Oreskes use? How do these help build her
argument? How do they appeal to her audience?
Motive – Why we should or shouldn’t trust someone’s argument –(ex. if the CEO of Krispy
Kreme doughnuts argues against nutritional information on product packaging)

Oreskes refers to “well-funded” contrarians. In what ways does she question motive?
Distribution – The author appears to clarify a position by dividing it into two or more
categories. Look for alternative categories. How does this further the argument?

How does Oreskes use this strategy to lead the reader into coming to the conclusion that the
scientific consensus regarding climate change is reasonable and can be trusted?