climate change | Jean Goodwin

Browsing All posts tagged under »climate change«

Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates.

February 19, 2019

Goodwin, Jean. (2019). Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1, 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18008.goo A case study of a short televised debate between a climate scientist and an advocate for climate skepticism provides the basis for developing a contemporary conception of sophistry. The sophist has a high degree of argumentative content […]

Re-framing climate controversy: The strategies of The Hartwell Paper

October 8, 2018

Goodwin, Jean. (Forthcoming, 2019) Re-framing climate controversy: The strategies of The Hartwell Paper. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. In the public sphere, standpoints often seem to be locked into pro/con constellations. This essay documents the strategies of “pointing out,” narrative and metaphor used in The Hartwell Paper […]

Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication

January 22, 2016

Goodwin, Jean. (Forthcoming, 2018) Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In Susanna Priest, Jean Goodwin & Michael Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.

September 11, 2015

Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Comment exercer une autorité experte? Un scientifique confronté aux Sceptiques. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15. Retrieved from https://aad.revues.org/2035 [How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics. (2015). How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.] Argumetation theorists’ primary loyalty should be […]

Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the Sceptics: A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement.

September 11, 2015

Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the Sceptics: A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat. Retrieved from http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2014-climate-scientist-stephen-schneider-versus-the-sceptics-a-case-study-of-argumentation-in-deep-disagreement/ Can deep disagreement be managed by argument? This case study examines the 2010 exchange between prominent […]

Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates

December 3, 2013

Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists.

Good reasons for trusting climate science communication

July 14, 2012

Scientists can earn trust--but only by making themselves vulnerable.