Introduction
In her speech and interview, Naomi Seibt has made many points regarding climate change, climate change denial, and the conversation revolving around recycling and protecting the environment. First, she establishes her credibility on the topic by comparing herself to Greta Thunberg, another spokesperson for climate change. In doing so, she claims to have as much credibility as she does because she is young and not particularly educated in the field of climatology, ecology, and so forth. While her argument is correct in that regard, it simply showcases that neither is to be considered an expert in the area they are trying to argue. She appeals to emotion in that since her opponents feel so strongly about Greta’s message, they should give her arguments the same amount of consideration.
Unpersuasive Arguments
Seibt’s arguments about the subject may seem convincing if taken at face value. She generally quotes IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) predictions, stating that they have been inaccurate and that the consequences of climate change were not as dire as predicted. The first argument is invalid – the temperature increases predicted by the models since the 1970s have been consistent (Henderson & Drewes, 2020). CO2 emissions have been higher than predicted, but that only reinforces the point that something has to be done about it.
Persuasive Arguments
Some of the most convincing points that Seibt made include the fact that poor and developing countries cannot adhere to restrictive ecological policies without suffering great economic turmoil. In addition, her points about alternative points of view, such as hers, being demonized, are true – conservative talkers and representatives are often protested and blocked at campuses. Here, Seibt appeals to emotion once more, making herself appear as a party that has been discriminated against, as a means to make her audience more receptive to her message.
Conclusion
While Seibt’s factual points are largely unpersuasive, the demand for dialogue is a healthy impulse. Obviously, some concessions have to be made for a consensus to be established and a united ecological policy to be adopted. At the same time, denying the effects humans have on the climate and atmosphere is to play into the hands of corporations that see ecological concerns as an affront to their bottom line.
Reference
Henderson, J., & Drewes, A. (Eds.). (2020). Teaching climate change in the United States. Routledge.