JADIE KIM- newspaper article

Jadie Kim
link: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/globalwarming.overview/index.html


This article presents two sides of global warming issue. The writer states “Many global warming experts say the phenomenon, if unchecked, is capable of altering the world's climate and geography. In the worst-case scenario, experts say oceans could rise to overwhelming and catastrophic levels, flooding cities and altering seashores.” He also presents the counter argument by saying “Other scientists and observers, a minority compared to those who believe the warming trend is something ominous, say it is simply the latest shift in the cyclical patterns of a planet's life.” By presenting both sides of arguments for Global warming, the writer effectively maintains neutrality.

The information contained in this article comes from pretty accurate sources. For example when the writer says “The average surface temperature has warmed one degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the last century, according to the National Research Council,” he indicates the information comes from the National Research Council, thus enhances his argument’s reliability. Besides, he cites that his sources of information are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly referred to as the IPCC, and the EPA, all being dependable sources.

To make his argument cogent, the writer uses specific name of the person. For instance, he states, ["For the last 30 years, there's no way there's anything natural that can explain it," Stephen Schneider, a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University in California, said.] By stating the actual name of the professor, the writer is using the authority of the professor to convince his readers. To make his argument even more persuasive, he says, “Many scientific organizations share Schneider's view, ranging from the national academies of the countries that comprise the G8 to the National Research Council, the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union.” Again, the writer mentions the names of the official organizations taking, proving the information is authoritative.

If I were to evaluate this writer, I should say his writing is pretty unbiased and that he tries to be informative rather than persuasive. The most obvious reason is that he presents both sides of an argument, thus avoiding partiality. Yet, looking at the overall information, I have come to a conclusion that the writer believes human action caused global warming since he seems to focus more on that point of view, though he surely states some counter argument against it. Most of all, the article ends with, [Exactly how much it's going to warm up, we don't know," Schneider said. "That it's going to warm up? I'd bet anything on that."]. This is his true opinion but he tries to show his readers other side of the issue.