In the book, Is the Temperature Rising?

The Uncertain Science of Global Warming,

the author, S. George Philander deals with the issue of why global warming is a
controversial issue. He agrees that global warming is a controversial issue indeed
due to the uncertain science. He makes his position clear by using some words such
as betting, impasse, imminent, false impression and hope that reflect bias language
through which his tone of concern and frustrated is portrayed as he attempts to
expose and share some fact and issue about global warming with the readers so
that we have a better understanding and be more concern about the issue.
He begins his article by stating some fact about an increase in the atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases due to our agricultural and industrial activities
that may lead to global warming. Which then sparks the disagreement between the
experts in term of timing and amplitude of the expected warming which lead to
uncertainties. This argument consist of two group of believers; the one who believe
global warming is happening and the one who assure us that the chances of global
warming are so small. He then share his opinion by using such a brilliant analogy to
describe how a scientist could only do nothing better than estimate or predicting up
until more accurate scientific result id obtain or in the worst case up till it happen in
front of our eyes.
The claims made by the group of people who are against the fact global warming is
happening are basically describing how clueless they are about what is going on
around the world. Their claims which is Global warming is a theory that still has to
be confirmed are totally unacceptable as scientist are all in a complete agreement
that a continual rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will
inevitably lead to global warming. Based on their false impression, they present
some claim namely

Scientific results have uncertainties

Complain of scientists penchant for speaking in term of probabilities and
confidence intervals and propose that, in future, scientists make more
confident forecasts to catch the attention of regulators
We are differing political decision concerning the latter matter because of
scientific uncertainties
The computer models that simulate the earths climate reproduce many aspect
of climate realistically yet the phenomenon is so immensely complex that the
model fail to capture some features
Few critics focus on the flaws of the models and cite those as the reason for
rejecting the results of the models
Until the uncertainties in the scientific result are reduce, we should not
implement any policies for fear that those policies will put our economy in risk

Reacting towards the negativity thought, the author immediately presents a

counter-argument concerning that the global warming has started and that disaster
is imminent. He does admit that environmental problem are so complex that precise
scientific prediction are almost impossible. Thus, considering so, this argument are
a complete argument. The counter-argument are

Scientist can do nothing better than estimating and predicting

The scientist sounded a timely alert but poor judgement on the part of policy
makers contributed to disaster
We are hoping that scientist will soon produce precise estimated but that,
unfortunately, is an unrealistic wish
Most of members of scientific community have sufficient confidence in the
models to accept the forecast concerning future climate changes
Those skeptic play a valuable scientific role by forcing a re-examination of
assumption made in the models, thus contribute to continual improvement of
the models
Economics depends on human behavior, and determining whether a certain
policy will benefit or harm the economy is even more difficult than determining
how greenhouse gases will affect the climate

The author makes good use of the historical fact which is the over fishing in New
England and Eastern Canada, fluctuate high temperature in 1990s and El Nino
phenomenon to literally describing how hard a scientist do research to came out
with a result which some of it are barely accepted by the people.
The author generally appears to be deductive in his reasoning, as he provide all the
general fact, opinion and historical fact and then, attempts to specific. Paragraph V
present an example of deductive reasoning. Obviously, the author are doing his best
to counter argue with the false impression of certain people or opinion.
In summary, everyone wants a comfortable and good environment and would do
anything to obtain it. His last argument that a sensible compromises and action to
correct mistakes at early stage are the best solution when it comes to such a
sensitive and complex situation just like global warming; uncertainties do not justify
inaction. Overall, his argument is convincing even though lack of support, yet, he
himself, S. George Philander, a geoscientist at Princeton University would not make
any worse.