A Two-Decade Crusade

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.

The Crusades was a horrific time. Many people had lost their lives, friends, even family. The Crusades were a battle over the holy land, Jerusalem. The Crusaders, people who had fought in the Crusades, were Christians. They wanted the holy land because they believe that’s where Jesus had died and rose. They had fought against the Muslims who were defending themselves against the Crusaders. The Crusades had its positive outcomes as well as its negative results. Some may wonder, were the results of the Crusades more Positive or Negative? I strongly believe the outcome was mostly negative mainly because the Crusaders didn’t win the holy land, lots of lands were destroyed, and so many people lost their lives in the battle of the Crusades.

Founder of Constantinople, Constantine claimed the great Byzantine Empire and in turn inherited the new Holy Roman Empire. With the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine proclaimed religious tolerance of Christians throughout the empire and soon the religion spread. Constantine then transformed the city of Byzantium into the new capital of the Roman Empire, which then was known and proclaimed as Constantinople. The new capital would profit from its location being closer to the east frontier, having then the advantage of better trading, and a militarily sound location being protected on three sides by water.

They tried to appeal to the liberal demographic, as The Daily Beast is a liberal media source according to mediabiasfactcheck.com. Due to the standing of The Daily Beast,you could consider the source credible. Though The Daily Beast is credible, it does not mean that it is not biased. In a similar instance to The Atlantic, the source uses subtle wording to sway the reader’s opinion. In the fourth paragraph, the author about to describe another incident, said that the other incident was worse than the incident itself. This shows a subtle bias. Again, in a similar fashion to the Atlantic, they use subtle wording to sway the reader onto the side of Dr. David Dao. In fact, the writing of this article was biased, as most news sources do not write about comedians reactions to events, unless they have a hidden agenda. A critical reader should question the use of loaded language, as in this piece. In this case, the writer is responsible for the perpetuation of misinformation and bias, as the writer should know that the reader will be more likely to follow any biases, as The Atlantic is a reputable

Most of the content in the article was about the actions that had been taken at the United Nations speech. For example, “But Trump’s U.N. speech was a read-from-the-teleprompter performance, not a case of his just blurting out something awful. People in the White House read it and talked about it in advance”. This example, is able to demonstrate that a professional speech delivered to many world leaders had been reviewed by people in the White House, yet it had unprofessional content. The humorous part of the article was when Collin stated, “Even though he won’t drink in mixed company unless his wife is present, or dine alone with a woman he’s not married to”. She is bringing up a fact that mocks Mike

The crusades has much related to today's society in many ways. Even though the Crusades were more consisted around the subject of religion, there is far more that we are now segregated from. Examples of this would be when speaking of gender roles, sexualities, interracialism, and more that is mainly consisted out of love, and personal beliefs. In the Crusades, they went to war because of the holy land, and who they believed to be the ruling religion. There are now riots in the streets, and people being shot, just out of the color, relationship preference, or religion they are. The many battles that were fought in the Crusades had effect, but didn't really change much, in ways things are seen in current times. All though there are places that

On June 1, 2017, from the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump announced that he will be withdrawing the US from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. This could be a step back from the progress that was being made during the Obama administration. It was a very puzzling decision because the majority of Americans supported the agreement. Although some people think that the Paris Climate Agreement is not important, it was a poor decision to withdraw from the agreement because it has the potential to be a very important to Earth's future.

Beginning in the 11th century, Christians across Europe fought a series of wars and campaigns called the Crusades1. For many, a Crusade means any war embarked upon for the sake of a promise, vow, or religion2. After some time, it came to mean any religious war against non-Christians3. The Crusades were fought in order that Muslims would be removed from lands that had previously been Christian. These campaigns were most prevalent in the time from the 11th century through the 13th century, with some minor battles being fought through the 16th century4. Fourteen years later, the emperor Charlemagne died, and Christianity came under fire from Magyars, Vikings, and other nations who were considered to be pagan8. Throughout the tenth century,

It is often said that the news media has a liberal bias. Joseph Goebbels said it best “if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it.” This couldn’t be truer in politics, it’s that bandwagon effect; everyone believes it so you should too. Alterman (2003) stated, “Conservatives have intimidated journalists into repeating their baseless accusations of liberal bias by virtue of their willingness to repeat it… endlessly.” (p.37). In fact, 75% of conservatives say the media is too liberal according to the Gallop Poll News Service (Morales, 2011). Claims of bias are on the rise from conservatives who make more charges of bias in the media than their liberal peers; when in fact the polls show that bias is in favor of conservatives. Claims of media bias have been around since the early days of the newspaper, and continue until this day. It’s no secret that conservatives love to proclaim media bias. It has been in the fore-front of conservative thought and punditry for years that reporters and most media are liberal. The media should be objective and clear of agendas. When the media covers a story and only tells one side of it, the side that fits their agenda that is media bias.

