The paper "Warmists Are Holding Us to Mad Greenmail by Piers Akerman" is a delightful example of an article on environmental studies. The debate over climate change remains a very popular debate, which attracts diverse opinions from a scientist, idealist, environmentalist, and even political class. Piers Akerman is one of the many people that have come up with articles that oppose the steps being taken to solve global climate change (Akerman, 2015). The most people article is based on the global warming held in Paris, which according to his article holds people to mad “ greenmail. ” The article entitled “ Warmists are holding us to mad “ greenmail” by Piers Akerman has highly criticized the outcome of the Paris global warming conference.
According to Akerman, the outcome of the conference which requires developed nations to contribute a given sum of cash to help solve global warming is more of a greenmail (Akerman, 2015). Akerman insists that the money being demanded is only meant to solve man-made climate change challenges that are not proven. In his paper, the author claims there is zero evidence that global warming is the one responsible for extreme weather among many other things such as poverty, and family violence.
The author also believes that 4000 delegates that were gathered in the conference only perpetuated the greatest fraud. Critical Analysis of Arkerman ArticleAkerman while putting his points across in this article, he uses very harsh and emotive words that would make those with the different opinions find it difficult to defend their opinion. Akerman begins by a “ spin” where he claims “ as predicted… .” Such a statement would make it appear that various group of people had predicted the outcome of the Paris global warming conference to turn out as interrelated by Akerman.
There is a chance that he is the one who predicted and not others as he would want others to see it. The choice and use of words when passing a point can be seen to lead the argument on the debate to take a very wrong direction. There are some elements of fallacies of language use in the article. The emotive language that has been utilized by the author is likely to persuade readers into taking his position without critically looking at the issues and facts (Akerman, 2015).
Words such as “ With breathtaking arrogance… .” Are more likely to kill the logic in the argument as it inclines thinking in a particular direction, which is the position of the author. He even goes ahead to refer to delegates as tax-hungry politicians. Readers are presented with emotive words that are likely to make them rise against their political leaders without even reading more of the article. A rational argument is expected to have plain language that does not excite emotional feeling but the logical reasoning of the facts as being presented.
The author believes that there is no consensus has been reached concerning climate change but instead a conspiracy by the leftist (Akerman, 2015).
Akerman, P. (2015). Warmists are holding us to mad ‘greenmail’. [online] Dailytelegraph.com.au. Available at: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/piers-akerman-warmists-are-holding-us-to-mad-greenmail/news-story/683f1d9afaaab03d65013d4e4f95db53 [Accessed 12 Jun. 2016].
Deaton, J. (2016). Businesses Could Make Solar Panels and Electric Cars as Commonplace as Home Computers. [online] Australian Popular Science. Available at: http://www.popsci.com.au/science/energy/businesses-could-make-solar-panels-and-electric-cars-as-commonplace-as-home-computers,420425 [Accessed 12 Jun. 2016].
Laughlin, R. (2010). The American Scholar: What the Earth Knows - Robert B. Laughlin. [online] Theamericanscholar.org. Available at: https://theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/#.V10OchLXhgC [Accessed 12 Jun. 2016].
Pew Research Center (2009). Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming. [online] Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/22/fewer-americans-see-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/ [Accessed 12 Jun. 2016].
Revkin, A. (2010). Scientists React to a Nobelist's Climate Thoughts. [online] Dot Earth Blog. Available at: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/scientists-react-to-a-nobelists-climate-thoughts/?_r=0 [Accessed 12 Jun. 2016].