I thought I might read about something that really interests me this time, so I decided to go for the topic of Global Warming. The article I read, written by James Lovelock, dwells on the argument that the best way to combat the threat of global warming is to alter our main energy sources to that of nuclear power. Though I may not agree that global warming is occurring (I think scientists have come to a consensus by now that it is not just warming, but more a general climate change), Mr. Lovelock establishes a notable sense of logos throughout the article.
For example, I find a relation between the second and third paragraphs. In the second paragraph, Lovelock argues that soon Greenland will have melted. Then in the third paragraph, he argues that the Arctic will melt, and thence increase the rate of Greenland's melting.
Lovelock continues to support the theory of Global Warming, until he feels he has proved it enough. Then he is able to take all of that proof and apply it to his principal argument: that we should switch to nuclear power.
One thing I notice is that many of his arguments have more of a pathos-driven foundation. Such things as Florida drowning, cities flooding (can somebody say "Millenium?" Just kidding. But who knows?), ice caps melting, etc. are not really supported much by evidence. Lovelock is trying to scare his readers into believing him. The facts may not be true, and most of the audience knows that, but what if they are? That's the question that he is attempting to implant into our thoughts. It didn't work for me, though.
"I Have A Dream"
14 years ago
What a "heated" debate indeed! I know many people who are very proactive in spreading their opinions and views of global warming. There are many facts that help support the theory. A few Lars mentioned are the indisputable idea that Greenland is melting. This is persuasive and certainly convinces people that something needs to be altered in our way of living. As Mr. Lovelock suggests, we need to change our power sources. It is a convincing argument as he certainly has the facts to support it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really enjoy about Lovelock's logos is that it uses facts and evidence that isn't as well-known of global warming to combat the well-known facts of nuclear energy. 'yes, there is chance of death and fatality due to nuclear energy, but just look at what global warming is doing now...' Those type of arguments are strong, and persuasive. Lovelock also has a strong voice, which is almost always a good thing in this article, except in the cases I discussed in my post (When Apocalyptical Logic Backfires).
ReplyDeleteJust adding on to your great work, Lars!
You are very right in saying that he provides many resources to support his logos. Some seem insignificant, but give a sense of logos that makes the reader want to believe him. Even the underestimations like 2 meters instead of 7 meters makes the reader think that he could be right. Those who were skeptics when beginning to read his article gradually became aware that he isn't presenting a hoax to us.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a little suspicious. Strong claims with no citations are a warning sign; the super-charged language use makes me tune out.
ReplyDeleteI think it is good to look at logos for this one, but I think you should operate on two levels: 1) what relationships is he trying to establish? 2) How does he often revert to pathos instead of logos to support them?