Oreskes Climate Change

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

Patterson expresses a fear that “Man will be convinced by these climate cultists to turn his back on the very political, economic, and scientific institutions that made him so powerful, so wealthy, so healthy”. By framing his argument in a way that transitions from highlighting the scientific ignorance of global warming to the policies that such a worldview could impact, Patterson attempts to establish a chain of logic that justifies his concern for global warming as an influence on government. The language used in the sentence (“climate cultists” trying to convince “Man”, turning their back on beneficial institutions) also implies to the reader that the proponents of global warming are actively attempting to undermine the institutions that have allowed humankind to thrive in the modern world. This opinion is underlined later in the article, when Patterson contemplates why many “hope” for climate change catastrophe.

The debate about whether human activity or natural occurrences impacting climate changes has been plaguing scientists, politicians, and journalists across the globe for quite some time. People’s lifestyle must change if a positive effect is to be caused on the climate and recreate a safe environment. Changes such the reduction of burning less fossil fuels which reduces greenhouse gases, changes in public perception are needed to clean the environment.

Often, the public and “political debate over what to do about global warming is far different from the scientific debate surrounding the issue” (Taylor) as the media publishes discourse relating to global warming which asserts a rhetorical influence through the ideological screen by which such information is subjectively presented to the public. In the example of a New York Times article on the topic of climate change, the author’s decision to discerningly highlight the fact “that concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase to record levels […] [and] that Arctic sea ice remain[s] at very low levels” (Chan) reflects a selective rhetorical emphasis and dissemination of information that does not include or illuminate other data suggesting a contrary or skeptical perception of global warming. As such, the public depends primarily on the media’s capricious determination of salience and rhetorical delivery to inform personal understanding and opinion regarding the validity and imminence of climate

In the news report “Climate of Doubt”, PBS FRONTLINE investigates the reasoning behind the relationship climate change and politics has been fluctuating over the past few decades. In 2006, An Inconvenient Truth, a film that called for action against climate change, gained mass attention from the American Public. However, this rally for environmental sustainability created some undesirable consequences. There is a growing movement for anti-climate change by various CEOS, scientists, politicians, etc. that have been marketing against green movements. They claim that climate change was developed out of scientific malpractice, has no scientific backing, and the bad weather we experience is no more abnormal than it was a century ago.

The roles of science, the media, and politics greatly influence public opinion and understanding of the world around us. These three spheres of information and action are invariably linked when discussing complex global issues like climate change. However, the presentation and resolution of disagreement within the three spheres is incredibly independent. The many ways that climate change, specifically the debate on the existence of climate change, is portrayed within these spheres can greatly affect public emotion, knowledge, and policy of such an issue. This is particularly evident in the United States (US) (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). This paper attempts to briefly outline the portrayal and settlement of the debate on the existence of

Scientists try to find the answers to the mysteries, like climate change, that people constantly question about. So they use their equipment and a team of researchers to conduct experiments to make new discoveries that would benefit people’s lives. But even when new theories are formed by scientists with the support of evidence, people still hesitate to believe in the theories’ validity because of seven reasons mentioned by Joel Achenbach in “Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science.” The reasons include people’s common sense, personal experiences, vulnerability to confirmation bias, political arguments, the media, peer pressure, and the internet. Even though all seven reasons cause people to doubts science, the two that most affect their

It cannot be denied that humans are both the greatest contributors to climate change and the most affected by it. Approaching the issue of climate change from an anthropocentric lens breaks down the issue and makes it much easier to understand and combat. Given that climate change is our fault and our problem, it is clear that we are also the only ones who can reverse or mitigate its effects. Through personal actions, education, and institutional restructuring we can lessen the impact of climate change and find hope in the

Oreskes and Conway—in their book “Merchents of Doubt”— discuss the ways in which uncertainty within climate change research is used by sceptics to delegitimize the entire notion of anthropogenic climate change. Climate change deniers take advantage of reported uncertainty, claiming the evidence and conclusions of climate science studies lack legitimacy given their uncertainty. Additionally, climate change deniers claim that scientists alter research or downplay uncertainty, despite no evidence of tampering. Uncertainty therefore, while important to include in thorough research, often leaves scientific facts open to unfounded attacks, used by resourceful individuals, for political gain.

