The underlying view and unstated assumption of the author is that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. The author gives physical examples and demonstrations as evidence for his assertions. He also acknowledges the sceptical view that his claims do not "sound like a lot" but goes on to explain his reasoning in a logical fashion. The written portion of the article is cited, with both academic and popular sources - among these sources are highly esteemed scientific journals such as "Science" and "Nature." Neither the video nor the writing seem to address the concerns of the sceptical/denier community - but the article seems to be acting as a basic information provider rather than a debate.
I think that the viewpoint of this author is more or less balanced, as the sources of information are credible and the tone of the piece is not one of persuasion, but rather education. Ideas, reasons, evidence and conclusions are presented in a linear and connected manner so that logic can be followed. Language is not styled as opinion, but presents information and evidence first and conclusions afterward - there is no personal voice in the written section of the article, and there are no grand assertions or shocking predictions for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment