Global Warming 3

advertisement
Park 1
Sungkweon (Benjamin) Park
Professor Ellen Quandahl
RWS 602
30 April 2014
Rhetoric of global warming skeptics: James Inhofe’s
speech at the Senator opening in 2003, “The Science
of Climate Change”
Benjamin Park
Since the late 20th century, there has been a controversy of whether global warming is primarily
caused by human actions such as CO2 emissions. Both sides are none other than the alarmists
who believe global warming’s catastrophic consequences and the skeptics who negate alarmists’
arguments. Although both of them rely heavily on scientific evidence, rhetorical strategies play a
significant role to buttress their positions and persuade the public and government. While there
has been much discussion of rhetorical analyses of the alarmist side, the other side has less
interest from academia. I focus, in terms of rhetoric, on the speech by James Inhofe, a
representative politician on skeptic side. Also, I explore the impacts the environmental rhetoric
has on the public.
Keyword: Environmental Rhetoric; Global Warming; Apocalyptic Rhetoric; Skeptics
Park 2
Introduction
There is no doubt that climate change has the most urgent political and ethical significance today
among science issues (Spoel et al., 2009). Since the late 20th century, the effort concerned with
the climate change has been made through multinational policy agreements such as the Kyoto
Accord in 1997. In the meantime, a text that has had a particular effect on the public is the
documentary film An Inconvenient Truth featuring Al Gore in 2006. After the release of the film,
the public interest in the climate change issue has been dramatically growing. Also, a series of
recent environmental disasters such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, California’s historic drought,
and unprecedented snowstorm along the East Coast have warned of that the United States should
procrastinate by no means to enact new regulations for reducing carbon dioxide emissions which
are alleged to result in anthropogenic global warming and climate change.
On the other hand, there are growing skeptics, the other side of which is alarmist, who negate
the anthropogenic global warming. They argue that global temperature is naturally governed by
other factors such as solar actions or mutual distance between the sun and the earth. Although it
is alleged that their research activities have been sponsored by gigantic petroleum companies,
growing number of advocates for their arguments can be disregarded no longer. Mainstream
scientists put the blame for climate change almost entirely on greenhouse gases, but scientistskeptics differ widely in terms of their alternative explanations. Some, such as Tim Patterson, a
paleoclimatologist at Carleton University in Ottawa, solar cycles that affect how much radiation
strikes the earth. Under the context of controversy among two sides, environmental experts and
politicians pay special attention to the role of rhetoric in their speeches and scientific reports.
Since no one can manifestly answer the question whether the global warming is anthropogenic or
not, scientific evidence itself is not enough to persuade the public and to make policies and
Park 3
regulations with regard to carbon pollution. Therefore, there have been a lot of researches about
environmental rhetoric since the late 1980s.
James Inhofe, a representative politician on skeptic side, has been criticized about enacting
environmental regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. He has given several speeches at his
Senator opening since his speech “The Science of Climate Change” in 2002. While there has
been much discussion of rhetorical analyses of alarmist side, the other side, skeptics, has less
interest from academia. Also, there has been little discussion about rhetorical strategies
embedded in his speech advocating the skeptic side. I explore James Inhofe’s speech and analyze
the way in which he tries to downplay the apocalyptic aspect of the alarmist side and to provide
persuasive grounds by weaving ethos and logos within a framework of historical rationality. The
rhetorical analysis evaluates how his speech persuades us. Also, my findings suggest the answer
to research questions: 1) what is his primary strategy in terms of rhetoric? 2) What does he
intend to accomplish? As a methodology for analyzing the rhetorical strategies of his speech, I
develop a framework of “historical rationality.” Based on the historical rationality, I analyze the
first half of his speech focusing on logos, ethos, and other rhetorical elements. Finally, I discuss
the rhetoric of global warming skeptics and generalize the rhetorical characteristic of Inhofe’s
speech with some conclusions.
Methodology
Spoel et al. focused on apocalyptic narrative explanation of the film An Inconvenient Truth “by
weaving together the proofs of ethos, logos, and pathos within a framework of cultural
rationality.” They argue that the cultural rationality engenders a sense of social significance and
personal caring. They assert that technical details must be reinterpreted within a framework of
Park 4
cultural rationality. Likewise, Hulme asserts that the climate change issue should be discussed
not by an engineered mastery of the future but by contemporary discourse of fear about future.
