Benjamin Sungkweon Park
22 November 2013
Since the late 1980s, one of the most influential issues in our lives has been no other than global warming. Climate scientists and policy makers are warning we will be confronted with “water world” unless we stop the progress of anthropogenic global warming. While a plethora of media news about this issue is flooding us, what is more interesting is the advent of skepticism about global warming. Against alarmists, lonely skeptics have been fighting based on several persuasive and scientific facts. According to the Washington Post (2013), recent reports about global warming have disclosed that actual temperature rise was less than the expected level and
Antarctic ice hit 35-year record high. Now, these scientific counter evidences are undermining the root of anthropogenic global warming. In accordance with latest scientific facts, we need to shed new light on environmental rhetoric implemented by media and academia. This paper will explore rhetorical frameworks and strategies found in two academic journal articles. The first article is entitled by “The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution” in The
Geographical Journal (Hulme, 2008) and the second one is entitled by “Climate of scepticism:
US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change” in Global Environment Change
(Antilla, 2005). Specifically, these articles talk about global warming in light of cultural reading and media coverage, respectively.

Hulme asserted that the fear about climate change can be dissolved not by an engineered mastery of the future but by contemporary discourses of fear about future. Also, he argued that understanding the cultural dimensions of climate discourse can offer a different way of thinking about how we navigate the future climate. By examining discourse about climate, which is divided into three historical periods, he suggests that we need a deeper cultural and historical reading of climate and then find its meaning for human society rather than scientific assessments.
Finally, he concludes that the fear about climate future has been deeply conditioned by culture and that the contemporary discourse can suggest the way of diminishing the fear through changes in culture rather than through an engineered mastery of the future.
The introduction of the article has the structure for “creating a research space” as stated by
Swales and Feak’s “move structure.” What is more interesting is that it starts with three quotes on climate change. This approach is effective and unique in such a journal article, which can engage the audience to the main contents of this paper. After those quotes, the subsection
“Climate and culture” establishes a research territory for climate and its interaction with culture, which can be shown as a move 1a. Next subsection, “Climate change discourses,” articulates previous research on cultural discourse around climate change. As a move 1b, he introduces previous research with focusing on historical situations and keyword “Fear.” The last paragraph of this subsection establishes a niche as a move 2 by stating, “Yet these discourses are always situated – geographically, historically and culturally. They are not imposed by nature, they are created through culture” (6). Finally in the last subsection of introduction part, “Purpose and approach,” he occupies the niche and outlines the purpose of this paper and the methodology with which he analyzes the cultural discourse on climate change, which can be a move 3a and 3e.

The main claim of this article is that the contemporary discourse of climatic catastrophe will be dissolved through further cultural change. The data in Toulmin model is that our fears of the climatic future have emerged from the wider cultural settings and trends of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries rather than unknown cause or place which can be explained by climate science. Therefore, what is more important is that
“ to understand the present post- modern anxiety about climate change we need a deeper cultural and historical reading of climate and its meaning for human society than is usually offered by scientific assessments” (6).
As far as a key metaphor is concerned, he utilized three conceptualizations about climate, which constitutes the body of this paper. The first one is “climate as judgment,” which is related to a fear of unknown causes. This kind of fear can be dissolved by the professionalization of meteorology as a science and the emergence of the weather forecasts since nineteenth century.
The second one is “climate as pathology,” which is concerned with a fear of unknown places.
This fear about unknown climate of newly pioneered region can be conquered by understanding race, physiology such as tropical medicine. The last one is “climate as catastrophe,” which has something to do with a fear of unknown future. Historically, the nuclear threat was replaced by the apocalyptic climate fears such as widespread droughts and melting ice caps. This metaphor employed a quasi-religious register of doom, death, judgments, heaven and hell. However, this fear about unknown future can be conquered by finding new cultural movements and new hierarchies of power, from which the author suggested his central claim. This central claim appears gradually after discussing two previous concepts about climate and examining three engineering routes.
When it comes to citation of this paper, Dryzek’s definition (1997) on a discourse and elaboration of four dominant environmental discourses in the modern era plays a significant role

