Cover not available

In: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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 9
Radically reframing the climate debate

The rhetorical strategies of The Hartwell Paper

 | North Carolina State University, USA
Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.09goo
Article outline
  • References
References (32)
References
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2017). Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. (2000). Comments on [Jacobs’] ‘Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics’. Argumentation, 14, 287–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Henry W. Johnstone’s still unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 21, 41–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Sophistical refutations in the climate change debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(1), 40–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Shaming in and into argumentation. Argumentation, 21, 379–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (2007). The philosophical basis of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 40(1), 15–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation, 14, 241–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. (2014). Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. WIREs Climate Change 5, 809–823. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Choosing to argue: Towards a theory of argumentative decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 153–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Why argue? Towards a cost–benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 71–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Prins, G., & Rayner, S. (2007). The wrong trousers: Radically rethinking climate policy. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 103–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shellenberger, M., & Nordhaus, T. (2004). The death of environmentalism: Global warming politics in a post-environmental world. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

van Eemeren, Frans H. & Bart Garssen
2019. A collection of studies of argumentation in practice. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue