Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 157–172

Chapter 9
Radically reframing the climate debate

The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper

Article outline
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.09goo
References
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M.
(2017) Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. Jacobs, S.
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.
(2000) Comments on [Jacobs’] ‘Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics’. Argumentation, 14, 287–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Henry W. Johnstone’s still unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 21, 41–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(1), 40–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
History [of Hartwell House]
n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Innocenti, B.
(2011) Countering questionable tactics by crying foul. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47, 178–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Shaming in and into argumentation. Argumentation, 21, 379–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S.
(2008) Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinence-only sex education. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 215–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S.
(2000) Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, H. W., Jr.
(2007) The philosophical basis of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 40(1), 15–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J.
(1998) Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 97–118). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) What are we learning about the arguers’ probative obligations. In S. Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument (pp. 1–31). Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
Leff, M.
(2000) Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation, 14, 241–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Rhetoric and dialectic in Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 255–268). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
(2014) Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, M.
(2014) Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. WIREs Climate Change 5, 809–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paglieri, F.
(2009) Ruinous arguments: Escalation of disagreement and the dangers of arguing. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
(2013) Choosing to argue: Towards a theory of argumentative decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 153–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) On the rationality of argumentative decisions. In F. Bex, F. Grasso, N. Green, F. Paglieri, & C. Reed (Eds.), Argument technologies: Theory, analysis, and applications. Milton Keynes: College Publications.Google Scholar
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C.
(2010) Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 71–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson, & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center
(2014) Political polarization in the American public: How increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise and everyday life. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Prins, G., & Rayner, S.
(2007) The wrong trousers: Radically rethinking climate policy. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Prins, G., Cook, M., Green, C., Hulme, M., Korhola, A., Pielke, R. A. Jr.,von Storch, H.
(2009) How to get climate policy back on course. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Prins, G., Galiana, I., Green, C., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Korhola, A.,Tezuka, H.
(2010) The Hartwell paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Retrieved from [URL]
Rescher, N.
(1998) The role of rhetoric in rational argumentation. Argumentation, 12, 315–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Uzelgun, M. A.
(2019) Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(1), 12–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheufele, D.
(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 103–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T.
(2004) The death of environmentalism: Global warming politics in a post-environmental world. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar