Q.1 THINKING PASSAGES: GLOBAL WARMING (350 or More)
The three passages on global warming offer very different views on the validity of the concept. You should answer the questions at the end of the section to help them understand each article’s argument completely. Please look up the background of each writer and explain how that background might influence how they view the topic of global warming.
The issue of the reliability of sources and the way source material is being presented is also a topic for fiction. You need to evaluate the accuracy of information they gain through characters’ dialogue in a short story, for example. Employing a variety of standards or criteria may be a challenge, because the number of sources from which to gain information is limited. Some of the articles listed in the bibliography are intended to offer students additional practice in assessing the usefulness and reliability of sources. A good way to demonstrate this is with the use of a first-person narrative such as a Tom Wingfield’s famous closing speech in the play The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams. Explain the storyline of the play to students, then have them read the monologue. Ask them to consider where the character of Tom might be altering the truth and why.
TEXTBOOK(S) AND REQUIRED MATERIALS:
Title: Thinking Critically
Author: Chaffee
Publisher: Cengage
Year Published: 2019
Edition: 12th
ISBN: 10: xxxxxxxxxx or 13: 9780357690109
Q.2 Write a reply for this in 150 words(Chris)
Authors Ken Calderia, Patrick Buchanan, and Tyler Hamilton indeed have distinct backgrounds and perspectives regarding global warming. But before we dig deep into the writers’ points of views, let’s understand what global warming is. Global warming refers to the rise of the planet’s total median temperature within recent eras (National Geographic, n.d.). With natural processes already playing their role, humans have contributed to a temperature upsurge in a negative way. For instance, the fossil fuels (Coal, Oil, Natural Gas) we use have dangerously contributed to rapid global temperatures. As a result, droughts, wildfires, and extreme storms have become reality along with alterations of ecosystems that encourage animals to migrate to cooler places to live (National Geographic n.d.).
According to the passage by Ken Calderia, he mentions how one of the biggest concerns is the amount of CO2 released into the planet’s atmosphere (Chaffee, 2018). In addition, how on-going usage of fossil fuels will continue to destroy earth until the fuels are no longer accessible. He also mentions how vast amounts of CO2 in the oceans cause the dissolution of shells and skeletons of countless marine organisms. Lastly, how climate change has alternated the planet to the point where the waxing and decreasing of large ice sheets have been affected (Chaffee, 2018).
Mr. Caldeira’s’ credentials as a senior scientist expand into a realm of analyzation regarding earth’s climate system. For years he has focused on land coverage and climate change, extended evolution of climate and geochemical cycles; and has experience with climate intervention proposals and energy technology (Caldeira, 2025). Most notably, he has had “One” task to accomplish for an exceptionally long time… and that is to make scientific breakthroughs. Therefore, given his experience and knowledge, it has played a key role on his beliefs regarding the effects of CO2 on the plant; and overall effects of global warming effects.
Patrick Buchanan focuses on how the “So-called” global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes of the century. To support his claim, he discusses how the hoax about how man evolved from a monkey when a man’s cranium was discovered with the jaw of an ape. This unearthing was successful in convincing people as skeptics were ridiculed, while three (3) English scientists became validated and recognized (Chaffee, 2018). Years later, after further investigation, it was uncovered that the cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman; and the bones were dyed to age while the jaw of an orangutan was filed to mimic human teeth. Thus, making this alleged discovery one of the biggest hoaxes of the 20th century. Hence the reason why global warming is viewed as another great joke (Chaffee, 2018). Mr. Buchanan’s read also entailed how polar bears were not disappearing, sea levels were not mounting, cities were not getting smaller; how beaches have remained and temperatures have not increased since the late 90’s. Therefore, further emphasizing how global warming is another tactic used by politicians to keep the population alarmed; and appearing as heroes with falsified projected imaginations (Chaffee, 2018).
Given Patrick Buchanan’s credentials as a paleoconservative American journalist, politician, commentator, and author; his political career route indefinitely plays the most significant role regarding how he observes global warming (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2025). Think about it… how else would he know the ins and out’s about how politicians playing on the minds of millions? His literary work depicted in the “Thinking Critically” read not only comes with supportive details; but from one who has experienced the political spotlight. For Mr. Buchanan to come from behind the curtain and tell the truth about political manipulation says a mouth full.
