discussion post at least 300 words.

Example of post:

1. The biggest problem I have with the data is the context, or lack of context, in which they are presented. Furthermore, none of the data indicate to me that global temperatures have not been rising as a result of human actions. The crux of Michaels and Rossiter's argument is based on the implication that global temperature data were adjusted unfairly to manipulate them into showing a trend that wasn't there. But they give no context for the adjustments, they only say that they happened and give no analysis or explanation as to why the adjustments shouldn't have been made or how the adjustments led to a misinterpretation of the data. Another problem I have is the authors' reasoning that because global temperatures aren't as high as certain climate models predicted they would be, that means that predictions of climate catastrophes are unfounded. Small changes in global temperature can lead to large changes in the climate, but presenting those predictions in the context of them being much lower than anticipated downplays the significance of those changes.

2. The problem with this article is that it wants to seem like a scientifically rigorous questioning of climate science, so it misuses and misrepresents data to argue that climate change isn't an established scientific fact. Articles like this one allow businesses, politicians, and individuals to justify their inaction on stopping global warming and make the problem worse. As we continue to rely on fossil fuels, summers in the Central Valley will continue to get hotter and hotter, and the Sacramento River will become more and more precious as it slowly dries away. We need to be hyper-critical when someone argues against well-tested, peer-reviewed, and replicable scientific theories, because it is far more likely that that someone has a personal interest in their refutation than there exists a global scientific conspiracy funded by the fluorescent lightbulb industry. Yes, long-held science has been overturned or greatly expanded upon in the past, but that was the result of decades of research done by a whole community, not the result of an opinion piece from "THE CONSERVATIVE SOURCE AMERICANS DESERVE [sic]."

3. My target demographic contains people who live in my geographical area and consider themselves scientifically-minded. For this audience I chose to question the article's purpose, because they would want to know who was arguing against overwhelming scientific consensus and why. I also spoke on how articles like this one contribute to the worsening of living conditions for our area. Finally, I ended with a bit of humor that plays on my audience's trust of the scientific community and distaste for conservative individualism and anti-intellectualism.