The term “environment” is a vague word used to frame the discussion of a broad issue without refining the topic. The conversation surrounding the environment can often get caught up in generalities which can quickly drive people towards crisis mode. McKitrick attempts to persuade his reader to cease talking about the environment as a single entity, and instead focus on the specific aspects that compose it. In Ross McKitrick’s essay “The Environmental Crisis”, he uses references to authority and specific examples to show how using a general term can muddle the perception of a comprehensive issue.
While McKitrick does use specific examples, most, if not all of them seem to be from Canadian sources. This narrow selection of data injures McKitrick’s …show more content…
When he introduces an anecdote of his experience of a division between perception and reality of the environment, he tells us, “I heard a well-known Canadian newspaper columnist give a keynote address” without ever telling us who this columnist is (McKitrick 14). By holding back the name of this columnist from the reader, McKitrick leaves room for doubt in the sincerity of his anecdote. His ambiguous references continue as he elaborates on how distorted people’s perspective of the environment can get. He mentions that “people who would consider themselves to be deeply interested in global warming are unaware of the specific issues surrounding the tropical troposphere” (McKitrick 17). The “people” in his example here are not given a title or a group; the only thing known about them is their concern for global warming. There’s no way of knowing if everyone in this broad group of “people . . . deeply concerned about global warming” are all unaware of the specific issues and he again leaves out any specifics regarding who these people are (McKitrick 17). These claims made with as much ambiguity as these two seem like an attempt to appeal to …show more content…
This dilutes the sense of “crisis” often surrounding the conversation about the environment by making the article feel more relaxed and conversational. But to contrast the relaxed feel he has created, McKitrick uses the phrase “the E-word” to make the word “environment” seem like a curse word (McKitrick 15). This furthers the strength of his sentiment towards not using the word “environment” as an umbrella word to contain all the little aspects of the environment. He explains that by using “the E-word” “the discussion too readily seems to get framed in the language of crisis” (McKitrick 15). This contrast in tone makes the reader focus on McKitrick’s main argument of abolishing the vague concept of “the environment”. Ross McKitrick feels strongly about eliminating “the environment” as an umbrella term. He implores his audience to look at definitive facts before coming to a conclusion. His conversational tone allows for a relaxed read and a personal feel, appealing to pathos. His few concrete facts add to his credibility and serve as an example of what he is asking of his audience, to look at definitive facts before reaching his conclusion. However, McKitrick is drawing his conclusion that the environment is not as bad as the discourse surrounding it makes it seem from Canadian focused
While McKitrick does use specific examples, most, if not all of them seem to be from Canadian sources. This narrow selection of data injures McKitrick’s …show more content…
When he introduces an anecdote of his experience of a division between perception and reality of the environment, he tells us, “I heard a well-known Canadian newspaper columnist give a keynote address” without ever telling us who this columnist is (McKitrick 14). By holding back the name of this columnist from the reader, McKitrick leaves room for doubt in the sincerity of his anecdote. His ambiguous references continue as he elaborates on how distorted people’s perspective of the environment can get. He mentions that “people who would consider themselves to be deeply interested in global warming are unaware of the specific issues surrounding the tropical troposphere” (McKitrick 17). The “people” in his example here are not given a title or a group; the only thing known about them is their concern for global warming. There’s no way of knowing if everyone in this broad group of “people . . . deeply concerned about global warming” are all unaware of the specific issues and he again leaves out any specifics regarding who these people are (McKitrick 17). These claims made with as much ambiguity as these two seem like an attempt to appeal to …show more content…
This dilutes the sense of “crisis” often surrounding the conversation about the environment by making the article feel more relaxed and conversational. But to contrast the relaxed feel he has created, McKitrick uses the phrase “the E-word” to make the word “environment” seem like a curse word (McKitrick 15). This furthers the strength of his sentiment towards not using the word “environment” as an umbrella word to contain all the little aspects of the environment. He explains that by using “the E-word” “the discussion too readily seems to get framed in the language of crisis” (McKitrick 15). This contrast in tone makes the reader focus on McKitrick’s main argument of abolishing the vague concept of “the environment”. Ross McKitrick feels strongly about eliminating “the environment” as an umbrella term. He implores his audience to look at definitive facts before coming to a conclusion. His conversational tone allows for a relaxed read and a personal feel, appealing to pathos. His few concrete facts add to his credibility and serve as an example of what he is asking of his audience, to look at definitive facts before reaching his conclusion. However, McKitrick is drawing his conclusion that the environment is not as bad as the discourse surrounding it makes it seem from Canadian focused