ilovefuzz.com

for one of my classes this semester, half the class has to argue for global warming the other has to argue against it. i havent started it yet, still have 2 weeks till its due. but i wanted to see if anyone could give me some ideas. i dont think its so much a research type thing where i compile facts about global warming. i have to argue for global warming, aside from just spitting out facts and showing charts, any tips on how to persuade people to either believe in it or change their opinion?

pictures of cute animals dying or otherwise in turmoil.

hmm for global warming? the warmer it gets the more time per year we get girlies in bikinis

You're arguing that it's happening? Or that global warming is a good thing?

This happened recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opini ... rming.html

Basically one of the few scientists that didn't believe the rest of the scientists did his own research and now believes them (Though, he won't say it's humans causing it.)

If you're arguing that it's happening, you basically have science on your side. Our actions basically simulate mild volcanic activity, which has been responsible for climate changes in the past-- but there's not much volcanic activity right now. More greenhouse gasses = higher temperatures. And it doesn't take much to have a pretty dramatic effect.

Also, polar bears are neat, and coral reefs are pretty. And some people in Alaska are losing their homes... I'm sure their children are cute.

For a serious argument, it's already affecting major crops and ecosystems that we rely on for food. The most painful one for me is coffee.

Then there's the health effects. A quick google search will give you lots of information about that.


If you're arguing that it's a good thing... I'm sure mountain tops are prime locations for water parks.

+1 for arguing for global warming. Not that it's real, but that it's good. Your whole class will be all WTF???

But really, that's a dumb assignment. 30 dull, factual presentations in a row all about the same topic. Even the teacher will be snoring by the end of that.

If you're on the side arguing against global warming/climate change, your best bet is to hammer on about how little we know about human involvement/causation. The world warms and cools all the time, and how do we know that this wouldn't be happening if we weren't, say, burning fossil fuels?*


*Clearly this is rhetoric and rhetoric only. There's been no real debate about global warming in the field for at least twenty-five years.

The globe has been warming every day since the Ice Age. You're welcome

i think nasa did a study and concluded that global warming isn't real, maybe look that up

skip wrote:i think nasa did a study and concluded that global warming isn't real, maybe look that up

Yeah, but what does NASA know about the Earth? Their scope is typically everything but.

For the record, that was a joke.

at the end u should like sell a book to everyone
for 29.95

im arguing that global warming is happening. its not so much about global warming. the whole class has this topic. half have to argue for and the other against. so since we all have the same topic its not so much about what we research its how to present it so that those on the fence would be persuaded and other will start to doubt their position. so i dont need like great evidence per se but more of ideas or tips on how i can have some great presentation thatll will make the professor doubt his position or whatever

Don't forget about the balls...oh wrong oral persuasion.

Present your argument in the clearest, most organized way possible. First, explicitly present your thesis: Global warming exists; and as you write your presentation, constantly ask yourself, "How does this relate to/support the thesis?" If it doesn't, don't include it. Make sure your evidence comes from a source that is universally accepted as legitimate and include your sources in your presentation. You'll gain more credibility that way by proxy. Other than that, practice your presentation so you can appear confident and don't appear to be referencing any notes or anything(even though you probably are). If you use a power point, DO NOT LOOK AT IT!!! It looks like shit if you're just reading from the projection. You can have a print-out of the power point on the podium with you, but make sure you're not simply reading that word for word.

I would focus on the outright dishonesty of all of the people claiming that climate change isn't real -- the fudging of numbers, the undisclosed connections to oil companies, the cherry picking of data, the distortion of research to fit a preconceived end, and the fact that you have ALL* climate scientists over here telling you that not only have they spent their adult lives studying this stuff but that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible while over here you have a bunch of oil company executives, lawyers, assorted right wing ideologues and idiots like Lord Monkton saying the opposite. Point out that it's the same tactics -- and in some cases the same people -- used by the tobacco lobby in the 70s to dispute the link between smoking and cancer (and the same tactics as used by evolution deniers too, but you might not want to go there depending on your audience).

(*Except one or two cranks -- and why do these guys get equal billing in the name of balance? You can always find a flat earther ... )

Make sure you have a clear understanding of the difference between climate and weather (so you can shoot down all those "hey it's snowing outside, global warming my ass" jokers).

Don't let the other side bleat on about predictions based on models, as though that somehow undermines the results -- point out that's how we do nuclear testing, cosmology, drug discovery, economics, chemistry ...

The thing skip mentioned is a great case study in distortion, cherry picking and overfitting -- not a lie a such just misrepresentation and FUD in the media by people with an agenda like this rubbish. You'll notice that far from deciding climate change is not real, as claimed, NASA has a site dedicated to it. http://climate.nasa.gov

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

And at the end, even if it's all a hoax and we clean up the planet for nought, making it a nicer world to live in ... so?

^listen to this dude.

Generally speaking, quick analogies are good to grab people's attention. Relate your position to something they can understand, and folks are much more likely to agree.

So, for "global warming is happening..."well, you could do it a few ways.

The first one that springs to mind is an analogy between climate scientists and doctors. If a doctor tells you you have cancer, you listen to him, because he's the expert. If your mechanic says your car needs repairs, you listen to him, because he's the expert. If an NBA coach tells you that you need to work on your crossover, you listen to him... that's right, because he's the expert.

If climate scientists are telling you that global warming is happening, you should listen to them, because they're the experts.

Analogies like that will go a long way.

devnulljp wrote:I would focus on the outright dishonesty of all of the people claiming that climate change isn't real -- the fudging of numbers, the undisclosed connections to oil companies, the cherry picking of data, the distortion of research to fit a preconceived end, and the fact that you have ALL* climate scientists over here telling you that not only have they spent their adult lives studying this stuff but that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible while over here you have a bunch of oil company executives, lawyers, assorted right wing ideologues and idiots like Lord Monkton saying the opposite. Point out that it's the same tactics -- and in some cases the same people -- used by the tobacco lobby in the 70s to dispute the link between smoking and cancer (and the same tactics as used by evolution deniers too, but you might not want to go there depending on your audience).

I'd say making this your central argument would be a good tactic if you were against global warming; however, proving your opponents are wrong doesn't prove you're right. It may be good rhetoric and may make a good rebuttal section(just before conclusion) of the presentation, but if you're going to strike down deniers, you first have to solidly present what they are denying.