Also, he argued that understanding the cultural dimensions of climate discourse can offer a
different way of thinking about how to navigate the climate future. As Frank Fischer explains,
cultural rationality situates the “statistical probabilities” and “risk-benefit rations” of technical
knowledge in cultural context: “Cultural rationality … can be understood as the rationality of the
social lifeworld. It is concerned with the impacts, intrusions, and implications of a particular
event or phenomenon on the social relations that constitute that world.”
I develop “historical rationality” from the notion of cultural rationality as a key term for
analyzing the persuasiveness of his speech. Historical rationality is a subset of the cultural
rationality in that our culture includes both tangible and spiritual properties from the past, present
and future. In his book “What is History?” Carr argues that “it is a continuous process of
interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the past and the
present." Also, history is metaphorically described as a mirror with which we can see the present
and future. Therefore, history can be a decent standard with which we think about and afford to
the future problems since it consists of our past social activities and is embedded deeply in our
value system or our culture in a larger sense. For example, the gay marriage issue has sharp
conflicts in our society. In this issue, feminist and African American activities can provide the
key to resolve the issue in terms of human rights for which we struggle. Also, our value system
with regard to marriage is largely based on our history and culture, which is interacted within our
historical rationality. In that sense, the historical rationality can be an effective rhetorical strategy
for environmental experts or related politician to appeal to the audience.
Park 5
Under the context of a controversy between global warming alarmists and skeptics, enacting
environmental regulations on carbon dioxide emissions can be the most significant issue to our
social life. Especially, historical precedents with regard to our planet environment can be a wise
lens with which we can see the issue more clearly. Thus, the historical rationality which explains
the impacts and implications of a particular historical event or phenomenon can be a strong tool
for persuading the audience. More importantly, because Inhofe basically appeals to historical fact
and context within a framework of the historical rationality rather than scientific rationality, his
speech serve as an important starting point for members of the public to bring their own
historical knowledge into the larger policy discussion. Although his speech certainly provides
substantive technical information and expert scientific evidence to counterattack the arguments
of the alarmist side, it is woven within larger historical narratives about the progress of
conversations on environmental regulations. Also, because Inhofe’s speech communicates about
climate change science in ways that appeal rhetorically to the whole American person, it serves a
motivational function, helping to inspire audiences to become engaged in knowledgeable and
socially meaningful conversations about the issue.
In addition, persuasiveness of his speech hinges on concepts first promoted by Aristotle—the
triad of logos, pathos, and ethos. In environmental discourse, Herndl and Brown propose that
persuasion is effected by employing one or more of these qualities. In their model, science is
anthropocentric (logos) presenting nature to be an object, its value quantifiable; the poetic,
almost spiritual relationship we have with nature is eco-centric (pathos); and the role of the
regulator to manage nature as a resource generally falls into the ethnocentric category (ethos).
Also, I explore other rhetorical elements utilized in his speech.
Park 6
In this article, I explore Inhofe’s speech “The Science of Climate Change” in terms of
rhetoric. I delve into his persuasiveness by weaving logos and ethos within a framework of the
historical rationality.
Rhetorical Analysis
James Inhofe is the senior United States senator from Oklahoma and a member of the
Republican Party. First elected to the Senate in 1994, he is the ranking member of the United
States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and was its chairman from 2003 to
2007. In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe “politicizes and
misuses the science of climate change.” Also, he repeats his claim that human influenced climate
change is a hoax and impossible. He is a representative politician of global warming skeptics.
In his speech, “The Science of Climate Change” in 2002, James Inhofe strongly criticized the
belief of global warming alarmists in light of historical precedents as well as scientific evidence.
His speech addresses the international context of growing concern catalyzed by multinational
policy agreements, the Kyoto Accord in 1997. Within this general context, he intends to reveal
the invalidity of anthropogenic global warming which is primarily caused by human action in
rhetorically effective ways in order to foster public understanding of the issue. Within a
framework of the historical rationality, he reveals that the alarmists rely on apocalyptic strategies
which are only scaring the audience rather than science.
