Rhetorical Analysis of “Global Warming: Real or Feigned Threat to Humanity” by Mario C. Nierras 

The argument over global warming and climate change has been one of the most controversial and pressing issues, with debates not only about its causes and consequences but also about whether it is real. In “Global Warming: Real or Feigned Threat to Humanity,” published in Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal in 2018, Mario C. Nierras explains the causes of global warming and climate change and warns about the dangers they pose. Nierras strongly supports that global warming is real and demands urgent action by providing various scientific evidence from reliable sources and using emotionally appealing language, but his message becomes less convincing when discussing the role of individuals and families as he emphasizes their importance without offering specific actions they can take. 

One of the strengths of Nierras’ article is the way he organizes and builds his argument. The structure helps the reader follow through his logic step by step. The article has a strong beginning with an explanation of what global warming is, including the difference between global warming and climate change. Then, Nierras moves on to explain how human activities, like burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees, are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. He also explains how gases like carbon dioxide and methane trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and cause the planet to warm (Nierras, 2018). After explaining the science, the discussion is expanded to include the possible effects of climate change such as dangers to food supply, health, biodiversity, and the environment. This shows that the problem is not just a science issue, but a human issue. By the time the reader reaches the middle of the article, the structure that starts with facts and then moves into effect, has created a strong sense of urgency and seriousness. However, the structure weakens in the last part of the article. In the section “Active role or participation enjoined from”, when Nierras starts talking about the role of individuals and families, his argument becomes less clear and less convincing. He says that individuals and families have an important role in solving environmental problems, but he does not explain what specific actions they should take. He claims about the importance of moral values, education, and family influence, but just stops there and omits some concrete steps that can be taken to make the situation better. For example, he says, “It is very essential that proper and true understanding of the real score with respect to these global issues need to be understood and internalized by all people in the world” (Nierras, 2018, p. 4). This part sounds meaningful but also vague compared to the earlier sections, which were more detailed and supported by facts. Because of this, the strength and flow of the argument are interrupted. The structure would be more effective if he had continued with the same level of clarity and detail until the end. 

Another key element in Nierras’ article is his language, or word choice. Throughout the article, he uses emotionally powerful words and phrases to make the reader feel concerned and motivated. For example, he calls climate change a “great misery” and a “crucial call to revive our ecosystem” and uses phrases like “ailing environment” and “perpetuation of humanity” (Nierras, 2018, p. 3). This emotional language can be very effective. It helps readers feel that the issue is not just happening somewhere far away, but personal as they may feel that they are part of problem and solution. It is a call for readers to care deeply about the future of the planet and future generations. This emotional tone adds a moral dimension to the argument, pushing readers to act not just because of logic, but responsibility. 

One of the most convincing parts of Nierras’ article is his use of scientific evidence. He brings in data and examples from a wide range of sources to support his argument and to build credibility. He explains how the burning of fossil fuels leads to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and how this causes global temperatures to rise. Other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide can also contribute to climate change. He says, “The Earth’s insulating blanket is getting too thick that overheats the Earth because less energy (heat) escapes out into space” (Nierras, 2018, p. 2). This is a simple but strong way to explain the greenhouse effect; it shows that he understands the scientific background of the issue and that he has done research. In addition to explaining the science, Nierras uses data to show the effects of climate change on different areas of life. He mentions that climate change could reduce food production by affecting glaciers in Asia, which could impact 25% of the world’s cereal supply (Nierras, 2018, p. 2). He includes studies and references to support his claims, which makes his argument more credible. What is also impressive is that he includes examples from both land and water environments. He talks about how coral reefs are being destroyed due to warmer oceans and how animal species are disappearing (Nierras, 2018, p. 2). He even discusses how climate change affects freshwater systems. This wide range of examples helps readers understand that the problem is global and affects many different systems and in credible ways. However, just like with the structure, the use of evidence becomes weaker in the final part of the article. While the earlier sections are full of facts and references, the later section about personal responsibility does not include any data or studies. He says that families and individuals should take action but never supports this claim with any research or examples of success. This makes the final message feel less grounded in fact and more like an opinion. For an article that starts with such strong evidence, this sudden drop in data makes the ending feel less persuasive. 

Mario C. Nierras’s article “Global Warming: Real or Feigned Threat to Humanity” is a mostly successful attempt to convince readers that global warming is real, dangerous, and demands urgent action. His use of a clear structure, emotionally persuasive language, and strong scientific evidence helps make the article more informative and convincing, especially in the first two-thirds of the text, whereas, the last part, the role of individuals and families, where his argument becomes weaker. At that point, the structure loses focus, and the evidence disappears. If Nierras had continued using the same strong rhetorical elements in the final section, his overall message would have been even more solid. Still, the article significantly raises awareness about climate change and reminds readers that this issue is about us, people. 

Abstract

This rhetorical analysis examines Mario C. Nierras’s article “Global Warming: Real or Feigned Threat to Humanity,” focusing on how structure, language, and evidence are used to persuade readers about the reality and urgency of climate change. The genre is academic rhetorical critique. The writer implies that while the article begins with strong structure and scientific evidence, it weakens in its final section due to lack of clarity and support when discussing individual responsibility.

Reference

Nierras, M. C. (2018). Global warming: Real or feigned threat to humanity. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.13.555898