Introduction
Global warming is a controversial issue that has attracted debate across the globe, considering its significant impact on the ecosystem. Speakers supporting different ends of the topic have employed various approaches to make their rationales acceptable. Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg is a public speaker whose idea about “the disarming case to act right now on climate change” is convincing due to the effective use of persuasion techniques in communication, including ethos, pathos, and logos (TED). Naomi Seibt is another speaker whose rationale on “Anti-Greta or Pro-Human” can be questioned due to her disregard for essential persuasion techniques, especially the logic in her argument (The Heartland Institute). However, both speakers demonstrate the importance of persuasive principles in effective public speaking.
Speakers’ Background
Greta Thunberg
Greta Thunberg is an environmental activist whose impact in promoting awareness of the repercussions of global warming has made worldwide strides. Her use of scientific data findings, life stories, and demonstration of expertise makes her speech more convincing than that of her counterparts. Her speech on TED Talk, dubbed “The disarming case to act right now on climate change explores the daring consequences of global warming on humankind” (TED). She explains that climate change is an issue that should be urgently addressed and not planned for the future.
Thunberg mentions that the human carbon footprint is growing by the day, and the government should address this immediately, considering that the consequences of climate change may put humankind to extinction. The activist also debunks the rationale that renewable energy is unsustainable and expensive and calls on the government to eradicate fossil fuel use (TED). Additionally, the speaker explains that the adverse effects of climate change include food insecurity, species extinction, and water shortage to remind the audience of the need for immediate action to restore nature’s balance. She advises the public to come together and stop creating theories around global warming, which could be more helpful, but to focus on collective engagement to solve the climate crisis.
Naomi Seibt
Naomi Seibt is an anti-global warming activist claiming that scientists have exaggerated the rationale for a climate crisis. In her speech on anti-Greta or pro-human, Seibt focuses on balancing the alarmist view on the effects of global warming, as she explains that carbon emissions are not too much to destroy the earth (The Heartland Institute). Therefore, the government should focus on improving living standards and the industrial revolution to enhance the quality of life, promoting a healthy planet.
The speaker also explains that radical international regulations on lifestyle choices may not be the solution to eradicating climate change, but these solutions lie in a free market (The Heartland Institute). Although the author applies ethos, which is a personal understanding of climate change, and pathos, which lies in confronting the fearmongers, the speech lacks logos considering that most of her claims, including the aspect of free market initiatives, can be challenged by science (Isai et al. 19). Seibt’s speech is less convincing, considering that it is more subjective and ignores certain vital aspects of climate change. Her argument also lacks a standpoint as the main flow (The Heartland Institute). Therefore, Greta Thunberg’s speech in a TED Talk is more convincing as she uses intensive scientific evidence, expert rationales, moral implications, and personal credibility, an argument that is integral for the benefits of a convincing argument.
Analysis of Speeches
Greta Thunberg’s Speech
Ethos
Without scrutiny, both Thunberg and Seibt provide spectacular speeches concerning the debatable issue of climate change. However, the principles of effective communication and persuasion techniques set the two speakers apart. In her TED talk, Thunberg applies ethos by affirming their credibility and authority on climate change. She highlights that as a student who began a peaceful demonstration on climate change, she is concerned about the people’s future.
The speaker mentions, “So when school started in August of this year, I decided this was enough. I sat myself down on the ground outside the Swedish parliament, and I struck for the climate” (TED). This declaration indicates that she is committed and has the authority to talk about global warming issues, considering that she is making an effort towards change. This revelation was a strength in her speech, highlighting that she is proactive in change, creating solutions, and spreading awareness.
Pathos
The speaker also demonstrated pathos by evoking emotions and values to connect better with the listeners. She mentions, “If I have children or grandchildren, maybe they will ask me about you, maybe they will ask why you didn’t do anything while there was still time to act” (TED). This approach includes the listener drawing in and is part of the change initiative (Isai et al. 19). Through this revelation, she points out the moral implications of not taking action, noting the disproportionately more significant adverse effects of climate change on the human race, which is an excellent communication strategy that is more convincing.
Logos
The climate activist also employed logos principles, including using data to explain the phenomena. She mentions in her speech that “Rich countries like Sweden need to start reducing emissions by at least 15% every year (TED). And that is so that we can stay below a two-degree warming target” (TED).
This factor illustrates critical analysis and exposure to matters concerning climate change, reinforcing the logos. Through such an explanation, the listeners are convinced of the speaker’s vast knowledge or expertise in the topic being addressed, improving their credibility and ability to convince the listeners. Among the many strengths highlighted in the speech, the effective use of logic to demonstrate understanding is undeniably significant in enhancing the ideas being passed across.