At the start of his speech, he puts a significant emphasis on science. Considering
environmental policies, he insists that the most critical element to the United States’ success
relies heavily on using the best, non-political science to drive decision-making. But, he argues,
“If the relationship between public policy and science is distorted for political ends, the result is
Park 7
flawed policy that hurts the environment, the economy, and the people we serve.” In that sense,
he criticizes the anthropogenic theory of the global warming alarmists. He asserts that their
arguments are too often emotional, stroked by irresponsible rhetoric, rather than facts based on
objective science, shapes the contours of environmental policy. Specifically, he points out that
their arguments rely on the emotion of fear by means of apocalyptic predictions. As Jimmie
Killingsworth and Jacqueline Palmer have observed, use of apocalyptic rhetoric is itself a
message:
To employ apocalyptic rhetoric is to imply the need for radical change, to mark oneself as
an outsider in a progressive culture, to risk alienation, and to urge others out into the open
air of political rebellion. The apocalyptic narrative is an expansive and offensive rhetorical
strategy.
They present a historical trajectory of apocalyptic environmental rhetoric from 1960s through the
1980s. In environmental discourses, it is alleged by many scholars that radicals or alarmists rely
on the apocalyptic rhetoric. In their article, Thomas Rosteck and Thomas S. Frentz argue that the
jeremiad has left its mark on environmental discourse, especially apocalyptic predictions
designed to mobilize emotions. In his study of American political culture, Richard Ellis notes
that the rhetoric of many activist groups refers to both “impending catastrophe and future
redemption,” discourses characterized by a simultaneous warning of a coming “cataclysm while
holding out hope of a millennial future.” Also, Christina R. Foust and Willian O’Shannon
Murphy argue that the rhetorical strategy using apocalyptic discourse ultimately may invite
widespread attention to environmental issues.
However, Inhofe asserts that the apocalyptic rhetoric based on emotional effects can hinder
the progress of policy-decision. By refuting and downplaying the apocalyptic characteristics of
Park 8
the alarmist side, he intends to strengthen his persuasiveness. At first, he provides two historical
examples:
A rather telling example of this arose during President Bush's first days in office, when
emotionalism overwhelmed science in the debate over arsenic standards in drinking water.
Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense
Council, vilified President Bush for "poisoning" children because he questioned the
scientific basis of a regulation implemented in the final days of the Clinton Administration.
The debate featured television ads, financed by environmental groups, of children asking for
another glass of arsenic-laden water. The science underlying the standard, which was flimsy
at best, was hardly mentioned or held up to any scrutiny.
The Senate went through a similar scare back in 1992. That year some members seized on
data from NASA suggesting that an ozone hole was developing in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Senate then rushed into panic, ramming through, by a 96 to 0 vote, an accelerated ban
on certain chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants. Only two weeks later NASA produced new data
showing that their initial finding was a gross exaggeration, and the ozone hole never
appeared.
Through these historical precedents, he shows that hasty movement by some environmental
groups can result in false decision with regard to policy-making. In that sense, he appeals to the
audience by arousing historical knowledge which can be a precious lesson in dealing with global
warming issues. Although he highlights the importance of science in making environmental
policies, more importantly, he relies on the historical rationality which can help to inspire
audiences to become engaged in knowledgeable and socially meaningful conversations about the
issue. Also, these historical examples familiar to the audiences can guide them to complicated
Park 9
environmental issues with ease, by which they can understand the context. After introducing
those examples, he announces that “Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on
fear, rather than science.” His resolute tone makes his intention more clear, thereby underscoring
that his counterpart is committed not to science but to fear or emotion. In addition, he criticizes
the alarmists in that their arguments are extremely exaggerated and not based on scientific data:
Global warming alarmists see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism,
economic dislocations, droughts, crop failures, mosquito-borne diseases, and harsh weatherall caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
This statement shows that the alarmists’ argument is just an allegation which has never been
proved scientifically. In short, he makes his speech persuasive by attacking the rhetorical
characteristic of the other side through the historical examples.
As another examples revealing the alarmists’ argument is based on apocalyptic prediction, he
introduces two alarmists’ opinions concerning global warming issues:
Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, sounded both ridiculous and alarmist when he
said in March, "I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military
conflict."
Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and
Scientific American, parroted Blix when he said global warming would "threaten
fundamental food and water sources. It would lead to displacement of billions of people and
huge waves of refugees, spawn terrorism and topple governments, spread disease across the
globe."
