Understanding Asthma Particularly Well

Exposing the Global Warming Hoax

It is not possible for the prudent reader to agree with Alford's article "Myth: Global warming, environmental racism." The author relies on far too many emotional appeals, unsubstantiated claims, and oversimplifications for any true credibility. It appears he is either ignorant about the issues he writes about, or willing to ignore them for the sake of big business and perhaps his own personal interest in it. His claim that there is no correlation between increasing ozone levels and the burgeoning incidence of asthma is not true, nor even argued very well.

There are myriad ways in which the author has oversimplified what is a complex issue. Most eminently is his conviction that because he has listed the triggers and risk factors for asthma, growing levels of ozone are unrelated to this condition. Granted, ozone is not one of the triggers of asthma; few people would expect it to be. However, the link between ozone and asthma is explored in an article by Naik (2007) in which there is original research that determines that allergy causing plants -- a fact that even Alford acknowledges -- grow faster and more abundantly in areas in which there are higher levels of pollution and temperatures. The author implies that increased temperature and pollution is caused by higher levels of ozone. Alford would have one believe that because ozone is not listed as a trigger or risk factor for this condition that it is unrelated. However, higher levels of ozone increase the growth of known allergen causing plants, which is a link that seemingly disproves Alford's claims.

Alford has also made some egregiously unsubstantiated claims that weaken his argument and overall conviction. Specifically, he writes (2015), "...air ozone levels have been decreasing on a yearly basis. Consistently, our ozone levels are reducing at a very impressive rate." These claims seem to support his argument, until one realizes that there is no evidence to validate them. In fact, there is no evidence in any of this article. The author does not cite any facts, statistics, research studies, or other forms of empirical evidence. Instead, he seems to think that his mere mentioning of what is only his opinion (without substantiated evidence) is enough to convince readers of his viewpoint. Utilizing some sort of facts would have abetted his cogency; without them, his claims seem a little hollow and credulous.

Without concrete facts to buttress his viewpoint, the author is forced to rely on emotional appeals and rhetorical devices that hinge upon extreme language selection. The emotional involvement of the author is denoted in the several places of this article. Nonetheless, the most prominent of these examples is illustrated in his categorization of the link purported by environmentalists between asthma and ozone as "a direct attempt to cripple America. They feel that we are too big and too strong. Shame on use for achieving and maintaining greatness" (Alford, 2015). Alleging that environmentalists are trying to "cripple" the country is an instance in which the author is utilizing extreme diction in the attempts of evoking an emotional response from the reader. This tendency is reinforced by stating, sarcastically, that those note part of this movement are worthy of "shame," because they are propagating some form of "greatness" that the environmental movement is hindering. What the author is actually doing with this sort of extreme rhetoric and emotional appeals is changing the nature of his argument. Towards the end of the article he is no longer arguing that the link between ozone and asthma is false; he is contending that environmentalists are part of some sort of conspiracy to hinder the efforts of big business in the country. The author is forced to utilize such rhetorical tactics to mask the fact that he has not sufficiently convinced the reader of his point otherwise, mostly because his stance lacks facts.