Opinion Column Worksheet

Global Weirding
Thomas Friedman
New York Times, February 17th 2010
Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the
argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate
change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable
energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.
When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to
keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’” or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe
of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New
Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue
anymore. […]

Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of
climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science
community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national
laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of
Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report.
They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate
change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed
footnotes. […]

Here are the points I like to stress:

1. Avoid the term “global warming.” I prefer the term “global weirding,” because that is what
actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets
weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most
violent storms more numerous. The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington — while
it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year
drought — is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The
weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become
drier than ever.
 
2. Historically, we know that the climate has warmed and cooled slowly, going from Ice
Ages to warming periods, driven, in part, by changes in the earth’s orbit and hence the
amount of sunlight different parts of the earth get. What the current debate is about is
whether humans — by emitting so much carbon and thickening the greenhouse-gas blanket
around the earth so that it traps more heat — are now rapidly exacerbating nature’s natural
warming cycles to a degree that could lead to dangerous disruptions.
 
3. Those who favor taking action are saying: “Because the warming that humans are doing
is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let’s buy some insurance — by investing in
renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit — because this insurance will also
actually make us richer and more secure.” We will import less oil, invent and export more
clean-tech products, send fewer dollars overseas to buy oil and, most importantly, diminish
the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund
terrorists and the schools that nurture them.
 
 4. Even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is
forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people between now and 2050, more and more
of whom will live like Americans, demand for renewable energy and clean water is going to
soar. It is obviously going to be the next great global industry.
China, of course, understands that, which is why it is investing heavily in clean-tech, efficiency
and high-speed rail. It sees the future trends and is betting on them. Indeed, I suspect China is
quietly laughing at us right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are
high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming
confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and,
therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia. 

Defining Characteristics-Opinion Column

Voice - This refers to many aspects of language including word choice, verb tense, tone and imagery.

Newsworthy - Is the column relevant to its time? What makes it newsworthy?

Call to action - Columnist usually call on the reader to become involved or care about an issue. 

Humor - This is really an aspect of voice. Humor usual helps readers see a topic through
an original and fun perspective. 

Hard facts - This aspect of newsworthiness gives an opinion column credibility.

Logos - Appealing to logic will help persuade your readers.

Voice – “Drill, baby, drill” and “Yes sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia” can show
sarcastic tone used by the writer to express his ideas.

Newsworthy – The writer refers to the recent events in the news which can
affect all the readers. The reference to the recent weather conditions and
senators’ tweet can also make it seem newsworthy.

Call to action – The writer offers a solution to the problem of confusion about
climate change. His solution includes a 50-page report by the top researchers
on the topic.

Humour – By referring to Global Warming as ‘Global weirding’, the writer

Logos – The writer explains how it makes sense to invest in green technology.
He makes a well-reasoned argument to make America less dependent on other
countries. The writer also uses an example of the argument that climate
change is not real because “Washington is having a particularly snowy winter”
to appeal to the reader’s logic. He is implying that just because Washington is
having winter does not mean that the effects of climate change are not real.
This allows the readers to question the rightfulness of the politicians.