Park 10
"[Global warming] would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of
chaos of the global wars of the 20th century, and so in this sense Blix is right to be
concerned. Sounds like a weapon of mass destruction to me."
He assess that Appell’s opinion “demonstrates the sheer lunacy of environmental extremists.” He
calls much more attention to these apocalyptic exaggerations which has contributed to make the
audiences misunderstand the essence of the global warming issues. Concerning the opinions of
Appell and Blix, Inhofe reminds other historical precedents that the planet was headed for a
catastrophic global cooling in the 1970s, which is similar to the apocalyptic predictions of global
warming in terms of fear. According to a Newsweek article titled, “The Cooling World,” on April
28, 1975, in which the magazine warned: “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather
patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in food production-with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.” The
warning of this article reveals that such an apocalyptic prediction is just a fear rather than a fact.
Historical fact says that environmental experts insist based on scares, which makes Inhofe’s
speech more persuasive in that anthropogenic global warming is exaggerated. He appeals to the
audience by reminding historical facts under the framework of the historical rationality. Likewise,
he provides two other magazine examples revealing the invalidity of environmental extremists or
alarmists. Time magazine for June 24, 1974 declared that meteorologists found that the
atmosphere had been gradually cooler for the past three decades. Also, in 1974 the National
Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated “the present time
of high temperatures should be drawing to an end … leading into the next glacial age.” He
underscores that things change so quickly for at most 30 years. Historical precedents tell the
audience that the dramatic change of attitude with regard to environmental predictions based on
Park 11
fear makes them less faithful. Furthermore, Inhofe directly criticizes the global warming
alarmists: “Alarmists brazenly assert that this phenomenon is fact, and that the science of climate
change is settled.” Besides historical precedents, he describes the alarmists as doomsayers: “It is
my fervent hope that Congress will reject prophets of doom who peddle propaganda
masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet from catastrophic disaster.
On the other hand, Aristotelian rhetorical elements—logos and ethos—are woven under the
historical rationality in his speech. First of all, Inhofe prepares for scientific evidence which
refutes the arguments of the global warming alarmists. This evidence has a form of report which
strengthens his logos for appealing to the audience. Under the context that even saying there is
scientific disagreement over global warming is itself controversial, he says “I would submit,
furthermore, that not only is there a debate, but the debate is shifting away from those who
subscribe to global warming alarmism.” He also establishes his ethos concerning climate change
issues by arguing “After studying the issue over the last several years, I believe that the balance
of the evidence offers strong proof that natural variability is the overwhelming factor influencing
climate.” He contends that the climate change is primarily not by human action such as carbon
dioxide emissions but by the natural factor, which is premised on scientific research rather than
the apocalyptic predictions.
In addition to the Aristotelian rhetorical elements, other rhetorical elements are also found in
his speech. Inhofe utilizes turnaround as a rhetorical strategy with regard to increased global
temperatures. Although the alarmists predict the increased global temperatures would lead to the
catastrophes, he insists that the opposite is true: “that increases in global temperatures may have
a beneficial effect on how we live our lives.” Regardless of whether global warming is
anthropogenic or not, he asserts that the increased global temperatures would be even better to us.
Park 12
Therefore, if his assertion is true, there is virtually no room for the global warming alarmists.
Also, he utilizes occultatio as a rhetorical strategy to make his speech more persuasive. He
reveals that “Certain members of the media would rather level personal attacks on scientists who
question “accepted” global warming theories than engage on the science. This is … the relentless
increase in personal attacks on certain members of the scientific community who question socalled conventional wisdom.” Although he refuses to elaborate the historic case of Galileo
Galilei who challenged the conventional wisdom, he implies that the members who question the
anthropogenic theory of catastrophic global warming might be true as the historic case. Also, he
introduces himself as chairman of the committee on Environment and Public Works and has “a
profound responsibility, because the decisions of the committee have wide-reaching impacts,
influencing the health and security of every American.” This introduction shows his ethos which
makes his speech more credible to the audience. Also, he finally remarks with a strong tone: I
have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is
supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.” He introduces climate
experts on his side and their research works, which also establishes his ethos in light of
supplementing his speech with scientific rationality.