Critique
One weakness that can be identified in this speech is that she focuses on overly alarming and doom-oriented sentiments as the central rhetoric. She mentions, “What we do or don’t do right now, my generation can’t undo in the future” (TED). Such negative sentiments create panic, bringing a sense of hopelessness, which is not an exciting feature in communication (Isai et al. 19). Therefore, one strategy to overcome the issue is to strike a balance between emotional appeals to become more motivating and discouraging.
Naomi Seibt’s Speech
Ethos
In her “anti-Greta or pro-human” speech, Naomi Seibt applies some persuasion techniques but ignores other facets. Seibt establishes herself as a skeptic who intends to downgrade the mainstream concern of global warming. She establishes her ethos by illustrating her intensive research and positions herself as an independent thinker.
She explains, “Because our words and free thoughts threaten those whose world views are no more than an ideological complex on unstable columns” (The Heartland Institute). This rationale indicates that despite drawing rationales from various researchers, her subjective insights overrule objective confirmations. Such a focus reduces the scientific rigor for a sophisticated and scientifically inclined matter, such as climate change.
Pathos
With quite a different approach to Greta Thunberg’s passionate rhetoric, Seibt has her take on climate change. Much of her discourse is based on rational arguments. However, she does not avoid taking an emotional stance against the fear-based tactics of certain climate activists, which strengthens her use of pathos principles (Ting 18).
Seibt emphasizes the need for a sensible and measured approach to global warming to maintain stability and equilibrium. She is determined to deter her audience from succumbing to panic-induced reactions to climate change, instead suggesting that bold and decisive actions should be taken to confront the problem. She mentions, “I don’t want you to panic. I want you to think”, which calms the listener exposed to the unending ideas of the negative consequences of global warming (The Heartland Institute). Therefore, her use of pathos effectively serves the followers’ emotional reinforcement, which is critical in public speech.
Logos
Despite the effective use of pathos, the speaker’s use of logos could be more varied, which generally reduces the credibility of the speech. Initially, she mentions that “In the last couple of decades, global warming has been way less severe than initially foretold by the IPCC “, which indicates that she acknowledges the news provided by the organization (The Heartland Institute).
Later in her speech, she mentions, “The IPCC’s climate models predict that you get a warming effect of 4.1 degrees per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. However, when we apply the reverse calculation with real temperature data since 1850, we will find that CO2 emissions only account for 1.4 degrees of actual extra warming,” showcasing her disregard for the organization as a credible source for issues about global warming (The Heartland Institute). Therefore, this factor affects her speech’s logic, making her findings less persuasive for the listener.
Critique
One of the overarching weaknesses in Seibt’s speech is that she has propagated the notion of more uncertainty than there is, resulting in a counterproductive misrepresentation of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change. This engenders doubt in the minds of otherwise well-informed people, thus damaging her credibility (The Heartland Institute). Climate change is an issue of pressing scientific consensus, and its implications should be noticed and not downplayed by subjective information from controversial sources. Therefore, the speaker should consider concluding pro-climate change sources to eradicate bias and promote change.
Conclusion
Greta Thunberg and Naomi Seibt have addressed climate change in their speeches. However, Thunberg’s effectiveness and persuasiveness are more vivid due to her skillful incorporation of ethos, pathos, and logos. Thunberg’s ethos is enhanced by her use of personal experience and revelations, which establish her as an authentic figure with genuine concerns about future generations.
She skillfully applies anecdotes emphasizing ethical action, including stepping up to fight against global warming and emphasizing responsibility. The speaker uses logical arguments that rely on scientific reports and expert consensus, which improves credibility. Therefore, such principles make her speech more meaningful and interactive.
Therefore, immediate actions should be taken to eradicate the potential catastrophe triggered by global warming. The solution should focus on strengthening informed conversation to propagate open dialogue about climate change and make lasting changes. In addition, the prediction is that there can be a change if people begin now, and what individuals should remember is that every action, no matter how insignificant, can help combat climate change.
Work Cited
Isai, Krishnan, et al. “Using the Rhetorical Approach of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos by Malaysian Engineering Students in Persuasive Email Writings.” Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), vol. 5, no. 4, 2020, pp. 19-33. Web.
Ting, S. H. “Ethos, Logos and Pathos in University Students’ Informal Requests.” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 2018. Web.
“The disarming case to act right now on climate change.” YouTube, uploaded by TED, Web.
“Anti-Greta or pro-human?” YouTube, uploaded by The Heartland Institute, Web.