The Logic Behind Apocalypse

My next two posts have to deal with the Global Warming article Lars had analyzed earlier. This first post will deal with the logical strengths and advantages of this article written by James Lovelock of the United Kingdom.

It is pretty safe to assume that most, if not all, educated people have heard of the issue of global warming. It usually carries a negative connotation, and Lovelock's writing is no exception. Compared to most arguments, however, Lovelock has strong factual backing, but sadly fails to refer to their sources.

Right off the bat, Lovelock refers to a prominent figure Sir David King, the UK's chief scientist, predicting the gravity of global warming on the world. At that time, he remarks that King's prediction did not draw a large amount of attention, but Lovelock continues to show evidence of a worsening climate. One such involved a heat spell in Europe during the summer of 2003. Nearly 20,000 people died of heat-related incidents. Some claimed this just a "deviation from the norm" (Par. 5), although Lovelock points out that climatologists of the time predicted this degree of deviation had a 1-out-of-300,000 chance of occurring.

To support his claim even more, Lovelock reports predictions that by 2100 A.D., the global temperature will rise 6 degrees-Celsius. In order to identify the magnitude of this change of temperature, the author shows that it would raise the sea level by seven meters -- enough to sink cities such as Venice, London, New York, Tokyo, and half of southern Florida.

As you can see, Lovelock’s article leans heavily on facts, because without them, no one would see reason to change. The data presented is very convincing, but at some times, the numbers make the reader think whether or not they are exaggerated. In a normal situation, a curious reader would follow the author’s references to read for themselves what exactly the data represents. Unfortunately, Lovelock has no references. For all we know, he could be making up the values just to scare us. Without citations, all of Lovelock’s argument is just convincing facts and not necessarily true facts.

James Lovelock's article contains an immense amount of support from recent research, studies, and other scientific reports – none of which we can verify. According to the stated information, awareness and action on global warming has increased over the years, but Lovelock does not think this will be enough to save the planet. By Lovelock's article, it is easy to understand why he thinks that nuclear power is the only way to save the world. He suggests that we don't have time to experiment with alternative energies, and that we already have a good, clean, and green solution to global warming -- nuclear energy.

Arrogant Columnist Loses Audience Members

I believe that we all agree that one of the nation's most recognized columnists is highly qualified in all areas of rhetoric. As we have already mentioned, Steve Duin is successful in persuading his readers through use of kairos and language tools (as Blake has mentioned in two of his earlier posts). However, at times even the most widely recognized columnist can lose audience members due to his arrogance of opinion and his assumptions of their knowledge.

Duin emphasizes the importance of community especially in this era. He does an mediocre job of using supporting evidence that this is the case. Duin points out that now more than ever we are experiencing times of isolation created by technology (iPhones, texting, emailing etc.) This is undeniably the truth, however I feel that he could use more emotional emphasis (pathos) to fully enhance this point.

Another example of how Duin lacks logos is how he does not fully align his readers with his examples. He refers to Roosevelt High, I assume it's a local school in Portland. He says: "One reason I remain fixated on the efforts -- especially those of the congregation at SouthLake FourSquare -- to bring stability to Roosevelt High is that the adventures cross the racial, social and material lines that so frequently divide us" (par. 16). This is the entirety of background information he gives concerning the "communal effort Obama is promoting" (par. 18). From this, I can infer that Duin is seeing an improvement in stability within Portland's local high school. For me, I am still left with the question of specifics: how is this being done at Roosevelt High? What efforts towards "stability" are being made? In this way, Duin assumes his audience is local and already has background knowledge. Yet he is a nationally recognized columnist. Obviously people from differing areas are going to read his work.

Blake's comment is right - in many cases, Duin is brief in order to promote readers to develop their own opinion. This is clear in his use of language tools, especially with rhetorical questions such as, "A president who 'believes in community above individuals'? In the sacrificial giving that serves those who can not fathom your prosperity?" (par. 20). This begs readers to think and question. Duin is undoubtedly not a writer who hands an opinion to you, but prefers readers to formulate their own based on what they've read. Acknowledging this, I feel that with the reference to Roosevelt High there could be more background information seeing as he uses it as his main example. If readers cannot understand Duin's main example, they will hardly be able to understand the reality of his concept.

Finally, and most importantly, Duin can be a very offensive author for those who disagree with his political ideology. Within the introduction to his article, Duin refers to his opponents as a "right wing noise machine" (par. 3). Not only is this a slap in the face to any conservative reading his article, Duin completely obliterates any possibility of acknowledging "fence-sitters" of the issue. In a major way, Duin does not acknowledge the opposing side and doesn't seem to make any attempt to find common ground. Furthermore, Duin does not establish trust. As we know, the only way to debate an ethical argument is to be charitable about the opponents' intentions. In no way is Duin open-minded and accepting - he is blunt and "political correctness" is somewhat absent. Hence, Duin does not exemplify an admirable sense of audience awareness.

Overall, the lack of community he expresses has potential to be such a powerful argument that could convince many fence-sitters of his opinion. Steve Duin is very abrupt with his points and expects the audience to fully understand the issue and the examples he refers to. Duin's work could be an all-inclusive article addressing political unity, but within the first few lines of his article he makes it clear that he is in no search for common ground. He is relying too heavily on his rhetoric status or credibility (ethos) while his argument lacks presence of logos or audience awareness.

A Slightly Heated Topic

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.