Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates

References

1. Bauman, Y.
   2018, September24. Taking fire from both sides [Blog post]. Retrieved fromstandupeconomist.com/taking-fire-from-both-sides/
2. Boykoff, M.
   2007 Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(2), 470–481. 10.1111/j.1475‑4762.2007.00769.x
   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x [Google Scholar]
3. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M.
   2004 Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136. doi:  10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 [Google Scholar]
4. C-SPAN
   C-SPAN 2009 U.N. Climate Change Opening Ceremony. Retrieved fromhttps://www.c-span.org/video/?290493-1/un-climate-change-opening-ceremony&start=2307
5. Ceccarelli, L.
   2011 Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. 10.1353/rap.2010.0222
   https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2010.0222 [Google Scholar]
6. Collins, H., & Evans, R.
   2002 The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. 10.1177/0306312702032002003
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003 [Google Scholar]
7. Fairclough, I.
   2019 Deontic power and institutional contexts: The impact of institutional design on deliberation and decision-making in the UK fracking debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context8(1), pp.136–171. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
   https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai [Google Scholar]
8. Gagarin, M.
   2001 Did the sophists aim to persuade?Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 19(3), 275–291. doi:  10.1525/rh.2001.19.3.275
   https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2001.19.3.275 [Google Scholar]
9. Glassman, M.
   2015 Stopping the spin cycle: ‘Merchants of Doubt’ debunks deceit. Documentary Magazine 2015(Winter).
   [Google Scholar]
10. Goodnight, G. T.
    1982 The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Goodwin, J.
    2002 Designing issues. InF. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp.81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7 [Google Scholar]
12. Goodwin, J.
    2005 Designing premises. InF. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp.99–114). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.09goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.09goo [Google Scholar]
13. Goodwin, J.
    2018 Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. InS. Priest, J. Goodwin, & M. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Goodwin, J., & Honeycutt, L.
    2009 When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 19–30.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Gore, D. C.
    2011 Sophists and sophistry in the Wealth of Nations. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 44(1), 1–26. doi:  10.1353/par.2011.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2011.0001 [Google Scholar]
16. Hamblin, C. L.
    1993 Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Hawhee, D.
    2002 Agonism and arete. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 35(3), 185–207. doi:  10.1353/par.2003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1353/par.2003.0004 [Google Scholar]
18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Retrieved fromwww.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/. 10.1017/CBO9780511546013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546013 [Google Scholar]
19. Jackson, S.
    1998 Disputation by design. Argumentation, 12, 183–198. 10.1023/A:1007743830491
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007743830491 [Google Scholar]
20. Jackson, S.
    2015 Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29(3), 243–263. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9353‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7 [Google Scholar]
21. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W.
    2003 The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. doi:  10.1111/1467‑8624.00605
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605 [Google Scholar]
22. Leff, M.
    1986 Textual criticism: The legacy of G. P. Mohrmann. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72(4), 377–389. doi:  10.1080/00335638609383783
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638609383783 [Google Scholar]
23. Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
    2014 Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
24. Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
    2019 The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.65–90. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew [Google Scholar]
25. Liberman, K.
    2008 Sophistry in and as its course. Argumentation, 22(1), 59–70. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑007‑9070‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9070-y [Google Scholar]
26. Maslin, M.
    2004 Global warming: A very short introduction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Miller, F. D.
    2013 Aristotle on belief and knowledge. InG. Anagnostopoulos & F. D. J. Miller (Eds.), (pp.285–307). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
28. Musi, E. & Aakhus, M.
    2019 Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.112–135. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus [Google Scholar]
29. Morano, M.
    2009 Climate Depot’s TV Debate in Copenhagen: UK Warming Prof. falsely claims ‘5000 leading climate scientists’ in UN IPCC – Morano Counters: ‘You need to apologize and retract that immediately’. Retrieved fromwww.climatedepot.com/2009/12/12/climate-depots-tv-debate-in-copenhagen-uk-warming-prof-falsely-claims-5000-leading-climate-scientists-in-un-ipcc-morano-counters-you-need-to-apologize-and-retract-that-immediately/
30. Olivier, B.
    2007 Pseudo-communication and the return of the sophist: Thank you for smoking, at first sight. Communicatio, 33(2), 45–62. doi:  10.1080/02500160701685409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02500160701685409 [Google Scholar]
31. Olson, R.
    2010a #17) Interview with Marc Morano, Part I: “The Muhammad Ali of Global Warming ‘Debating’”. Retrieved fromthebenshi.com/?p=557
32. Olson, R.
    2010b #18) Interview with Marc Morano, Part II: Naming Names (Bill McKibben, Exxon Mobil, George Monbiot, Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Romm, Dan Weiss, Robert Murtha, Mike Mann, Ed Begley, Jr., Andy Revkin, and Ralph Cicerone). Retrieved fromthebenshi.com/?p=608
33. Olson, R.
    2010c #19) Analysis: Why Marc Morano is such a good communicator. Retrieved fromthebenshi.com/?p=664
34. Parsons, D.
    2017 Deconstructing a climate change skeptic: A podcast with Marc Morano. Retrieved fromamericaadapts.org/2017/08/07/deconstructing-a-climate-skeptic-the-marc-morano-podcast/
35. Richardson, J. H.
    2010 This man wants to convince you global warming is a hoax. Esquire. Retrieved fromhttps://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a7078/marc-morano-0410/
    [Google Scholar]
36. Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S.
    2010 Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. 10.1007/s10503‑010‑9190‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 [Google Scholar]
37. Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Uzelgun, M. A.
    2019 Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.12–39. 10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod [Google Scholar]
38. Scott, E. C.
    2004 Confronting creationism. Reports of the National Council for Science Education, 24(6), 23.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Shulman, L. S.
    1986 Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4. doi:  10.2307/1175860
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860 [Google Scholar]
40. Shulman, L. S.
    1987 Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. doi:  10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
    https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar]
41. Uzelgun, M. A., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P.
    2016 Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: Arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations. Science Communication, 38(6) 699–723. doi:  10.1177/1075547016676602
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016676602 [Google Scholar]
42. Van Laar, J. A.
    2010 Argumentative bluff in eristic discussion: An analysis and evaluation. Argumentation, 24(3), 383–398. doi:  10.1007/s10503‑010‑9184‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9184-5 [Google Scholar]
43. Van Laar, J. A., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
    2019 Criticism and justification of negotiated compromises: The 2015 Paris agreement in Dutch parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), pp.91–111. doi: 10.1075/jaic.18009.laa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18009.laa [Google Scholar]
44. Vonnegut, K.
    1961 Harrison Bergeron. Retrieved fromwww.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
45. videoScribble
    videoScribble 2009, December12). DevelopingWorld Told to Make Sacrifices to Save the Planet [Video File]. Retrievedfromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgPJnvgCSb4
    [Google Scholar]
46. Whedbee, K. E.
    2008 Making the worse case appear the better: British reception of the Greek sophists prior to 1850. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 11(4), 603–630. doi:  10.1353/rap.0.0069
    https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.0.0069 [Google Scholar]
47. Zarefsky, D.
    2014 Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation: Selected essays by David Zarefsky (pp.87–101): Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑05485‑8_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_8