Darren Slotnick Ben Henderson CAS 137H 11 October 2012

Global Warming: To Be or Not to Be?

Predictions about the end of human civilization are widespread and often are a hot topic for conversation. Obama warns us about the possibility of nuclear war with Iran, NASA tracks potential killer-meteors across millions of light-years, and millions of people across the world predict the end of our civilization in December of this year. Yet despite these potential disaster scenarios, many people believe that the biggest threat to human existence is global warming. Global warming is widely accepted within the scientific community as a human-induced process of warming our planet with the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For the past decade, few scientists have questioned global warming existence, or the disaster scenarios that are associated with a runaway-greenhouse effect. However, in the article No Need to Panic About Global Warming, a group of distinguished scientists argue that there are two sides to the global warming debate, using primarily logos and ethos to persuade readers to reconsider their assumptions and make informed decisions regarding the actual truth of global warming. In order to convince readers that the arguments the article makes are legitimate, the authors use several rhetorical strategies to boost their credibility. When skeptical readers first glance at this article, many may dismiss it as another columnist trying to stir up controversy to gain more hits and readers. The editor of

the article likely foresaw this, and inserted a powerful note at the top of the article stating that 16 scientists signed their name next to it. Next to their signatures are their job titles, ranging from a former astronaut to the president of the World Federation of Scientists in Geneva. Not only does this immediately increase the credibility of the article; it convinces many readers that whats being said is legitimate and worth reading. The authors further try to increase their credibility by demonstrating that they arent alone in their opinion. First, the article states that a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers agree with what they are about to argue. By using the word growing, readers get the impression that the viewpoint taken by the authors is one that is quickly increasing in popularity, and that they will not be alone if they decide to eventually agree with the article. The authors go on to emphasize that Ivar Giaver, a Nobel-prize winning physicist, resigned from the American Physical Society because of its resistance to the possibility that we have over-exaggerated the effects and existence of global warming. If a Nobel-prize winning physicist believes that the theory of global warming isnt bulletproof, why shouldnt you? After establishing their credibility, the authors proceed to criticize those who argue that the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible. In the third paragraph, specific diction such as enforce and heretics paint the other side to be unwilling to reconcile the idea of global warming with facts. Later in the article, the authors mention how young scientists who are brave enough to publicly state their doubts about global warming are often passed over for promotions or even fired

from their jobs. When the authors criticize the global-warming community for forcing the message of global warming on the public, and branding anyone who disagrees as a heretic not worthy of a job, the audience will look at the authors of the article more sympathetically, and at the subscribers of global warming with disapproval. Being partially directed towards political candidates, the article may cause some political hopefuls to distance themselves from actively supporting major charities or projects fighting global warming to avoid being bunched in the same group as those who silence critics through blackballing. The authors comparison of the current global warming argument to past issues related to the Soviet Union may be their most effective strategy in dismantling the credibility of global-warming hardliners. The article points out the similarities between current scientists inability to speak their minds regarding global warming for fear of repercussions within the scientific community with Soviet-era scientists who were sent to the gulag or condemned to death if they revealed they believed in genes. Much of the audience from the Western world may still harbor negative feelings towards the Soviet Union, and by likening the hardline stance taken by global warming supporters with that of the Soviet Union, readers may become inclined to reconsider the incontrovertible facts supporting global warming. The authors use of ethos throughout the article both builds credibility towards their argument and paints the widely held belief of global warming as one due to social conformity rather than facts. Having established a sense of trust and credibility with the audience, the authors continue to convince readers that the facts simply do not support global

warming. The term global warming seems obvious that it must refer to the warming of the earth. It appears that each year, new high temperature records are being broken. When reading this article, readers quickly learn that this assumption is incorrect; in fact, according to the authors, there has been very little warming over the past ten years. However, no statistical support is offered to back up the authors statement; the writers instead rely on their credibility that they established previously. They go on to provide a possible explanation for the discrepancy in the predicted temperature levels and the lower actual temperatures: that computer models exaggerated the effects of CO2. By giving readers a reason for temperatures being lower than expected, the audience is more willing to change its opinion about global warming to a less media- biased and more information-driven standpoint. The authors then switch strategies, from claiming that the actual warming of the globe is grossly overstated to suggesting that the actual effects of additional CO2 may be positive. The authors attempt to change the perception of carbon dioxide from being a pollutant to being a natural and beneficial gas. First, they state that greenhouses often increase the concentrations of carbon dioxide by factors of three or four in order to increase yields, therefore, more food can be grown. The article goes on to mention that carbon dioxide levels when plants and animals evolved were ten times higher than they are today, showing how more CO2 promotes the development of life. All of these statements seem factual, but readers again rely on the authors established credibility, as no sources are cited. The article builds off these facts by using them to argue that recent increases in agricultural yields are in part due to the higher levels of carbon dioxide. The audience will then make the

logical assumption that if CO2 levels continue to rise, so will agricultural productivity and realize this gas isnt so bad. The article does not stop at arguing that CO2 isnt as bad as its made out to be. Directly addressing political candidates, the thesis is clear in the statement that there is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to decarbonize the worlds economy. The authors support their claim by citing a reputable source: a Yale economist, William Nordhaus. Nordhaus conducted a study that determined that the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved when economic growth is not restricted by any carbon dioxide controls for 50 more years. Although this study is very vague in how it determines how they weight the benefits and costs of not restricting CO2 levels, it will help sway the audience towards a world economy with less carbon controls. The authors then offer an alternative approach by reasonably asking for candidates to support excellent scientists who are attempting to understand the climate better, increasing our knowledge of and our ability to live sustainably. Offering an alternative approach where candidates can still appear interested in the environment without wasting money on projects that are unnecessary gives candidates an easy way to jump off the global warming bandwagon. The writers of this article use logos to effectively persuade the audience that CO2 has many benefits and should not be viewed as something that needs to be eliminated, as well as supporting their thesis that decarbonizing the worlds economy is unnecessary. It is considered very difficult to change the opinions of readers who have already made up their minds regarding an issue. The authors of this article

effectively address and disprove many readers preconceived notions by using reason and facts, as well as establishing an honest and credible image with the audience. In addition, this article paints the hardline supporters of global warming, those who are branding the authors of this article as heretics, as people on a witchhunt. The writers of this article successfully use a combination of logos and ethos to persuade their readers, including political candidates, that there are other ways to help the environment than by throwing money at global warming; and to persuade everyday readers of the Wall Street Journal that the existence of global warming is no longer as infallible as it once seemed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702043014045771715318384213 66.html