PHL 137: Assignment 2 - Report
Broad Standardisation of Argument
1.1 The UNFCCC proposes that in order to reduce climate change, developed countries will provide financial aid to developing country parties to help them meet their targets as outlined by the convention
1.2.1 Undeveloped nations are asking for lots of money from developed nations to meet their targets
1.2 The main financial entity of the convention, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is merely a mechanism to redistribute wealth from developed countries to poorer nations and not reduce climate change
1.3 Australia is classified as a developed nation*
1.4.1 No amount of money spent on climate change will enable us to control the temperature of the earth
1.4. We will waste money and risk economic collapse if we continue to support the UNFCCC
1. It is not in Australia’s financial interest to be signatory to the UNFCCC
[1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are linked in support of 1]
2.1.1 According to satellite data there has been no warming for the past 18 years
2.1.2 Climate change is the invention of politicians
2.1 Global warming [the cause of climate change] doesn’t exist
2.2 Global warming is not responsible for all the disasters of climate change the UN claims it is
2.3.1 A recent survey of Americans show that most do not think climate change is cause by human activity
2.3.2 Robert Laughlin a Nobel Prize laureate, physicist and scholar admits that nothing we could do could harm the planet
2.3 Climate change is not caused by human activity as the UNFCCC suggests
2. There is no reason for the 4000 delegates [including Australia] to meet in Paris for the UNFCCC [and resolve the issues of anthropogenic climate change]
3.1 UN Executive Secretary, Figueres announced the UNFCCC’s intentions to destroy capitalism before the Paris conference
3. The true purpose of the UNFCCC is to end capitalism
4.1 Australia is a capitalist nation*
4. It would not be in Australia’s interest for Capitalism to be destroyed*
[Premise 3 and 4 are linked in support of the Conclusion]
[Premises 1, 2 and 3 are convergent in support of the Conclusion]
[Premises 1, 2 and 4 are convergent in support of the Conclusion]
C: Australia should cease involvement in the Paris global warming conference and its proposed UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Analysis of Argument and Rhetoric Devices
Premise 1
Premise 1 argues from a monetary viewpoint; that the UNFCCC’s proposals to have wealthier countries fund poorer nations in order to reduce climate change is not only flawed but unnecessary and would be a financial drain to Australia. However there are a few problems with this argument. The writer implies that the UNFCCC is corrupt since the GCF is a disguised means of equalising wealth between wealthier and poorer nations. However after standardising there appears to be no solid evidence for this intention of the GCF and falls into the trap of begging the question: The UNFCCC proposes for developed nations to give undevelo...
