It Seems to Be Heating Up

James Lovelock writes on Nuclear energy as the only potential energy source to save us from global warming. When you read the title you might automatically develop a skeptic attitude towards the article. Lovelock quickly turns the readers skepticism to intrigue by stating, "Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist." He builds enough ethos to keep you reading by connecting himself to the chief scientist. He puts himself in with climatologists as well by saying, "climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests." This also accomplishes connecting his argument with the ethos of climatologists. This type of logos is all through the article.

The way he really brings logos into the picture is by shocking the reader with facts that make you look for solutions to convincing problems. by saying, "20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer," he gets the readers attention by alluding to those 20,000 possibly being you or me if we don't find an answer to global warming. In the moment we look for a solution he offers an unlikely possibility:

"There is a chance we may be saved by an unexpected event such as a
series of volcanic eruptions severe enough to block out sunlight and so
cool the Earth. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds.
Whatever doubts there are about future climates, there are no doubts
that greenhouse gases and temperatures both are rising."

Words like "grim forecast," "the odds were 300,000 to one," and the analogy of the sea level rising, give a bleak look on life continuing as normal. Who wouldn't feel like it is bleak knowing that seven meters of rise in sea level would drown London, Venice, New York, and Tokyo? These words followed by his convincing solutions provide a very good connection between what the reader wants to happen and how it can be realized.

In a different light, I would say that he uses pathos a little too extremely. His statistics and large number ratios make me skeptical of his credibility. this damages his ethos and doesn't give the desired pathos effect on me. Then, he tries to connect them to get me motivated. It could work on some audiences and possible his specific audience. I do get his urgency; however, I feel less inclined to act on his connecting ideas than if I believed his argument fully.

A Slightly Heated Topic by Larz Watts analyzes Lovelocks article saying that he "continues to support the theory of Global Warming, until he feels he has proved it enough. Then he is able to take all of that proof and apply it to his principal argument: that we should switch to nuclear power." I must agree that Lovelock continues to support his theory again and again, but I don't think it was as effective as Larz does. In saying that because of the melting ice cap that Greenland will melt faster I don't feel the connectivity that Larz does because I'm skeptic of the whole idea that Lovelock presents. I'm skeptic because he presents it so abruptly and without citing his sources.

I see convincing connections between nuclear energy and global warming, but I also see some holes in Lovelocks argument.