Not exact matches
The economic
argument also ignores the
environmental cost of accessing lower grade ores, which may outweigh the benefits delivered by the end
uses.
Students analyze persuasive
arguments on subjects ranging from
environmental conservation to legal decisions involving the First Amendment as they learn to identify elements of
argument and to
use rhetorical devices.
I hear echoes of «Wilson's Law» above, and also some resonance with articles I've written focusing on how
environmental and animal - welfare groups, while often working toward shared goals (an end to whaling, for instance) rarely
use the same
arguments, with one focused on population statistics and the other on ethics.
You say that this uncertainty is
used «to argue that
environmental policies based on concerns over global warming are not even worthy of support», but it seems to us that it is less the case that your objection is based on an
argument made as much as the fact that they outlined a difference of opinion.
But now «science» is being
used to make
arguments to limit what newspapers may publish, by left wing and
environmental activists like White.
Her point, it seems, is to show that in the cases of acid rain, CFCs, and
environmental tobacco smoke, these men
used the same
argument: the science was uncertain, concerns were exaggerated, technology will solve the problem, no need for government interference.
Epstein's writing received praise from Patrick Michaels and Matt Ridley on the book's publisher's page, which describes The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels as «the best popular - market book about climate,
environmental policy, and energy,» as well as an «eloquent and powerful
argument for
using fossil fuels on moral grounds.»
In contrast, when the same magazine, in the same month, reported on Harvard scientist Willie Soon's paper in the journal Ecological Complexity, which challenged received wisdom that climate change is imperilling polar bears, the scientific
argument was ignored in favour of speculation about Soon's alleged links to the oil industry, and that the research was part of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the
environmental movement's
use of the polar bear as an icon (New Scientist 1.7.2007).
The hacked e-mails, which were then
used to support the
arguments of global - warming skeptics, appeared to have been distributed through a server in the Siberian oil town of Tomsk, raising suspicion among some
environmental activists of Russia's involvement in the leak....»
When the same magazine, in the same month, reported on Harvard scientist Willie Soon's paper in the journal Ecological Complexity, which challenged received wisdom that climate change is imperilling polar bears, the scientific
argument was ignored in favour of speculation about Soon's alleged links to the oil industry, and that the research was part of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the
environmental movement's
use of the polar bear as an icon.