Peter A. Scott is discussing an increasingly politicized subject: Global Warming. Some background information is that some global warming supporters like Al Gore have been using natural disasters as evidence of global warming. This is probably to use fear to lure in supporters.
Details: Peter A. Scott brings up the issue that that man could be influencing the odds of global warming, but we don't have enough information to know. He points out we have only had "about 40 years of reliable observational records" which is not exactly a ton of data. He mentions that when you look a severe flood, you need to look at “alternative natural explanations such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation, a large-scale climate pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide” not just global warming.
Language: Scott takes a rather passive tone in this article. He’s not trying to stir the pot and come up with some controversial theory. He is gently suggesting a potential change to help with deducing the connection between global warming and natural disasters. When talking about The Inconvenient Truth he doesn’t call it wrong, but instead says it’s “broadly accurate”, a euphemism. He does not offer any type of criticism of the movie. Scott also adds in another view rather peacefully with “A clearer way of thinking about weather and climate is to consider the odds”
Syntax: Scott likes to use short segments to highlight his points. In one paragraph talking about why it’s hard to make connections between natural disasters and man-made climate change, he starts it off with “But hurricanes are difficult”. In another paragraph talking about the future possibilities, he starts it with “Are we capable of delivering?”
No comments:
Post a Comment