Writer Tyler Hamilton points a finger at the media regarding hoe onlookers perceive global warming. Apparently, media outlets have provided platforms for non-qualified scientists to speak about the subject and their un-verified takes without supportive evidence (Chaffee, J. 2018). For instance, Julio Betancourt, a Senior Scientist at U.S. Geological Survey, educated reporters about detectible impacts of global warming. He expressed how the consequences included drought, persistent forest fires, migration of animals, hotter and longer seasons; decreased snowpacks, and advanced snow melting. After the media acquired these details, the reporters published his information in an expanding peer-review journal as a worst case scenario (Chaffee, 2018). As a result, after the commentary became public, web logs assumed regulation over the content and society’s misunderstanding of global warming began (Chaffee, 2018). Therefore, the issue is not about the details portrayed by the scientist, it is whether or not the information can be supported with “Bulletproof” evidence.
Tyler Hamilton brings his experience as a Senior Director of Climate at MaRS to the table; and one who acts as a guide for countless climate related activities. His involvement includes being a member of the Ontario Clean Technology Industry Association (OCTIA) and the XPRIZE Brian Trust. He is a journalist with twenty (20) years or more of experience; and has written detailed works regarding Canada’s clean technology sector and global cleantech trends (MaRS Discovery District, 2023). With his extensive background in reporting, it is not surprising how he is capable of identifying the lack of evidence scientists conjure in their reporting; and how media outlets freely give un-recognized scientists a platform just to present the “Latest” story. Mr. Hamilton’s credentials undoubtedly influence his observations on global warming to include those who report on it with a lack of evidence and credible authorization.
References
Caldeira, K. (2025, September 30). Carnegie Science. https://carnegiescience.edu/bio/dr-ken-caldeira-emeritus
Chaffee, J. (2018). Thinking critically. Cengage Learning.
MaRS Discovery District. (2023, October 13). Tyler Hamilton – MARS Discovery District. https://www.marsdd.com/bio/tyler-hamilton/
National Geographic (n.d.). Global warming. (n.d.). https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/global-warming/
Q.3 Write a reply for this in 150 words (Sar)
Authors Ken Caldeira, Patrick Buchanan, and Tyler Hamilton each bring distinct backgrounds and perspectives to the topic of global warming. Before analyzing their viewpoints, it is essential to understand what global warming is. Global warming refers to the rise in the Earth’s average temperature over recent decades (National Geographic, n.d.). While natural processes play a role, human activities—particularly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas—have accelerated this warming. The resulting increase in global temperatures has led to more frequent droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather events, along with significant disruptions to ecosystems as animals migrate to cooler habitats (National Geographic, n.d.).
Ken Caldeira: The Scientist’s Perspective
In his passage, Ken Caldeira emphasizes the dangers of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and their impact on the planet’s systems (Chaffee, 2018). He warns that continued fossil fuel use will damage the Earth until those resources are depleted. Caldeira also highlights how rising CO₂ levels in oceans dissolve the shells and skeletons of marine organisms, and how global warming has disrupted the growth and retreat cycles of major ice sheets.
Caldeira’s background as a senior climate scientist deeply informs his perspective. His research focuses on the Earth’s climate system, including land coverage, geochemical cycles, and climate intervention technologies (Caldeira, 2025). His long career in scientific analysis gives him a data-driven understanding of global warming, leading him to view it as a real and urgent threat. His scientific expertise allows him to conclude from empirical evidence rather than ideology, which strengthens his argument about the harmful effects of CO₂ and fossil fuel dependency.
Patrick Buchanan: The Political Skeptic
Patrick Buchanan, by contrast, rejects the idea of global warming altogether, calling it one of the greatest hoaxes of the century. To illustrate his skepticism, Buchanan draws a parallel between global warming and the famous scientific fraud of the “Piltdown Man” hoax—a falsified fossil once believed to be the missing link between apes and humans (Chaffee, 2018). Buchanan argues that just as the Piltdown Man deceived the public and the scientific community, so too has global warming been exaggerated by politicians and scientists for power and attention. He disputes claims about rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and vanishing polar bears, framing global warming as a political tool used to manipulate public fear (Chaffee, 2018).
