Did something happen? Does global warming exist? Maybe not, say many in the oil and gas industry; at best, evidence for global warming is inconclusive. Yes, say most scientists and governments; climate change is real and even seems to be accelerating. To come to your conclusion, you’ll weigh the facts carefully and identify problems with opposing arguments.

What is the nature of the thing? Skeptics define climate change as a naturally occurring event; most scientists base their definitions on change due to human causes. You look at each definition carefully: How do the definitions foster the goals of each group? What’s at stake for each group in defining it that way?

What is the quality or cause of the thing? Exploring the differing assessments of damage done by climate change leads you to ask who will gain from such analysis: Do oil executives want to protect their investments? Do scientists want government money for grants? Where does evidence for the dangers of global warming come from? Who benefits if the dangers are accepted as real and present, and who loses?

What actions should be taken? If climate change is occurring naturally or causing little harm, then arguably nothing needs to be or can be done. But if it is caused mainly by human activity and dangers, action is definitely called for (although not everyone may agree on what such action should be). As you investigate the proposals being made and the reasons behind them, you come closer to developing your own argument.