Browsing All posts tagged under »climate change«

Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level

August 1, 2020

0

Goodwin, Jean. (2020). Should climate scientists fly? A case study of arguments at the system level. Informal Logic, 40(2), 157-203.

Radically reframing the climate debate: The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper

November 1, 2019

0

Goodwin, Jean. (2019). Radically reframing the climate debate: The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper. In Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, Argumentation in actual practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context (pp. 157-72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates.

February 19, 2019

0

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

0

Goodwin, Jean. (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.

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

January 22, 2016

1

Goodwin, Jean. (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

0

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

0

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/ 

Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates

December 3, 2013

21

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

0

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

The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the manufacture of consensus

July 14, 2012

0

"Consensus" as the strategy selected by scientists associated with the IPCC--a poor rhetorical choice.

Blog at WordPress.com.