Buchanan’s background as a conservative political commentator, author, and former presidential adviser (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025) clearly shapes his perspective. His career in politics has exposed him to media narratives, partisan strategies, and public persuasion tactics, leading him to distrust governmental and scientific institutions that advocate for climate action. His skepticism is rooted not in scientific analysis but in political ideology and experience, reflecting a broader conservative trend that questions environmental regulation and scientific consensus.
Tyler Hamilton: The Journalist’s Analysis of Media Influence
Tyler Hamilton takes a middle-ground position by focusing not on whether global warming is real, but on how it is communicated to the public. He argues that the media often gives a platform to unqualified commentators who spread misinformation (Chaffee, 2018). Hamilton recounts how journalists’ misinterpretations of legitimate scientific findings—such as those by Julio Betancourt from the U.S. Geological Survey—distorted the public’s understanding of climate change. The issue, according to Hamilton, is not with the data itself but with the lack of rigorous, evidence-based reporting that fuels public confusion.
Hamilton’s background as the Senior Director of Climate at MaRS Discovery District and as a journalist specializing in clean technology (MaRS Discovery District, 2023) informs his position. With over twenty years of experience in environmental journalism, he is acutely aware of how information can be misrepresented by the media. His career has focused on promoting credible science and innovation in clean energy, giving him both the insight and motivation to call for greater journalistic responsibility in covering global warming.
Conclusion
Ken Caldeira, Patrick Buchanan, and Tyler Hamilton each interpret the issue of global warming through the lens of their professional experiences. Caldeira’s scientific background drives his concern for the measurable dangers of climate change; Buchanan’s political career fuels his skepticism and distrust of scientific consensus; and Hamilton’s journalistic experience leads him to critique how media miscommunication distorts public perception. Together, their differing perspectives reveal how personal background and expertise profoundly influence one’s stance on complex global issues like climate change.
References:
Caldeira, K. (2025). Profile: Ken Caldeira. Carnegie Institution for Science. https://carnegiescience.edu/staff/ken-caldeira
Chaffee, J. (2018). Thinking critically (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
MaRS Discovery District. (2023). Tyler Hamilton – Senior Director, Climate. https://www.marsdd.com/tyler-hamilton
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2025). Patrick Buchanan: American political commentator and author. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Patrick-Buchanan
SOLUTION
Reply to Chris (150 words)
Chris, your analysis provides a strong and balanced overview of how each author’s background shapes their stance on global warming. I especially appreciate how you connected Ken Caldeira’s extensive scientific experience with his concern about CO₂ emissions and ocean acidification. You’re right that his empirical, data-driven approach contrasts sharply with Patrick Buchanan’s politically rooted skepticism. Buchanan’s framing of global warming as a “hoax” reflects how ideology can influence interpretation of scientific evidence—a reminder of the importance of evaluating bias in all sources (Chaffee, 2018). I also agree with your insight about Tyler Hamilton’s focus on media responsibility; misinformation can significantly distort public understanding of climate change. Your post highlights a key point in critical thinking: the credibility of evidence often depends on the expertise and motivations of the source. Excellent synthesis of how experience and perspective influence the perceived validity of environmental claims.
Reference:
Chaffee, J. (2018). Thinking critically (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Reply to Sar (150 words)
Sar, your response offers a thoughtful and detailed examination of how professional background shapes each author’s perception of global warming. I particularly liked how you emphasized Ken Caldeira’s scientific credentials and evidence-based reasoning, which contrast well with Patrick Buchanan’s politically influenced skepticism. Your explanation of Buchanan’s distrust in scientific consensus aligns with how political ideology can shape public opinion about climate issues (Chaffee, 2018). I also found your discussion of Tyler Hamilton’s perspective insightful—especially his critique of media sensationalism, which can amplify misinformation and reduce public trust in science. This point reinforces how media literacy is essential for accurate interpretation of environmental information. Your conclusion neatly ties together how science, politics, and journalism intersect to shape public understanding of global warming. Overall, your analysis demonstrates excellent critical thinking and awareness of authorial bias in source evaluation.
Reference:
Chaffee, J. (2018). Thinking critically (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
The post reply to Chris’s post (Q.2) followed by a 150-word reply to Sar’s post (Q.3). Both appeared first on Skilled Papers.
