CO2 is NOT Pollution Essay example

1492 Words6 Pages
As we have come to a better understanding of our global climate, most scientists agree that human actions have had a warming effect on the global climate (IPCC, 2010). This idea of anthropogenic global climate change is the general consensus in the scientific community according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These views were increasingly challenged, mostly by non-scientists, in late 2009 when servers owned by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were hacked. Emails between climate scientists and other documents relating to climate research were taken illegally and leaked online. This event re-energized the climate change debate and created a public relations nightmare for both the CRU and anthropogenic climate change…show more content…
Because of their advanced use of rhetoric, we will focus on the arguments of the opponents. Ethos, a major element of rhetoric, deals with the writer's establishment of character and authority. This is a key aspect behind the climate change opponents' arguments. They establish themselves as people who care about both the economy and the environment. One website,, blatantly asserts that carbon dioxide being a pollutant is "absolutely not true" (Credible). By trying to bill carbon dioxide as necessary for life and non-sever pollutant, these groups attempt to borrow ethos from the "green movement" that has recently become popular. They also try to appear aligned with the fiscal values of the average person by stating the financial impact of carbon regulation. Not only do they gain ethos from this, but they also cast a negative ethos on the climate scientists by labeling them as "anti-green". A somewhat interesting move by many opponents was to align their beliefs with the republican political party, billing anthropogenic climate change supporters as radical leftists. This polarization caused once issues become political may put off some people. Whether this proves good or bad over time is yet to be seen. What can be seen is the extreme effect on ethos, and the debate as a whole, that political allegiance can have on both sides of an issue. Pathos is arguably the most valuable tool that the climate change opponents have at their disposal.
Open Document