to expand Hulme’s own thoughts about the subject. Also, the “fear” cited from Killingworth and
Palmer (1996) is the keyword for Hulme to metaphorically characterize contemporary discourse of climate future.
Antilla asserted that “the media-created obstructions can prevent a more extensive understanding of climate change by the public and policy-makers” (350). And the media articles have been constructed and framed by rhetoric emphasizing uncertainty, controversy, and climate skepticism.
Also, public confusion may be exacerbated by reporters who misunderstand the basic scientific principles of climate change. The author argues that the public opinion has been formed largely by media news and that skepticism utilizes this trend which can maintain public confusing.
The introduction of this article has the structure for “creating a research space” as stated by
Swales and Feak’s “move structure.” In the first paragraph of introduction part the author establishes a research territory that there has been substantive disagreement about anthropogenic global warming as a move 1a. Then, she introduces contemporary literatures about global warming skepticism as a move 1b. What is more interesting is that the author pronounces, with strong tones, that recent media report disagreeing with anthropogenic climate change is manifestly false, which is an extraordinary strategy as a scholarly contract in this field. This strategy makes clear her controversial tone, which can strongly appeal to the readers.
Considering the context of early 2000s when this paper was published, this approach can be effective because majority of scientists believed in anthropogenic global warming. Also, her asserting that the substantive disagreement with anthropogenic global warming is false can be the establishment of a niche, which is a move 2. In the last paragraph of introduction part she

outlines the goals and organization of this paper, which is a move 3.
The main claim of this paper is that global warming skepticism is false because “news service provider caused exponential spread of misinformation” (350) on global warming, thereby exacerbating uncertainty, controversy, and skepticism about climate science. So, journalists have to refer to published journals which are within the forum of peer-reviewed literature. In other words, the warrant in Toulmin model is the journalist code of ethics.
The author marshaled evidence from US newspaper, wire stories, and scientific texts from
2003 to 2004 as can be seen in section of “Methodology.” From this huge volume of evidence the author retained objectivity in her argument. Also, throughout the paper she adduced 44 footnotes to support and articulate her claims.
In this paper, some fallacies can be found. The assertion “The attack on climate science replicates previous assaults on science, such as by the pesticide industry (DDT), coal-burning electric utilities (acid rain), and the chemical industry (effect of CFCs46 on stratospheric ozone)” shows a fallacy of band wagon because climate skepticism is has different level of certainty from the precedents: DDT, acid rain, and CFCs. Also, in the sentence “A number of large corporations that profit substantially from fossil fuel consumption, such as ExxonMobil, provide financial support to their political allies in an effort to undermine public trust in climate science” (338-
339), the author argues that climate skeptics are supported by a number of large corporations and that their researches are not credible. However, not all the climate skeptics are supported by those corporations. Therefore, such an argument of the author is a fallacy of hasty generalization.
This approach of the author for reinforcing her claims cannot be persuasive due to the fallacies.
As a key metaphor the author describes the global warming skeptic as a vandal as can be seen in “to undermine public trust in climate science” (339), “the attack on global warming”

(350), and “climate sceptics continue their very cynical and deeply interested campaign” (350).
Through this metaphor she denounces a Vandalic act of global warming skeptics.
I analyzed two journal articles with focusing on rhetoric. Under the context of today’s aggressive arguments between global warming alarmists and skeptics, the authors supported their claims by researching historical cultural reading and a number of media articles. In these environmental articles, I analyzed on rhetorical frameworks, scholarly contract, key metaphors, and the authors’ stylistic choices. As far as the “move structure” is concerned, both of two analyzed journal articles follow faithfully the structure stated by Swales and Feak, but each article has its own creative device to draw the attention of readers to the main idea of the article. As for a key metaphor, Hulme utilized “fear” metaphor to prescribe contemporary discourse on global warming and Antilla strongly criticized the global warming skeptics through Vandalilc metaphor.
Further work will be to analyze on environmental rhetoric in recent media coverage or journal article and its effect on the government policy and the public opinion.
Antilla, Liisa. “Climate of skepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change.”
Global Environment Change. 2005: 338-352.
Dryzek, J. S. “The politics of the earth: environmental discourses.” Oxford University Press
(1997).
Hulme, Mike. “The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution.” The
Geographical Journal 174 (2008): 5-16.

Killingworth, M. Jimmie and Palmer, Jacqueline. “Millennial Ecology: The Apocalyptic
Narrative from Silent Spring to Global Warming.” Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in
Contemporary America. Ed. Carl G. Herndl and Stuart C. Brown. Madison: U of Wisconsin
Press. 1996: 21-45.
“
Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday.” The Washington Post. 23 September 2013