Using well-selected evidence from Nathaniel Rich’s article : “Losing the earth”, the documentary Merchants of Doubt*, and providing careful and clear reasoning, answer the following question:
If Nathaniel Rich had published his article this August, just before the Presidential elections, rather than in August 2018, just before the Midterm elections, would the article succeed in persuading voters to go to the polls to cast their votes based on a desire to protect the earth’s climate? What might keep voters from this choice? Does Rich’s article overcome the continued claim that there is “no scientific consensus on the cause of climate change”? or can readers still maintain this claim after reading “Losing Earth”?
Ask yourself the following questions:
What is the most persuasive evidence that Rich provides in his article?
What is the least persuasive evidence that he provides?
Does Rich do enough to reveal the “selling of doubt” that fossil fuel companies have funded?
In your conclusion, tell us: What do you think reluctant voters would need to hear to persuade them that the climate is worth protecting?
Include at least one image (it can be a graph, a photo that illustrates an issue you’re discussing. Avoid generic images representing climate change. Choose an image that is directly relevant to a specific idea you’re discussing, for example, the Keeling Curve.)
“Losing the earth”: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html
“Merchant of doubt”: https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Patricia-Callahan/dp/B00YO2IC3W/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UYFEQ52I7ST7&dchild=1&keywords=merchants+of+doubt+movie&qid=1600793779&sprefix=Merchants+of+Doubt%2Caps%2C204&sr=8-1