Understand Faulty Thinking to Tackle Climate Change was written by George Marshall for the August 2014 issue of New Scientist. At the very top of the article, with no introduction or explanation is the authors claim, which reads “ The amorphous nature of climate change creates the ideal conditions for human denial and cognitive bias to come to the fore”. The article then begins by introducing the reader to four people and their perception on climate change –Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his research on psychological bias, believes that there’s no hope for climate change. Nicholas Stern, the author of Stern Review, a book dedicated to the economics of environmental issues, believes climate change is a “perfect market
…show more content…
Marshall establishes his credibility at the very end of his essay, probably to not distract the reader of his status, yet still show that he is knowledgeable on the topic. However, he always establishes the credibility of a person he mentions within the same sentence. His use of pathos almost guilts the reader into recognizing their own bias and denial with analogies such as “If there’s only a 1 percent chance of terrorist getting weapons of mass destruction, we must act as if it is a certainty” and “This silence is similar to that found around human rights abuses” and powerful use of diction. Marshall even analyzes some of his credible people to display their bias and how it relates to others. He uses examples and statistics as logos to strengthen his argument and reinforce pathos. The article was published in New Scientist magazine with the main distributions being print. The magazine is also available online with a subscription and the company uses social media to publicize their …show more content…
The reassurance comes from the fact that this is a very experienced man, he runs one of the largest climate change organizations in all of Europe, he has over 25 years of experience and has worked not only with local organizations but also with the government. The article doesn’t give a definitive answer, which may be what people are looking for, but it does address why, with all of our resources, more has yet to be completed. He deconstructs the largest reasons for anxiety over the topic, mass media, and the effects it has on our perception. He also displays through many examples how we all perceive climate change differently and provides an answer as to why. Some may think that instead of easing the fear about climate change he’s aiding in it, since he provides no answer to when it will end, a deadline, or any sort of true reassurance that it will all get better. And where it hurts, it helps, his lack of a definitive answer may hurt in the sense that people are on edge, waiting for someone to tell them anything. It helps though, because the article was not about deadlines or self destruction, it was about understanding how hyper fixating on our demise is not healthy and we need to understand how we collectively think to work towards reformation. It’s all in the title, we need to understand faulty thinking so we can finally attack climate
Marshall establishes his credibility at the very end of his essay, probably to not distract the reader of his status, yet still show that he is knowledgeable on the topic. However, he always establishes the credibility of a person he mentions within the same sentence. His use of pathos almost guilts the reader into recognizing their own bias and denial with analogies such as “If there’s only a 1 percent chance of terrorist getting weapons of mass destruction, we must act as if it is a certainty” and “This silence is similar to that found around human rights abuses” and powerful use of diction. Marshall even analyzes some of his credible people to display their bias and how it relates to others. He uses examples and statistics as logos to strengthen his argument and reinforce pathos. The article was published in New Scientist magazine with the main distributions being print. The magazine is also available online with a subscription and the company uses social media to publicize their …show more content…
The reassurance comes from the fact that this is a very experienced man, he runs one of the largest climate change organizations in all of Europe, he has over 25 years of experience and has worked not only with local organizations but also with the government. The article doesn’t give a definitive answer, which may be what people are looking for, but it does address why, with all of our resources, more has yet to be completed. He deconstructs the largest reasons for anxiety over the topic, mass media, and the effects it has on our perception. He also displays through many examples how we all perceive climate change differently and provides an answer as to why. Some may think that instead of easing the fear about climate change he’s aiding in it, since he provides no answer to when it will end, a deadline, or any sort of true reassurance that it will all get better. And where it hurts, it helps, his lack of a definitive answer may hurt in the sense that people are on edge, waiting for someone to tell them anything. It helps though, because the article was not about deadlines or self destruction, it was about understanding how hyper fixating on our demise is not healthy and we need to understand how we collectively think to work towards reformation. It’s all in the title, we need to understand faulty thinking so we can finally attack climate