Conclusion
In his article, Schmidt argues that skeptics in the media (typically conservatives) deride global
warming as a monumental hoax, while those who believe in the evidence for human-induced
climate change (typically liberals) accuse the skeptics of being industry-funded hacks. As his
comment, this dispute now is more bellicose than ever, fueled by partisan bickering. According
to Antilla, the public opinion is formed largely by media news and that skepticism utilizes this
Park 13
trend which can maintain public confusion. She argues that the public confusion may be
exacerbated by reporters who misunderstand the basic scientific principles of climate change.
Also, Nerlich claims that skeptics have created their own myth that alarmists’ story may be
untruthful by framing science as religion. He concludes that this religious framing of science by
climate skeptics can threaten public understanding of science and public policy on climate
change. However, Inhofe argues the other way around that the alarmists are confusing the public
by utilizing the emotion of fear rather than science. Generally speaking, environmental discourse
consists more of scientific evidence. According to Steel et al., there have been calls among
decision makers, interest groups, citizens, and scientists alike for more science-based
environmental policy. The assumption is that including scientists and scientific information will
improve the quality of complex policy decisions. However, the global warming discourse, which
has controversial issues about whether the main cause is by human action, places great
significance on rhetoric. Especially, the speech by politicians who are responsible for making
environmental policies shows salient features with regard to rhetorical strategies. In his speech,
“The Science of Climate Change” in 2003, Inhofe relies more on historical precedents. However,
these historical precedents are discoursed within a framework of the historical rationality, which
makes his speech more persuasive to the audience. Through his speech, Inhofe intends to instill
his thought into the process of policy making in Congress. He highlights that the claim that
global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound
science. Also, he asserts that CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters and actually it would be
beneficial to our environment and our economy.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Inhofe’s rhetorical strategies are based on historical
facts rather than scientific evidence. These historical facts effectively undermine the grounds on
Park 14
which the opposite side stands. His strategy to appeal to historical precedents which are familiar
to the audience is effective in that the precedents reveal that the apocalyptic predictions of the
alarmists are predicated upon the emotion of fear. I generalize that within a framework of the
historical rationality, his logos and ethos is woven so that his speech can be persuasive to the
audience.
Although the entire text of his speech is not covered in this article, the part being analyzed
successfully features the rhetorical strategies of Inhofe representing the skeptic side. Furthermore,
I will explore the rhetoric of the alarmist side in terms of the historical rationality. That study can
be merged with this article, thereby generalize the rhetorical characteristics of both sides on
global warming issues in terms of the historical rationality.
References
Antilla, Liisa. “Climate of skepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change.”
Global Environment Change. 2005: 338-352.
Carr, Edward Hallett, and Robert William Davies. "What is history?." (1961).
Ellis, Richard J. American political cultures. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Fischer, Frank. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke
University Press, 2000.
Foust, Christina R., and William O'Shannon Murphy. "Revealing and reframing apocalyptic
tragedy in global warming discourse." Environmental Communication 3.2 (2009): 151167.
Goggin, Peter N., ed. Rhetorics, literacies, and narratives of sustainability. Routledge, 2011.
Park 15
Herndl, Carl George, and Stuart Cameron Brown, eds. Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in
contemporary America. Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1996.
Hulme, Mike. “The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution.” The
Geographical Journal 174 (2008): 5-16.
Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, and Jacqueline S. Palmer. "Millennial ecology: The apocalyptic
narrative from Silent Spring to global warming." Green culture: Environmental rhetoric
in contemporary America (1996): 21-45.
Mooney, Chris. The Republican war on science. Basic Books, 2006.
Nerlich, Brigtte. “Climategate: paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis.” Environmental
Values 19 (2010): 419-442.
Rosteck, Thomas, and Thomas S. Frentz. "Myth and multiple readings in environmental rhetoric:
The case of An Inconvenient Truth." Quarterly Journal of Speech 95.1 (2009): 1-19.
Schmidt, Charles W. "A closer look at climate change skepticism." Environmental health
perspectives 118.12 (2010): A536.
Spoel, Philippa, et al. "Public communication of climate change science: Engaging citizens
through apocalyptic narrative explanation." Technical Communication Quarterly 18.1
(2009): 49-81.
Steel, Brent, et al. "The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: a case study from
the American west." Environmental Science & Policy 7.1 (2004): 1-13.
Download