Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
Blog Post 9/12
In “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature,” and Johnathan Franzen’s article, “Carbon Capture,” they both stray away from typical suggestions and arguments surrounding climate change. Many people consider the environment as something that is present in our lives, but we are not necessarily connected to in any sort of important way. However, Cronon certainly disagrees. He makes the important point that we should not think of the environment as something separate than us. We must treat it as a part of humanity if we want any sort of change to happen. In my opinion, this is a great idea because it gives us a personal connection, which will definitely cause more change to happen. Also, Franzen made the argument in “Carbon Capture” that people are spending way too much time trying to stop Climate Change instead of helping the animals, people, and civilizations in immediate danger (especially birds). I also agree with Franzen’s point for the most part because recently, a lot of the focus has been centered around how to stop climate change as a whole, which is, unfortunately, not very realistic in a short time span. However, we can work towards helping the communities directly affected.
Blog Post 9/10
After reading Killingsworth and Palmer’s “Millennial Ecology,” that details more history on climate change, I was then able to explore more of how Rachel Carson shaped history in “Silent Spring.” Carson uses a very calming and visual style, then quickly switches the picturesque scene to one in shambles due to climate change. In my opinion, Carsons writing style is very effective when appealing to the emotional and sensitive audience. This is because she paints a beautiful picture in the mind of the reader and then describes the awful effects of climate change on this wonderful wildlife. Carson’s rhetorical style suggests that citizens of these communities must understand how harmful pesticides and other harmful substances horribly affect our beautiful communities, which is why her stories are so popular- it is an effective form of rhetoric. Furthermore, I also think that Killingsworth and Palmer’s narrative, “Millennial” Ecology” is an effective form of rhetoric that is slightly similar to Carson’s tactics. Killingsworth and Palmer suggest that if we do not make these changes that Carson suggests, the end of the world will come, which is likely to scare and open the eyes of many readers. These narratives both fit together while convincing the reader of the severity of climate change and suggest that it is up to them to change it.
Blog Post 9/5
Both Hamblyn’s piece and Herndl and Brown’s piece serve as platforms to discuss the debates and controversy surrounding climate change. These readings, especially “The whistleblower and the canary: rhetorical constructions of climate change,” the historical aspect really opened my eyes and mind to different forms of rhetoric and possibilities about how it can be best used. In my opinion, this specific article is a very effective form of using rhetoric to convince an audience and frame an argument. For example, as Hamblyn states, “climate change has escalated from an environmental news story to the dominant overarching narrative of human responsibility.” As a reader, this made me realize that climate change is developing and it is no longer something in the future, it needs to be acted upon now and from this example, it put climate change into perspective and on a timeline. This specific article address the point that rhetoric is a historical look at the current problem of climate change. In contrast, in “Rhetorical Criticism and the Environment,” rhetoric is illustrated as a triangle made up to ethos, pathos, and logos, looking at nature as spirit, resource, and object. The ways the Hamblyn and Herndl and Brown discuss rhetoric on climate change are different, but both do their job.
Blog Post 9/3
In both essays by Downs and Lakoff, framing and rhetoric are described as ways to best present the topic of global warming and climate change to the audience being spoken to. In my opinion, both framing and rhetoric are carefully planned ways of persuading and almost tricking the minds of the audience to be further influenced by the topic or argument that is being presented. For example, Downs states that rhetoric is “a set of principles for human interaction that most people know unconsciously but don’t think much about.” In other words, I have the idea that rhetoric is almost an unspoken language by authors and the readers themselves. It is used in writing in order to interact (in a persuasive form) with the reader so that they are more inclined to agree with the thoughts presented. Specifically, with regards to the topic of global warming and climate change, a popular image of a polar bear trying to survive on one cube of ice is a form of rhetoric. The artist or photographer places the cute animal in a very dangerous situation, causing the reader to care more deeply about the pressing issue of global warming. However, as stated by Downs, rhetoric may also be used for the purpose of “dressing up a bad idea in convincing words.” I completely agree with this statement because many authors may have a horrible idea, but are able to persuade the audience through their tactics. Framing is very similar to rhetoric in that sense, but Lakoff takes a different spin on it. He presents framing as a way that writers can take advantage of certain words that then activate the brain to feel a certain way and, thus, communicate their ideas more effectively. Rhetoric and framing are both strategies to trick the reader’s brain, but may be used in very different forms.
