The purpose of the assignment is to give you an opportunity to use the skills developed throughout the unit to evaluate an extended argument text. The text is below on page 2 of this document. You should evaluate the argument using any of the methods we have covered in this course that you consider relevant. Articles that may be of use are listed on page 5 of this document, but you are not limited to these documents in your research.

One of the points of this assignment is to encourage concise and economical writing.

Assignments that are longer than 2000 words (including the standardization) will not be favorably viewed: the excess words may not be marked.

 

You are given a main article and links to sources for research relevant to the topic of the article at the bottom. Firstly;

  1. Do a broad standardisation of the main text including mention of linked or convergence of premises. (10 marks)

Then evaluate the arguments in the article and whether or not they appropriately use the supplementary texts in support of their argument (25 marks). Insure that you discuss:

  1. Use of rhetoric in the article. (6 marks)
  2. Evaluate any particular argument types that you recognize from class (e.g. conditional, disjunctive, generalizations, analogical, inference to the best explanation, causal arguments etc.) (6 marks)
  3. Comment on and evaluate any fallacies you find in the text. (6 marks)
  4. Comment on the convincingness of the argument as a whole including strength of any remaining inferences and the plausibility of any unsupported premises. (5 marks)
  5. Give an overall conclusion of whether the argument is good, summarizing your findings. (2 marks)

 

 

Text to analyse:

Warmists are holding us to mad ‘greenmail’

 

AS predicted, the great Paris global warming conference has turned to custard.

China, which is home to more billionaires than any other nation, and India, second only to China in terms of population, along with a gaggle of other opportunistic nations are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars from the developed world to meet the unproven challenge of man-made climate change. With breathtaking arrogance, the clamorous pseuds gathered in the French capital without care for their massive carbon footprint claim to have the power to control the temperature of Earth — given enough of your money. This is such a preposterous notion that no one at the conference will even state the obvious — its impossibility.

 

Instead, we have self-anointed, self-righteous, self-important lackeys of the UN claiming that global warming is responsible for extreme weather (despite zero evidence), poverty (hardly), drought and floods (that’s tricky), family violence (what about the TV remote), Middle Eastern violence (where’s that in the Koran), prostitution and alcoholism (they would, wouldn’t they). Anyone with any sense can see what the true cause of this climate-fad: tax hungry politicians. Taxation is the proposed “solution” to all “crises” the left dream up. The more than 4000 delegates and assorted hangers-on are actually perpetuating the greatest fraud since we were warned that the Y2K bug would send aircraft into tailspins, freeze elevators, close bank accounts and crash the internet (warmist Al Gore’s claimed invention).

 

The mere fact that these junketeers have gathered when, according to satellite data, there has been no warming for more than 18 years, should have been enough to warn politicians off but no, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has paraded his moral vanity (and a warm overcoat) at the conference and there is no shortage of others eager to be associated with the delusionists. There is no consensus on climate change, it’s just a leftist conspiracy. Greenies are even willing to ignore Nobel Laureates to perpetrate their fraud. Robert Laughlin, a revered scholar and physicist, admits that nothing we could do could harm the planet. What kind of egomaniacs ignores a Nobel winning physicist? Politicians, that’s who! But if you ask Americans, a recent survey shows that less than 45% of everyday folk think climate change is a serious issue, and most don’t think it’s even caused by human activity1. It seems that the American people know more than Australian politicians. Belief in climate change has lead to dangerous proposals that will play havoc on the economy. If we keep supporting the delusions of these greedy greenies we will waste billions of dollars. Our fragile economy just can’t take it. This could cause an economic collapse.

 

 

 

The demand by developing nations that the developed nations hand over cash should have been met with a Western walkout. It’s nothing but greenmail. Led by Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) the G77 countries are demanding more than $US100 billion a year to help them meet any targets set in Paris. This seems to be their prerequisite just for turning up. It’s just like when benefit bludgers complain about not getting enough effort free dough- and they deserve the same response. It’s up to you to do what you want with your own money, but don’t come here expecting me to hand over mine!

 

The UNFCCC is the parent treaty of the 2005 Kyoto Protocol. Initially 27 developed nations pledged $10.2 billion to “stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system” — as meaningless a piece of rhetoric as the UN ever presented — but Figueres determined that wouldn’t be enough. Using figures from the UN’s now discredited computer climate models, she claimed that amount wouldn’t be sufficient to prevent global temperatures from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

 

But Figueres has also admitted that the real goal of the gathered eco-freaks should be to – destroy capitalism, which she sees as the real enemy of the planet despite obvious evidence that it has been the only economic model to deliver real development and uplift billions from poverty in history. She announced these intentions before the Paris conference saying: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting – ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” Communist madness.

 

According to an 86-page draft proposal prepared for the conference, the developed countries have the greatest responsibility to cut carbon emissions “without conditions”, providing over 1 percent of GDP by 2020. Australia just cannot afford to be a signatory to such lunacy. “Developed countries shall provide financial resources to developing country parties for the full and enhanced implementation of the (Climate Change) Convention,” according to the draft. “The GCF (Green Climate Fund) shall be the main financial entity under the new agreement,” it added. The GCF is merely a mechanism to redistribute wealth from developed countries to poorer nations in order “to promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways”.

