Climate Change: A Rhetorical Analysis

Climate Change has become an incredibly controversial topic because of the bid to win votes. As with any successful political party, capital and supporters are needed to fund and support campaigns and activities to secure votes. The Democratic and Republican parties have taken opposite sides of the ring regardless of scientific proof. In relation to global warming, the Democrats represent the environmentalists in the green corner and the Republicans represent the current energy tycoons in the red corner. The two opposing parties are simply trying to one up each other with each rhetorical combination thrown. The more irrational or misconstrued the rhetoric, the more the crowd rooting for each fighter reacts and the more independents rally to

either side.
Global Warming or Climate Change as it is commonly referred to by scientists today, was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius.

Arrhenius estimated using the greenhouse gas effect theory, that if the total amount of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere were cut in half the surface temperature of the Earth would decrease and if the opposite occurred and the carbon dioxide concentration doubled the temperature of the surface would in turn increase. His ideas remained under high scrutiny because of conflicting ideas that were successfully debunked in the1980s. In 1987, Stephen Schneider predicted that the Earth would warm at an exponential rate due to increased carbon dioxide emissions facilitated by humans. The majority of scientists agreed with his predictions and today his estimations are relatively close (Enzler). However, today many scientists are still disputing the effects global warming will have on the world and with good reason. On one hand, some theorists believe global warming is a catastrophic world event in which the Earth will become uninhabitable for life in a rather short period of time, between one to three hundred years (Edwards). On the other hand, the Earth will simply experience changes in its climates that cause increased strain on ecosystems and certain regions, which must adapt to their new climate for sustenance. Overall, the severity of the implications global warming presents has yet to be settled by scientists. This can be attributed to the fact that weather can be an incredibly complex entity to predict and climate is directly derived from all of the weather a region

experiences.
On August 31, 2015 at the GLACIER conference in Anchorage, Alaska Obama gave a speech. His speech was filled with appeals to pathos. He testified:
If we were to abandon our course of action, if we stop trying to build a clean-energy economy and reduce carbon pollution, if we do nothing to keep the glaciers from melting faster, and oceans from rising faster, and forests from burning faster, and storms from growing stronger, we will condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair: Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields no longer growing. Indigenous peoples who can’t carry out traditions that stretch back millennia. Entire industries of people who can’t practice their livelihoods. Desperate refugees seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own. Political disruptions that could trigger multiple conflicts around the globe. (Obama)
The previous statement is meant to unsettle the audience to inspire activism on the issue. His emotive appeals to pathos, such as “condemn”, “abandoned”, and “desperate” give his well-crafted rhetoric the force it needs to be effective, however, his comments are slightly exaggerated to meet the needed impact. There are a few embellishments mixed in with his facts like a typical politician. Specifically, “submerged countries” and “Fields no longer growing.” There are no implications that whole countries will be submerged if all of the glaciers melt completely. While it is true that there will be increased coastal erosion. According to the IPCC, growing seasons are actually expected to last longer than normal (Gordon et al). An important idiosyncrasy worth noting is his omission of dioxide in between “carbon” and “emissions”. Etymologically, Carbon comes from the Latin term “Carbo” which means coal. Therefore, the omission puts more emphasis on the most widely used nonrenewable resource in the energy industry, coal. However, this can also mislead someone to think that emissions are pure Carbon. Overall, Obama’s speech was mostly accurate, but fabricated in some instances.
On the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show Donald Trump was asked by Hewitt if he believes Climate Change is occurring. Trump responded dismissively, “I’m not a believer in global warming. And I’m not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point. And you know, in the early, in the 1920s, people talked about global cooling. I don’t know if you know that or not. I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems” (Hewitt). Trumps statement about talk of global cooling in the 1920s are completely bogus. He may have misspoken and meant the 1970s in which there were a few reports predicting global cooling that caught the attention of the media (Enzler). Those sources were not fully validated by science. At the time most reports were actually predicting an increase in surface temperature. It is also important to note that he does not say why it does not exist or how humans have not effected the carbon dioxide concentration. The ambiguity of Trumps statements such as, “It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point”, keep his comments from complete scrutiny. Trump continues, “You know, to me, the worst global warming, and I mentioned this to you once before, is nuclear warming. That’s our global warming. That’s what I see, because we have incompetent people, and we have these rogue nations, and not even rogue nations anymore” (Hewitt). Trump appeals to pathos in his elaboration. His aforementioned statements are meant to put more importance on the regulation of nuclear technology in other countries rather than climate change. His emotive word choice includes, “worst”, “nuclear”, and “rogue”. Overall, Trumps statements are based fully on opinions rather than factual evidence backed by science. In turn, his statements are readily accepted as truths by lesser educated and informed citizens because of his simple and down to Earth approach to issues. Overall, Trumps statements are counterproductive and play on the ignorance of the general populace.
At the Democratic debate in Iowa on November 14, 2015. Democratic Presidential Candidate Burnie Sanders stated, when prompted if he still believed that climate change is the greatest security threat to our nation today, “Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you're gonna see countries all over the world-- this is what the C.I.A. says, they're gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you're gonna see all kinds of international conflict” (Burnie). Burnie’s statements appeal to pathos and ethos. He appeals to pathos by using “struggling” and “conflict”. He appeals to ethos by referring to the Central Intelligence Agency. In regards to the validity of his statements, to suggest that climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism is a simple fabrication. The definition of terrorism is not clearly defined in society today, neither is the severity of the effects of climate change. While it is true that climate does affect the economy of a nation and this would have an effect on the solidarity of a nation. To blame a drought as the effect of climate change in Syria, a country that has a desert climate, into the destabilization of region is a simple misrepresentation of the truth. Generalizations such as these to complex problems only create more skepticism. Overall, Sanders rhetoric only helps delegitimize the issue of climate change.
In conclusion, the politics of climate change and the limits of science have created one of the most controversial conflicts of all time. The topic has become delegitimized most respectively in the political realm due to overstating and understating by both political factions. For change a leader must blatantly state the facts of climate change and mitigate a compromise between both parties. Only then can we truly make a serious effort to create a real world solution to a very complex and potentially cataclysmic problem.