http://vimeopro.com/yalefes/videos/video/31750421

A- 1- As a critical thinker, how much should knowledge about how other Americans feel about this issue affect your own position? Explain your answer.

https://youtu.be/UvLt3nU14W4

B- 1-Using this Climate and Energy Policy page, identify the organization that created this video, explain their stated position on the topic of climate change, and then describe the extent to which you believe this stated purpose affects their credibility.

2-This video asserts that those who believe in climate change are claiming that the earth is on fire, the planet is dying, and it's our fault for living. Explain how this characterization of the opposing side is arguably an example of the "straw man" fallacy.

3-At one point in the video, the narrator says, "Are the people who say they want to save the planet finally going to tell you that many times the only thing that's green about their solutions is the money lining the pockets of corporations heavily invested in so-called "green" technologies? And are they going to admit that the cost of force-feeding these technologies into every aspect of our lives could bankrupt a world already teetering on financial ruin?" Explain how these function as loaded questions.

https://youtu.be/43cyNWLVuac

1-Using this About Us page, identify the organization that created this video, explain their stated position on the topic of climate change, and then describe the extent to which you believe this stated purpose affects their credibility.

2-While this is a video about climate change, the beginning and end of the video spend time offering evidence that information spreads differently and we are more connected than ever before to support the fairly indisputable argument that the world has changed. Explain how this is arguably an example of the fallacy of the "red herring."

3-At one point in the video, the narrator talks about industry "funding politicians who deliberately deny the truth" then almost immediately shows Senator Jeff Sessions. Explain how this functions as innuendo.

4-In addition to presenting verbal claims, both videos use appeals to emotion as persuasive techniques. Reflect on the language, images, and music used in the videos, and then provide one example of an appeal to emotion you see at work in each of the videos.

5-Pay attention to the pronouns used in the videos-"we," "they," and "you." Why do you think the video creators chose to rely heavily on these words? Is there a difference between the way each video uses these same words?

https://youtu.be/YxTw3EbUWKo

C- 1-During her argument, Katrina vanden Heuvel quotes a British government official who called global-warming skeptics "climate loonies." Explain how this is arguably an ad hominem attack.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662

D- 1-Look at the list of scientists who signed the "No Need to Panic" article and the scientists who signed the "Check with Climate Scientists" article, do a web search on at least three from each article to find out their credentials and backgrounds, and then compare your findings. Do you see any biases that might compromise their objectivity? Explain your answer.

2-The "Check with Climate Scientists" article's opening argument consists of comparing the scientists writing the "No Need to Panic" article to dentists practicing cardiology. Do you think this is a fair argument or an example of an ad hominem attack and a weak analogy? Explain your answer.

3-At one point in the "No Need to Panic" article, the authors imply that the current state of science is beginning to resemble the time in the Soviet Union when biologists who believed in genes were sent to the gulag or condemned to death. Do you think this is a fair argument or an example of a slippery slope fallacy or a weak analogy? Explain your answer.

4-How do these articles differ in their portrayal of the economic consequences of fighting climate change, and what support does each article provide for their positions?