 

Forget it. Taxpayers should demand that Turnbull call Paris and tell the Australian delegation to get out to Charles de Gaulle airport tout suite and fly home.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The purpose of the assignment is to give you an opportunity to use the skills developed throughout the unit to evaluate an extended argument text. The text is below on page 2 of this document. You should evaluate the argument using any of the methods we have covered in this course that you consider relevant. Articles that may be of use are listed on page 5 of this document, but you are not limited to these documents in your research.

One of the points of this assignment is to encourage concise and economical writing.

Assignments that are longer than 2000 words (including the standardization) will not be favorably viewed: the excess words may not be marked.

 

You are given a main article and links to sources for research relevant to the topic of the article at the bottom. Firstly;

  1. Do a broad standardisation of the main text including mention of linked or convergence of premises. (10 marks)

Then evaluate the arguments in the article and whether or not they appropriately use the supplementary texts in support of their argument (25 marks). Insure that you discuss:

  1. Use of rhetoric in the article. (6 marks)
  2. Evaluate any particular argument types that you recognize from class (e.g. conditional, disjunctive, generalizations, analogical, inference to the best explanation, causal arguments etc.) (6 marks)
  3. Comment on and evaluate any fallacies you find in the text. (6 marks)
  4. Comment on the convincingness of the argument as a whole including strength of any remaining inferences and the plausibility of any unsupported premises. (5 marks)
  5. Give an overall conclusion of whether the argument is good, summarizing your findings. (2 marks)

 

 

Text to analyse:

Warmists are holding us to mad ‘greenmail’

 

AS predicted, the great Paris global warming conference has turned to custard.

China, which is home to more billionaires than any other nation, and India, second only to China in terms of population, along with a gaggle of other opportunistic nations are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars from the developed world to meet the unproven challenge of man-made climate change. With breathtaking arrogance, the clamorous pseuds gathered in the French capital without care for their massive carbon footprint claim to have the power to control the temperature of Earth — given enough of your money. This is such a preposterous notion that no one at the conference will even state the obvious — its impossibility.

 

Instead, we have self-anointed, self-righteous, self-important lackeys of the UN claiming that global warming is responsible for extreme weather (despite zero evidence), poverty (hardly), drought and floods (that’s tricky), family violence (what about the TV remote), Middle Eastern violence (where’s that in the Koran), prostitution and alcoholism (they would, wouldn’t they). Anyone with any sense can see what the true cause of this climate-fad: tax hungry politicians. Taxation is the proposed “solution” to all “crises” the left dream up. The more than 4000 delegates and assorted hangers-on are actually perpetuating the greatest fraud since we were warned that the Y2K bug would send aircraft into tailspins, freeze elevators, close bank accounts and crash the internet (warmist Al Gore’s claimed invention).

 

The mere fact that these junketeers have gathered when, according to satellite data, there has been no warming for more than 18 years, should have been enough to warn politicians off but no, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has paraded his moral vanity (and a warm overcoat) at the conference and there is no shortage of others eager to be associated with the delusionists. There is no consensus on climate change, it’s just a leftist conspiracy. Greenies are even willing to ignore Nobel Laureates to perpetrate their fraud. Robert Laughlin, a revered scholar and physicist, admits that nothing we could do could harm the planet. What kind of egomaniacs ignores a Nobel winning physicist? Politicians, that’s who! But if you ask Americans, a recent survey shows that less than 45% of everyday folk think climate change is a serious issue, and most don’t think it’s even caused by human activity1. It seems that the American people know more than Australian politicians. Belief in climate change has lead to dangerous proposals that will play havoc on the economy. If we keep supporting the delusions of these greedy greenies we will waste billions of dollars. Our fragile economy just can’t take it. This could cause an economic collapse.

 

 

 

The demand by developing nations that the developed nations hand over cash should have been met with a Western walkout. It’s nothing but greenmail. Led by Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) the G77 countries are demanding more than $US100 billion a year to help them meet any targets set in Paris. This seems to be their prerequisite just for turning up. It’s just like when benefit bludgers complain about not getting enough effort free dough- and they deserve the same response. It’s up to you to do what you want with your own money, but don’t come here expecting me to hand over mine!

 

The UNFCCC is the parent treaty of the 2005 Kyoto Protocol. Initially 27 developed nations pledged $10.2 billion to “stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system” — as meaningless a piece of rhetoric as the UN ever presented — but Figueres determined that wouldn’t be enough. Using figures from the UN’s now discredited computer climate models, she claimed that amount wouldn’t be sufficient to prevent global temperatures from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

 

But Figueres has also admitted that the real goal of the gathered eco-freaks should be to – destroy capitalism, which she sees as the real enemy of the planet despite obvious evidence that it has been the only economic model to deliver real development and uplift billions from poverty in history. She announced these intentions before the Paris conference saying: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting – ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” Communist madness.

 

According to an 86-page draft proposal prepared for the conference, the developed countries have the greatest responsibility to cut carbon emissions “without conditions”, providing over 1 percent of GDP by 2020. Australia just cannot afford to be a signatory to such lunacy. “Developed countries shall provide financial resources to developing country parties for the full and enhanced implementation of the (Climate Change) Convention,” according to the draft. “The GCF (Green Climate Fund) shall be the main financial entity under the new agreement,” it added. The GCF is merely a mechanism to redistribute wealth from developed countries to poorer nations in order “to promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways”.

 

Forget it. Taxpayers should demand that Turnbull call Paris and tell the Australian delegation to get out to Charles de Gaulle airport tout suite and fly home.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *