Zaid Ali Alsagoff [email_address] Module 3: Arguments Part 2

Do You Agree with Him? Why? Source: http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg

An Inconvenient Truth Must See: An Inconvenient Truth (Video). URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=%22Inconvenient+truth%22&hl=en Futurama explains Global Warming - as used in An Inconvenient Truth - Google Video. URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7826207674342179094&q=%22global+warming%22&hl=en Climate Crises (site): http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Global Warming Projections Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Global Warming Predictions Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Risks and Impacts of Global Warming Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Sea Level Projections Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

Sea Ice Thickness Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Predictions_of_Future_Change_Gallery

The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect

Module 3: Arguments - Part 2 (of 3) 1. Distinguishing Fact & Opinion 7. Evaluating Arguments 2. What is an Argument? 5. Deduction & Induction 6. Analyzing Arguments 8. Writing Arguments 3. Identifying Premises & Conclusions 4. What Is Not an Argument? Arguments

Deduction & Induction “ When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones!”

Remember! Before we can effectively analyze and evaluate an argument, we need to understand clearly what kind of argument is being offered.

Before we can effectively analyze and evaluate an argument, we need to understand clearly what kind of argument is being offered.

3.5 Deduction & Induction Argument 1 All Humans are Mortal. P. Ramlee is human. Therefore, P. Ramlee is Mortal. Argument 2 All of Yasmin Ahmad‘ s movies have been good. Therefore, Yasmin Ahmad‘ s next movie will probably be good . Arguments below deductive or inductive? Types of Arguments: Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises.

Argument 1

All Humans are Mortal.

P. Ramlee is human.

Therefore, P. Ramlee is Mortal.

Argument 2

All of Yasmin Ahmad‘ s movies have been good.

Therefore, Yasmin Ahmad‘ s next movie will probably be good .

3.5 Deduction & Induction KEY DIFFERENCES Source: G Bassham & Co., Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction, p.58 If the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true. The conclusion follows probably from the premises. The premises provide good (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of the conclusion. It is unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Although it is logically consistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, the conclusion is probably true if the premises are true. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. The premises provide conclusive evidence for the truth of the conclusion. It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false. It is logically inconsistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, meaning that if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion. Inductive arguments claim that… Deductive arguments claim that…

KEY DIFFERENCES

If the premises are true, then the conclusion is probably true.

The conclusion follows probably from the premises.

The premises provide good (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

It is unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

Although it is logically consistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, the conclusion is probably true if the premises are true.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

The premises provide conclusive evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

It is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

It is logically inconsistent to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, meaning that if you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion.

3.5 Deduction & Induction There are four tests that can be used to determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive: The Indicator Word Test The Strict Necessity Test The Common Pattern Test The Principle of Charity Test

There are four tests that can be used to determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive:

The Indicator Word Test

The Strict Necessity Test

The Common Pattern Test

The Principle of Charity Test

3.5.1 The Indicator Word Test The indicator word test asks whether there are any indicator words that provide clues whether a deductive or inductive argument is being offered. Common deduction indicator words include words or phrases like necessarily , logically , it must be the case that , and this proves that . Common induction indicator words include words or phrases like probably , likely , it is plausible to suppose that , it is reasonable to think that , and it's a good bet that . In the example above, the word probably shows that the argument is inductive. Farah is a BBA student. Most BBA students own laptops. So, probably Farah owns a laptop.

The indicator word test asks whether there are any indicator words that provide clues whether a deductive or inductive argument is being offered.

Common deduction indicator words include words or phrases like necessarily , logically , it must be the case that , and this proves that .

Common induction indicator words include words or phrases like probably , likely , it is plausible to suppose that , it is reasonable to think that , and it's a good bet that .

In the example above, the word probably shows that the argument is inductive.

3.5.2 The Strict Necessity Test The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows from the premises with strict logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is deductive . In this example, the conclusion does follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. Although the premises are both false, the conclusion does follow logically from the premises, because if the premises were true, then the conclusion would be true as well. Texans are architects. No architects are Democrats. So, no Texans are Democrats.

The strict necessity test asks whether the conclusion follows from the premises with strict logical necessity. If it does, then the argument is deductive .

In this example, the conclusion does follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. Although the premises are both false, the conclusion does follow logically from the premises, because if the premises were true, then the conclusion would be true as well.

3.5.3 The Common Pattern Test The common pattern test asks whether the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or inductive. If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive, then the argument is probably deductive. If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically inductive, then the argument is probably inductive. In the example above, the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning called " argument by elimination .“ Arguments by elimination are arguments that seek to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains. Arguments of this type are always deductive. Either Bruce Lee voted in the last election, or he didn't. Only citizens can vote. Bruce Lee is not, and has never been, a citizen. So, Bruce Lee didn't vote in the last election.

The common pattern test asks whether the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive or inductive.

If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically deductive, then the argument is probably deductive.

If the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning that is characteristically inductive, then the argument is probably inductive.

In the example above, the argument exhibits a pattern of reasoning called " argument by elimination .“

Arguments by elimination are arguments that seek to logically rule out various possibilities until only a single possibility remains. Arguments of this type are always deductive.

3.5.4 The Principle of Charity Test In this passage, there are no clear indications whether Zaid's argument should be regarded as deductive or inductive. For arguments like these, we fall back on the principle of charity test . According to the principle of charity test , we should always interpret an unclear argument or passage as generously as possible. We could interpret Zaid's argument as deductive. But this would be uncharitable, since the conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. (It is logically possible--although highly unlikely--that a 90-year-old woman who walks with a cane could climb Gunung Kinabalu.) Thus, the principle of charity test tells us to treat the argument as deductive. Ramlan : Karen told me her grandmother recently climbed Gunung Kinabalu. Zaid : Well, Karen must be pulling your leg. Karen's grandmother is over 90 years old and walks with a cane.

In this passage, there are no clear indications whether Zaid's argument should be regarded as deductive or inductive. For arguments like these, we fall back on the principle of charity test .

According to the principle of charity test , we should always interpret an unclear argument or passage as generously as possible.

We could interpret Zaid's argument as deductive. But this would be uncharitable, since the conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the premises with strict logical necessity. (It is logically possible--although highly unlikely--that a 90-year-old woman who walks with a cane could climb Gunung Kinabalu.) Thus, the principle of charity test tells us to treat the argument as deductive.

3.5 Exercise 1 Tony : Are there any good Italian restaurants in town? Nasir : Yeah, Luigi's is pretty good. I've had their Neapolitan rigatoni, their lasagne col pesto, and their mushroom ravioli. I don't think you can go wrong with any of their pasta dishes. Is Nasir’s argument deductive or inductive? Why?

3.5 Exercise 2 I wonder if I have enough cash to buy my psychology textbook as well as my biology and history textbooks. Let's see, I have $200. My biology textbook costs $65 and my history textbook costs $52. My psychology textbook costs $60. With taxes, that should come to about $190. Yep, I have enough. Is this argument deductive or inductive? Why?

3.5 Exercise 3 Mother : Don't give Shahariza that brownie. It contains walnuts, and I think She is allergic to walnuts. Last week she ate some oatmeal cookies with walnuts, and she broke out in a severe rash. Father : Shahariza isn't allergic to walnuts. Don't you remember she ate some walnut fudge ice cream at Fuadah's birthday party last spring? She didn't have any allergic reaction then. Is the Father’s argument deductive or inductive? Why?

3.5 Deduction & Induction Making observations, and then drawing conclusions from those observations Moves from specific evidence to general conclusion Conclusion must be figured out and then evaluated for validity Inductive = Evidence  Conclusion Questions to ask: What evidence is available? What has been observed? What can be concluded from that evidence? Is that conclusion logical? Inductive Reasoning Moves from conclusion to evidence for the conclusion Evaluate if the evidence is valid Includes formal logic Deductive = Conclusion  Evidence Questions to ask: What is the conclusion? What evidence supports it? Is that evidence logical? Deductive Reasoning Description Type

Making observations, and then drawing conclusions from those observations

Moves from specific evidence to general conclusion

Conclusion must be figured out and then evaluated for validity

Inductive = Evidence  Conclusion

Questions to ask:

What evidence is available? What has been observed?

What can be concluded from that evidence?

Is that conclusion logical?

Moves from conclusion to evidence for the conclusion

Evaluate if the evidence is valid

Includes formal logic

Deductive = Conclusion  Evidence

Questions to ask:

What is the conclusion?

What evidence supports it?

Is that evidence logical?

Analyzing Arguments “ Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune.” - Jim Rohn

3.6 Analyzing Arguments Identifying Premises & Conclusions (Refer to 3.3) Diagramming Short Arguments Summarizing Longer Arguments To analyze an argument means to break it up into various parts to see clearly what conclusion is being defended and on what grounds.

Identifying Premises & Conclusions (Refer to 3.3)

Diagramming Short Arguments

Summarizing Longer Arguments

3.6.1 Diagramming Short Arguments Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter). Six (6) basic steps: Read through the argument carefully, circling any premise and conclusion indicators you see. Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument (Don’t number any sentences that are not statements.) Arrange the numbers spatially on a page with the premises placed above the conclusion(s) they are alleged to support. Using arrows to mean “is evidence for,” create a kind of flowchart that shows which premises are intended to support which conclusions. Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly from the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support. Indicate linked premises by placing a plus sign between each of the linked premises, underlining the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support Put the argument’s main conclusion at the bottom of the diagram.

Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter).

Six (6) basic steps:

Read through the argument carefully, circling any premise and conclusion indicators you see.

Number the statements consecutively as they appear in the argument (Don’t number any sentences that are not statements.)

Arrange the numbers spatially on a page with the premises placed above the conclusion(s) they are alleged to support.

Using arrows to mean “is evidence for,” create a kind of flowchart that shows which premises are intended to support which conclusions.

Indicate independent premises by drawing arrows directly from the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support. Indicate linked premises by placing a plus sign between each of the linked premises, underlining the premises to the conclusions they are claimed to support

Put the argument’s main conclusion at the bottom of the diagram.

3.6.1 Diagramming Short Arguments Find the main conclusion first. Pay close attention to premise and conclusion indicators . Remember that sentences containing the word and often contain two or more separate statements. Treat conditional statements (if-then statements) and disjunctive statements (either-or statements) as single statements . Don’t number or diagram any sentence that is not a statement . Don’t diagram irrelevant statements . Don’t diagram redundant statements . TIPS

Find the main conclusion first.

Pay close attention to premise and conclusion indicators .

Remember that sentences containing the word and often contain two or more separate statements.

Treat conditional statements (if-then statements) and disjunctive statements (either-or statements) as single statements .

Don’t number or diagram any sentence that is not a statement .

Don’t diagram irrelevant statements .

Don’t diagram redundant statements .

3.6.2 Summarizing Longer Arguments The goal of summarizing longer arguments is to provide a brief synopsis of the argument that accurately and clearly restates the main points in the summarizer’s own words. Summarizing involves two skills: Paraphrasing Finding missing premises and conclusions

The goal of summarizing longer arguments is to provide a brief synopsis of the argument that accurately and clearly restates the main points in the summarizer’s own words.

Summarizing involves two skills:

Paraphrasing

Finding missing premises and conclusions

3.6.2 Paraphrasing A paraphrase is a detailed restatement of a passage using different words and phrases. A good paraphrase is: It is often possible to interpret a passage in more than one way. In such cases, the principle of charity requires that we interpret the passage as charitable as the evidence reasonably permits (e.g. clarifying the arguer’s intent in ways that make the arguments stronger and less easy to attack). Charitable It captures the essence of an argument, and strips away all the irrelevant or unimportant details and puts the key points of the argument in a nutshell. Concise Clarifies what an argument is saying. It often translates complex and confusing language into language that’s easier to understand. Clear It reproduces the author’s meaning fairly and without bias and distortion. Accurate

A paraphrase is a detailed restatement of a passage using different words and phrases. A good paraphrase is:

3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Accurate Example: Original Passage: Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. – Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. – Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. (George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796) Paraphrase: Europe has a set of vital interests that are of little or no concern to us. For this reason, European nations will often become embroiled in conflicts for reasons that don’t concern us. Therefore, we shouldn’t form artificial ties that would get us involved in the ordinary ups and downs of European politics.

Example:

Original Passage:

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. – Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. – Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. (George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796)

Paraphrase:

Europe has a set of vital interests that are of little or no concern to us. For this reason, European nations will often become embroiled in conflicts for reasons that don’t concern us. Therefore, we shouldn’t form artificial ties that would get us involved in the ordinary ups and downs of European politics.

3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Clear Example: Original: The patient exhibited symptoms of an edema in the occipital-parietal region and an abrasion on the left patella. Paraphrase: The patient had a bump on the back of his head and a scrape on his left knee.

Example:

Original:

The patient exhibited symptoms of an edema in the occipital-parietal region and an abrasion on the left patella.

Paraphrase:

The patient had a bump on the back of his head and a scrape on his left knee.

3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Concise Example: Original: The shop wasn’t open at that point of time, owing to the fact that there was no electrical power in the building. (23 word) Paraphrase: The shop was closed then because there was no electricity in the building. (13 words)

Example:

Original:

The shop wasn’t open at that point of time, owing to the fact that there was no electrical power in the building. (23 word)

Paraphrase:

The shop was closed then because there was no electricity in the building. (13 words)

3.6.2 Paraphrasing – Charitable Example: Original: Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health. Paraphrase: Cigarette smoking is a positive causal factor that greatly increases the risk of getting lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health.

Example:

Original:

Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health.

Paraphrase:

Cigarette smoking is a positive causal factor that greatly increases the risk of getting lung cancer. Therefore, if you continue to smoke, you are endangering your health.

3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions “ The bigger the burger, the better the burger. Burgers are bigger at Burger King (BK).” (Implied conclusion: Burgers are better at BK) In real life people often leave parts of their argument unstated for different reasons (being obvious and familiar, concealing something, etc).

“ The bigger the burger, the better the burger. Burgers are bigger at Burger King (BK).”

(Implied conclusion: Burgers are better at BK)

In real life people often leave parts of their argument unstated for different reasons (being obvious and familiar, concealing something, etc).

3.6.2 Finding Missing Premises and Conclusions An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an Enthymeme . Two (2) basic rules : Faithfully interpret the arguer’s intentions . Ask: What else the arguer must assume – that he does not say – to reach his conclusion. All assumptions you add to the argument must be consistent with everything the arguer says. Be charitable. Search for a way of completing the argument that (1) is a plausible way of interpreting the arguer’s uncertain intent and (2) makes the argument as good an argument as it can be. Be generous in interpreting other people’s incompletely stated arguments as you would like them to be in interpreting your own.

An argument with a missing premise or conclusion is called an Enthymeme .

Two (2) basic rules :

Faithfully interpret the arguer’s intentions . Ask: What else the arguer must assume – that he does not say – to reach his conclusion. All assumptions you add to the argument must be consistent with everything the arguer says.

Be charitable. Search for a way of completing the argument that (1) is a plausible way of interpreting the arguer’s uncertain intent and (2) makes the argument as good an argument as it can be.

3.6.2 Standardizing To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called Standardizing. Standardizing consists of restating an argument in standard logical form when each step in the argument is numbered consecutively, premises are stated above the conclusions they are claimed to support, and justifications are provided for each conclusion in the argument.

To analyze longer arguments, we can use a method called Standardizing.

3.6.2 Standardizing Standardizing involves five (5) basic steps: Read through the argument carefully. Identify the main conclusion (it may be only implied) and any major premises and sub-conclusions . Paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material. Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct logical order (i.e., with the premises placed above the conclusions they are intended to support). Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any). Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In other words, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate in parentheses from which previous lines in the argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is claimed to directly follow.

Standardizing involves five (5) basic steps:

Read through the argument carefully. Identify the main conclusion (it may be only implied) and any major premises and sub-conclusions . Paraphrase as needed to clarify meaning

Omit any unnecessary or irrelevant material.

Number the steps in the argument and list them in correct logical order (i.e., with the premises placed above the conclusions they are intended to support).

Fill in any key missing premises and conclusions (if any).

Add justifications for each conclusion in the argument. In other words, for each conclusion or sub-conclusion, indicate in parentheses from which previous lines in the argument the conclusion or sub-conclusion is claimed to directly follow.

3.6.2 Standardizing - Example We can see something only after it has happened. Future events, however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s logically impossible. Standardizing: We can see something only after it has happened. Future events have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not happened (from 1-2) It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to have happened. [Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.] (From 3-4) Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 188-189. (“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2 nd Edition) The argument is lacking a main conclusion.

We can see something only after it has happened. Future events, however, have not yet happened. So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not happened, and that’s logically impossible.

Standardizing:

We can see something only after it has happened.

Future events have not yet happened.

So, seeing a future event seems to imply both that it has and has not happened (from 1-2)

It is logically impossible for an event both to have happened and not to have happened.

[Therefore, it is logically impossible to see a future event.]

(From 3-4)

Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 188-189.

(“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2 nd Edition)

3.6.2 Standardizing: Common Mistakes to Avoid Common Mistakes to watch out for (or avoid): Don’t write in incomplete sentences. Don’t include more than one statement per line. Don’t include anything that is not a statement. Don’t include anything that is not a premise or a conclusion. Refer to Chapter 7: Analyzing Arguments. p. 192-193. (“Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction” book, 2nd Edition)

Common Mistakes to watch out for (or avoid):

Don’t write in incomplete sentences.

Don’t include more than one statement per line.

Don’t include anything that is not a statement.

Don’t include anything that is not a premise or a conclusion.

Group Activity Global Warming: Most scientists now argue that atmospheric pollution is making the world’s climate warmer. Break into groups of 4 - 6, read the articles on Global Warming provided by the lecturer, and then reflect, discuss and answer the following questions: Standardize (summarize the arguments) the “Global warming” article (150 words or less). Is Global Warming relevant to us ? Why? What strategies can Malaysia use to reduce pollution? What can You do to reduce pollution? Group presentation & discussion 15 min The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the lecturer before or during the next class. Summarize discussion findings 5 min Group discussion 20 min

Global Warming: Most scientists now argue that atmospheric pollution is making the world’s climate warmer.

Break into groups of 4 - 6, read the articles on Global Warming provided by the lecturer, and then reflect, discuss and answer the following questions:

Standardize (summarize the arguments) the “Global warming” article (150 words or less).

Is Global Warming relevant to us ? Why?

What strategies can Malaysia use to reduce pollution?

What can You do to reduce pollution?

Summary To analyze an argument means to break it up into various parts to see clearly what conclusion is being defended and on what grounds. Diagramming is a quick and easy way to analyze relatively short arguments (roughly a paragraph in length or shorter). Standardizing is a method used to analyze longer arguments, which involves paraphrasing and finding missing premises and conclusions. 2. Analyzing Arguments Deductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow necessarily from the premises. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the conclusion is claimed or intended to follow probably from the premises. 5. Deduction and Induction

Any Questions?

The End

Contact Details Zaid Ali Alsagoff UNIVERSITI TUN ABDUL RAZAK 16-5, Jalan SS 6/12 47301 Kelana Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia E-mail: [email_address] Tel: 603-7627 7238 Fax: 603-7627 7246

References Books Chapter 3 (Deduction & Induction) & 7 (Analyzing Arguments): G Bassham, W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction , McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2007 O n l i n e R e s o u r c e s Climate Crisis : http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Global Warming : http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ Graphics George Bush (under water): http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg Global Warming (sun and earth): http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-2.jpg Global Warming (factories): http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/images/Desktop-6.jpg The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-4.gif P. Ramlee: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Ramlee.jpg Big burger: http://grec-frites.typepad.com/stock/images/booker_eating_big_burger.jpg

Books

Chapter 3 (Deduction & Induction) & 7 (Analyzing Arguments): G Bassham, W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction , McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2007

O n l i n e R e s o u r c e s

Climate Crisis : http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Global Warming : http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

Graphics

George Bush (under water): http://sergeicartoons.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/Global-warming.jpg

Global Warming (sun and earth): http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-2.jpg

Global Warming (factories): http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/images/Desktop-6.jpg

The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/global-warming-4.gif

P. Ramlee: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Ramlee.jpg

Big burger: http://grec-frites.typepad.com/stock/images/booker_eating_big_burger.jpg