Naomi Klein Cites Science But Relies on Evoking Emotion

Naomi Klein Cites Science But Relies on Evoking Emotion: A Critique of Naomi Klein’s “Science Says:Revolt”

In Naomi Klein’s article “Science Says: Revolt” she discusses the causes of climate change and the effects that climate change will have on earth if it is not stopped. She cites a presentation titled “Is Earth Fucked” given by Brad Werner, a geophysicist at the 2012 meeting of American Geophysical Union. His answer to this question is “More or Less” (para. 3). Under this basis, Klein immediately makes it clear what the effects of climate change are, insinuating we are fucked. What is the cause? Capitalism. Klein states capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient, and barrier free” that the environment is “dangerously unable to respond”(para. 3). Capitalists also enlist the help of the government in order to preserve the system, as seen with the arrest of protestors (para 7) and the “gagging”(para 24) of scientists by Canadian Prime Minister Harper. Klein’s analysis is clear that capitalism causes the climate crisis, the climate crisis results in “more or less” (para 3.) the end of the world. and the solution is, as the title puts, to revolt! Klein states that through actions like “protests, blockades and sabotage” (para 4) the capitalist system can be stopped and we can maybe get a “less fucked”

(para 26) world. Klein backs all of these claims up with science, even in the title she states that it is not her stating we should revolt, but is actually science telling us to revolt. Ironic considering her article relies less on science and more on emotion to convince readers of the need to revolt.

Klein uses words like cruel (para 10) to describe capitalism. She says capitalism “fetishises GDP growth above all else” (para 18) especially human lives and the environment. At one point she makes the direct connection of capitalism and people hanging themselves (Para 10). She refers to climate change as resulting in catastrophe throughout the article (although it’s never expressed what that catastrophe entails exactly) and makes it seem as if the world is ending. All this dramatic imagery, evokes emotions in the reader and creates an enemy and a goal; capitalism is evil and is actively causing the end of the world and if we don’t revolt against it we’re fucked. This extreme imagery also has the added benefit of making anyone who may disagree with the causes of climate change or the degree to which climate change is an issue, as being monsters in favor of money over human lives and the planet. Klein recognises that if she were to say this plainly it might be seen as a tad extreme, so she hides it within a trojan horse of science. She continuously mentions scientists, listing their credentials and achievements as a

method of convincing readers called appealing to authority where the average reader accepts claims because there is an expert who knows better than them on a given topic. Klein also takes the action of summarizing scientists beliefs and research conclusions for us, adding in more evocative language like “catastrophe” (para 9) and “carnage” (para 18). Is this truly how they feel or the conclusions their research came too? That does not matter to the average reader, they just believe that scientists are saying this, therefore it must be true. Despite the title Klein is putting her own words in scientists’ mouths; she takes on this role because she says all the hard to understand jargon of the actual scientific discussion is beyond the average reader (para 3).

Arguments should be backed up with science and specific and sourced evidence, not with the words of scientists and their credentials, or summaries of their words. Klein also fails to represent any dissenting opinions. If an argument is strong then there should be no fear of presenting a counter argument and then disproving it. Instead Klein leads readers to believe that scientists who do not support this idea of climate change resulting in the end of the world are “soft pedaling” (para 21) their findings and that some are lying in order to not face punishment (para 23-24).

This criticism is not to say that Klein is not correct in her conclusions, just that there needs to be a recognition of how she is convincing her readers of these conclusions. There needs to be a recognition that relying on emotion to convince readers of certain conclusions (regardless of whether they are correct or not) is not the same as representing a scientific conclusion. Klein herself would agree saying “ Serious scientific gatherings don’t usually feature calls for mass political resistance, much less direct action and sabotage” (para 5) yet throughout the article and in the title itself she insists otherwise. The clearest problem is that anyone could make the exact same article arguing the exact opposite conclusion with the same methods. Someone could write an article that states climate change isn’t real, find scientists that agree with this, list their credentials so readers trust them, claim that the climate crisis concept is a creation to control people and create panic and maybe even link the panic of climate change to someone hanging themselves. They could then state the only solution is to revolt against the media and government spreading this lie, inciting the distrust of other scientists because they are backed by the government. All still titled Science says: Revolt!

Rate this paper’s overall readability

Does this paper sustain a coherent point of view? Why or why not?

Could the readability, clarity, or style of this paper be improved? How?

Rate the strength of this paper’s thesis.

How smoothly does this paper integrate examples into its own argument? Does it clearly illustrate connections between the evidence it cites and the ideas they support, or does it merely assume them? Explain.

Scan and spot the paper for the any of the following problems: colloquialisms, informality, clichés, and wordiness. Give a few examples of these problems, if they exist.

Give overall feedback on the assignment with one thing done w