Considering an unusual amount of natural disasters recently, many people are asking if we can still treat climate change like some kind of folk tale. If the answer is no to the preceding question, the next one in line is what can we do to combat climate change? In his article, We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change, Nicholas Kristof attempts to respond to these two questions. In this paper, I am going to start by summarizing his argument, then analyzing his claims, and ending with my general opinions about the effectiveness of his overall argument style and format.
Kristof starts his argument by presenting an analogy that connects to his conclusion. He asks the reader to consider the 9/11 attacks, and imagine if the conversation revolving around the attacks had been limited to the stories of rescuers or solely the …show more content…
The first claim I want to analyze is an implicit claim that Donald Trump cannot have an intelligent conversation regarding the recent natural disasters. The warrant he offers, is that Trump does not take climate change seriously. The proposed idea here, is that one cannot have an intelligent conversation without considering climate change. The backing he presents for this warrant, are the numerous tweets (over 100), made by Trump, that all suggests skepticism towards climate change. Further backing that illustrates this skepticism, is the fact that Trump wanted to remove the United States from the Paris Climate accord, which aims to put forth global efforts to combat climate change. I understand where he was going with this claim. I agree that it is obvious that Trump does not take climate change seriously, but he did not present much fact in the matter of needing to consider climate change in order to have these intelligent conversations. The only support he offers is the 9/11 analogy presented above. One would need to prove the two are connected, which leads to his next
Kristof starts his argument by presenting an analogy that connects to his conclusion. He asks the reader to consider the 9/11 attacks, and imagine if the conversation revolving around the attacks had been limited to the stories of rescuers or solely the …show more content…
The first claim I want to analyze is an implicit claim that Donald Trump cannot have an intelligent conversation regarding the recent natural disasters. The warrant he offers, is that Trump does not take climate change seriously. The proposed idea here, is that one cannot have an intelligent conversation without considering climate change. The backing he presents for this warrant, are the numerous tweets (over 100), made by Trump, that all suggests skepticism towards climate change. Further backing that illustrates this skepticism, is the fact that Trump wanted to remove the United States from the Paris Climate accord, which aims to put forth global efforts to combat climate change. I understand where he was going with this claim. I agree that it is obvious that Trump does not take climate change seriously, but he did not present much fact in the matter of needing to consider climate change in order to have these intelligent conversations. The only support he offers is the 9/11 analogy presented above. One would need to prove the two are connected, which leads to his next