Many would call this agreement an historic turning point. Whether it be positive or negative, people all over will have a different view on this accord. This deal is an agreement including all the world’s nations embarking on climate change. It is meant to rise global temperatures and speed up the process of doing so. Scientists have pointed out that this Paris Accord needs serious renovations and advancement in order to help stop very hazardous climate change. A key element here is to have the richer countries help the poorer countries by providing ‘climate finance’ in order to adopt to climate change and change to renewable energy. Each country had an individual plan tackling the greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. also pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund which is meant to help countries adapt and fight climate change. As you can see, Obama gave up $3 billion not even to our country, America, but he gave our money to other countries. America is not at its best, so for Obama to only be worried about all the other countries of the world is beyond me. Trump withdrawing this agreement sounds like a great thing to me and a lot of other residents. We should not be giving other countries money to help themselves when we are not even helped. As a president, you should be doing anything and everything you can for YOUR country. My position on this, is that I think America should be stable and at a good place before we start helping others. Since May 2017, of the 196

The warming of the Earth’s surface in the past century, or climate change, has been a big topic of debate in the recent years. With the passing of the Paris Agreement, the Obama administration was proud to add another win for climate change activists to their list. Supporters of climate change wish to combat this phenomenon by increasing government regulations and investing in alternative energy. This is met with much opposition as the current administration under President Donald Trump has consistently shown their disregard for the growing issue. Trump has rolled back many environmental regulations for the sake of big business. Because an overwhelming number of climate scientists agree that human activity is causing climate change and its long-term effects impact the global atmosphere, the current administration needs to take a stronger stance on climate reform.

Climate change denier come in many forms. Some including the current president Donald J. Trump who argue that the entire situation is hoax fostered by delusional people. However, some do acknowledge that man-made carbon emission have contributed to the development of the warming, but not enough to justify their action and try to counter the impact. Donald Trump has repeatedly been saying that climate change and global warming is a hoax and believes that it is a “money making industry”.

Currently, the world is facing a big problem. A problem so big, that it puts at risk the world as we know it today. This big, well actually huge problem, is climate change. Climate change is one of the most debated topics now a day, especially recently when the Paris Accords arose to the public eye. The Paris Accords gave even more to talk about when the President of the United States joined the small, now one country group that would not be signing the accords. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, had already stated his point of view on climate change, he has always stated climate change is a myth; therefore, it was no surprise when he decided the United States would not be a part of such deal. The other country that will not be making part of the accords is Syria that has a perfectly understandable explanation as to why they will not be joining the accords. However, The United States finds itself totally divided. The division and uncertainty in the nation over the President began since he was elected, however, this decision to “back out” of the Paris Accords which seek to minimize the world’s pollution brought not only anger but hate towards the President. Most Americans were very shocked by this news and began to show their concern and outrage towards this decision publically. All this information brings to mind an important question, first of all, what is climate change and furthermore, what are the Paris Agreement for Climate Change and how is it affected

The pattern of climate change denialism and the Trump administration’s stance on climate change policy indicates a bleak outcome for climate change mitigation policy. Trump, on Twitter, has repeatedly called climate change a hoax and even said “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” (Trump). Recently, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement intended to lead a worldwide effort to reduce global warming. The United States and China, the largest CO2 emitters, do not view climate change as a very serious problem compared to the global median, according to a report by the Pew Research Center. In this same report, however, it states that “even in China and the United States, where overall concern about climate

When it comes to someone as controversial a character as Donald Trump, it appears everybody and their dog has a passionate opinion. In order to form and (in most cases) confirm those opinions in subjects such as this, the people commonly turn to the information provided by the media (Rosen). The media’s affect on public opinion may seem irrelevant and avoidable; after all, nobody forces you to agree with what’s being reported, right? Although this is indeed true, it has been found that the media can both “legitimise the actions of the powerful, … [and] limit and shape the behaviours of individuals which are central to wider social change” (Happer). Essentially, this means that the life of an individual whose opinion is not influenced by the media will be affected by it regardless, since the thoughts, and therefore actions (such as voting or discrimination), of society as a whole will still be affected. With this knowledge, certainly anyone could agree that the media should be unbiased, as to provide adequate background for the people to effectively form their own educated opinions on certain matters - especially matters of a political nature. This would lead one to think that something as important as the president of the United States of America would receive media coverage that includes both the negative and the positive - as well as liberal and conservative - sides to the story as a whole. However, some believe that there is a “clear media bias against Trump” (Harper),