The Nonsense of Global Warming: Practice

Author: Paul Johnson

Audience: Readers of Forbes Magazine, those with economic/business interests, and America

Message: Global Warming doesn’t exist and is un-ethical, “Greens” are foolish

The article “The Nonsense of Global Warming” written by Paul Johnson does a very good job at using rhetoric to try and convince his audience. Johnson uses several techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos.

Paul Johnson has ethos located all over this article. Even from the very beginning this skill is used by him being the author: Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author. All though he is not an expert in the field of science or the environment and has no credence to write an editorial about something such as global warming, because he is an “eminent British historian” he holds ethos. Another way that he uses ethos is by his use of referring to famous scientists and philosophers such as Albert Einstein, Karl Marx, and Sir Karl Popper. He says in this article “I wish the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper were alive to denounce the unscientific nature of global warming.” Sir Karl Popper is a pretty famous respected scientist. I like how he assumes that if Popper was alive that he would agree with him. He has absolutely no way to know if Popper would indeed agree or not he just submits that he would.

This article is also heavily loaded with Logos. One way that his use of logos popped out to me is when referring to Albert Einstein’s Law of Relativity. He refers to how once Einstein had said that if an aspect of his theory did prove itself scientifically than the theory was incorrect. It isn’t something that can be readjusted to accommodate. Later he goes on to denote Sigmund Freud-father of psychology and Karl Marx, their theories, and examples of how they are incorrect. His logic here was “The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels--the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.” Another way that Johnson successfully uses logos is in the very first paragraph of the article where Johnson terms the summer of 2008 as one of the “nastiest” summers he can remember. Where he is getting with this is that although the summer of 2008 had horrible weather, it isn’t because of global warming. He even refers to a summer back in 1816 to try to prove his point. He is also successful with the allusion of Frankenstein. The story Frankenstein is about a man created monster that was made and meant for good but end tragically bad. This allusion refers to Global Warming, how it is a man made monster that can’t do anything but end bad.

The use of well written skilled literature can have a remarkable ability to play on our emotions and perception of things. Johnson makes an appeal to the audience trying to demonstrate stupidity and lack of education of “Greens” by giving examples such as how their answer to everything is global warming. He even gives instances where they contradict themselves, asking the cause for drought and flooding and their response to both-global warming. If he can make one think that “Greens” are stupid he can denote their cause and raise acceptance of his views. He also makes an appeal to pride and beauty by talking about windmills. He calls windmills “hideous things, ruining the landscape and making an infernal noise.” Nobody likes ugly things, and if he can convince them that aspects of “green” are ugly than perhaps they won’t support it. With the windmills he also talks about how they are a thing of the past, silly and outdated. He appeals that the construction of windmills is a disgrace to humanity.

Johnson is a skilled author and was successfully able to put the field of science onto his playing field of literature to convince an audience of his message that Global Warming isn’t real, that it is something stupid created to generate money. For some he might be successful but it’s important to look at ethos, logos, and pathos to make sure we keep in check what he is really saying and it validity.

EARTHQUAKE! article...

The article titled “Are You "Ready To Ride It Out?" An Earthquake, That Is: Simple Preparative Steps Can Make Earthquakes Less Disastrous and Less Traumatic for Children” is the one I have chosen to write about. This particular article talks about preparation mainly as families and communities to be ready for an earthquake. It asks the reader questions about what they know about the local school’s earthquake preparedness plans. Next it informs us of what we can do to help be ready and prepared to help make sure we and our children are safe.

I’ve always been interested by natural disasters and when we were assigned to read about the environment I decided that this topic would probably best keep my attention and interest. I chose this article because it is a little less lengthy than most of the other ones that came up and it also does a good job at using most forms of rhetoric (pathos, kronos, ethos). The voice it uses is also very easy to understand. It’s written to the people for the use of the people, unlike other articles I found that were meant to be read mainly by scientists and experts.

In the library I was looking at articles that it would find and bring up, but most of them just weren’t what I was searching for. I decided to refer back to my own knowledge of research instead of my newly developed spiffy library skills and use Google to search for an article. After typing in the search in Google I was able to find this article within the first two pages of articles it brought up. So I went to Google, typed “earthquake preparedness editorial” in the search box, clicked on advanced search, browsed through the links it brought up, went to the second page and found this article.

While we were at the library I had a tendency to get frustrated with the computer and the search engines that we were using. I’m just not use to using those types of search engines. Although the library class time was useful in learning how to use those tools and I now could do it if I had to, I would still rather use other engines such as Google first, which is what I did. It was useful and good to get the information and knowledge that we did in the library it’s just not my style.

The commercial I decided to use starts out with a German Coast Guard officer training a newcomer. It shows the instructor giving the trainee instructions and showing him how to use the different tools. Soon after the instructor leaves there is a call on the radio that says “mayday mayday we are sinking, I report we are sinking.” The German officer responds “This is the German Coast Guard, what are you sinking about?” A white screen than appears that says “want to improve your English?” And then lists a company called Berlitz.
The speaker is Berlitz English Company. The audience is people who want to learn better English. And the message is give us your service to learn how to speak better English.
Pathos- Some of the emotions that this commercial can bring out are humor, nervousness, insecurity, pity, and fear. I thought that this commercial is really funny. The fact that it is funny would help make it stick out in people’s memory. When in a position where you need an English Company you might remember Berlitz English Company because the commercial sticks out in mind. While I was watching this commercial I felt pity for both the young officer and for those sinking. I can relate to the officer thinking about the first day of work at a new job and the first time you’re “alone” without the trainer. It’s a scary experience. He comes off as unsure as to what to do so he just responds to what he thinks that the “caller” is saying to him. On the other hand you have the caller who is in a scary situation. When you call for help because you’re sinking and might die you would hope that the person that you call can understand you. Otherwise tragedy might strike. This commercial might also conjure fear into somebody with poor English. Nobody would ever want to be stuck in a situation where somebody’s life is in your hands and you can’t help them because you’re English isn’t up to par. It might make them think shoot, I better get better at English just in case I’m ever in a situation like that.
Logos- The logic behind this is to go to Berlitz and learn how to speak English better so that you will never be in a situation where you don’t understand somebody, or get made fun of. The guy in the commercial wasn’t really anything special or anyone of significance just like most of the people in the world. If this could happen to him it could happen to us too right?
Ethos- They instead of showing authority by good things that you want to be like they portrayed the opposite. The officer in the commercial instead of being confident and helpful was the opposite. Although he worked for the Coast Guard where usually you have to be pretty smart he still was lacking the things to make him in a desirable circumstance. If he as somebody who works for Coast Guard could get mixed up it could happen to many other smart people. Aka- even if you are educated and have a good job you might want to invest in bettering your English.
I think that this commercial was effective. It made me laugh, and it brought across the point well.