In the article "Human nature makes it easier to deny climate change than to confront it" by David Horsey in the LAtimes on January 27, 2017. Argues that as a human race we are going the easy way to a void things that is unimportant to address right now. And we also tend to forget about it until it is out of time to address it. Climate change is one of those problem that we as a whole tend to deny it potential of damaging our planets, and further poison our atmosphere. I think this is a major problem that need to be consider greatly, and start to formulate some kind of plan to attack this climate change problem.

The causes of climate change are many, varied, and complex and documenting the many voices in the debate is an effective strategy. Montenegro understands that each writer speaks from a unique point-of-view which is influenced by their scientific work. Since each writer approaches global warming from a different perspective, each message reveals a different facet of the issue. Exposing the reader to multiple viewpoints broadens their access to information and increases the chance that the message will persuade them. This matters because a person’s response to an issue is unique, so exposing them to many sides of an argument is beneficial. In this example, the human response to climate change is critical. Our beliefs, attitudes and knowledge

The majority of the scientific community agrees, to some extent, that global climate change is a real and serious issue. Various organizations, to include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have gathered endless data on evidence, causes, and consequences. In the past, the debate was whether global climate change was a real phenomenon and whether humans were the main contributors to its acceleration. Unfortunately these debates are still covered through social media sources, such as Fox News and CNN. Presently, these types of debates over whether global climate change and its direct correlation to human induced activities has ceased to continue, and how can anyone argue against when there are several scientists and sources with thorough research. Rather, several organizations have provided more in-depth analysis on the detrimental effects of the increase of greenhouse gases, to include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, water vapor, and chlorofluorocarbons, as well as answering how the increasing adverse effects have will continue to impact the world.

The biggest problem with climate change today is the debate on whether or not human activity is responsible for our current warming trend. According to Jonathon Schuldt (2014:219), around 99.7% of climatologists agree that man-made climate change is a reality, while only 40% of Americans believe that humans are the main driver. This is because we live in societies in which, thanks largely to the internet, everyone is free to express an opinion. On the issue of climate change, we have tons of sites saying one thing, as well as tons of sites saying something the complete opposite. The problem is that the whole debate, clearly scientific based, has been hijacked by politicians, media, and the public who undoubtedly don’t think in a scientific way (Schuldt 2014: 224). This has led to the science of global warming being thrown out of the window and according to Mazo (2014:47), has slowed the momentum of national and international efforts to prevent climate change, to the point where it will be politically impossible to succeed.

When examining climate change, it’s important to understand human’s roles. This includes not only our greenhouse gas emissions and the practices that currently and historically produces them, but also our public understanding of the science of climate change and our effects on it. By this I mean that it is essentially important for all people to

Climate change is a massive controversy in the United States. There are multiple groups, organizations, and political leaders who believe that climate change is a hoax. For example, take U.S. Senator, Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who brought in a ball of snow to the senate floor and stated that “It’s very, very cold out” (C-Span 2015). The wide variety of misinformation about climate change has produced a large scale of climate change skeptics. Most notably are those located in Woodward County, Oklahoma. Thirty percent of the residents in Woodward Country believe that climate change is not really happening (Yale 2014). CNN reporter, John D. Sutter (2015), was sent on a mission to understand why so many in Woodward County are skeptical about climate change. At the end of his journey, Sutter realized that most of the residents were confused and had been fed misinformation. The climate change skeptics were the loudest voices and all those who may have thought differently kept their opinions to themselves out of fear of going against the oil and natural gas industries (Sutter 2015). Nevertheless, skeptics are in need of being informed with the right information about climate change. It is imperative for climate change to be in the forefront not only because 97 percent of climate scientists say that climate change is very real and caused by humans, but because we only have one Earth to call our home (Sutter 2015). In order to convince skeptics to support clean energy policies,