Climate Denialism

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

The climate change is overall change, which has taken place in global climate pattern due to increase of carbon dioxide in many folds. Whether it is responsibility of individual or the government to control the climate change has become a moot point for many years. Proponents and opponents of both the views have their own strong arguments. Before coming to an end, I would like to light on both the views in my imminent paragraphs.

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 North American Drought of 1988 marked the very first time global warming crossed over from scientists to mass media coverage. Following an American professor’s address to the Senate correlating abnormal weather to global warming, European nations addressed the issue, and many countries began to reduce greenhouse gas. The European Union ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to make it legally binding. In Europe, global warming was acknowledged as a problem, with the only debate centered around how serious of a problem it was- 87% said it was a very serious problem, where around 10%

Climate change is the long term shift in global climate patterns attributed mainly to the use of fossil fuels. Many people are aware of this issue, however, there has been an increase in the amount of people who deny climate change. 23 percent of Americans (compared to last year’s 16 percent) believe that climate change is not a problem (Atkin). To conclude that people do not accept cli­mate change because they do not under­stand it or need to be educated about it, is reasonable. However, I believe that it isn’t skepticism driving this denial. Rather, it is the phenomenon of reaffirming one’s identity. Instead of analyzing the evidence, it is intentionally interpreted in such a way as to maintain a pre-existing belief.

Media coverage of climate change has effects on public attitude on the issue, as it mediates scientific opinion on climate change. The media uses interactions between climate science, policy, statistical scientific texts, data, scientific language and the appearances of scientific personalities. Such as work and stories from scientists that are personally known. It is clear that science and policy shape media reporting and public understanding. Whether people believe in it or not is their

An urgent issue, climate change is undoubtedly a sweeping global dilemma of paramount importance. Though most people are aware of this fact, many either choose to ignore it, or acknowledge it, but take no action against it. Those who do choose to take action usually attempt to combat climate change by using the methods that are most commonly discussed: becoming more energy efficient, recycling, and reducing emissions through using more sustainable transportation. Though these actions are helpful, they are not the most efficient way to counter climate change.

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

Richard A. Epstein is a frequent contributor to the Hoover Institution, and his piece, “Scott Pruitt And The Environment”, hopes to ease hysteria over President Donald Trump’s selection of Pruitt as the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt denies the importance of climate change, he is a pro-industry former attorney general of Oklahoma. Epstein dances around rhetoric on both sides of the polarized climate change debate, creating a discourse which seems unbiased to the casual reader. This rhetorical analysis will strive to keep its proverbial ear to the ground and listen to the elephants hustling in the distance. References leading to right-wing contributors, language that evokes a sense of loss, and taking

Ultimately, Wagemans findings prove that while scientific argumentation as a whole is inaccessible to the public, use of topical argumentations can direct the media focus and public attitudes towards environmental issues. Through applying the same analysis that Wagemans applied in this article, the utilization of topical argumentations becomes evident in the debate over the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline. Because Wagemans expounds that these topical argumentations are imperative to the public’s conception of scientific research, analyzing the monikers employed by groups conveying scientific research such as the Minnesota state government and Enbridge becomes a gauge for how each side is mediating the public’s attitudes towards the pipeline. Wagemans

This raises the question of whether media influence can change ideologies and sway communities’ opinions on fracking. A study was conducted on how different types of media on both sides of the fracking debate influenced readers’ perceptions and beliefs about the gas industry. This experiment examined narrative versus informational types of news, meaning whether the information is presented as more of a story or as a more factual compilation. It also examined how participants’ perceptions were impacted when comparing environmental and economic “frames.” Framing refers to the “the process by which the mass media define and construct issues by emphasizing certain dimensions to the exclusion of others” (Shen, Ahern & Baker, 2014, p. 99). The study evaluated how people’s attitudes about fracking changed after reading either narrative or informational news articles on the topic, and framed with either an economic or environmental perspective (Shen et al., 2014, p. 101). The study found a significant relationship between the type of news presented and a change in the participants’ attitudes (Shen et al., 2014, p.

Clare Foran author of “The Plan to Get Climate-Change Denial Into Schools” writes about activist that want the education system of Texas to teach their children that climate change is an opinion rather that a fact. Emily McBurney, member of the Truth in Texas Textbooks coalition, is rating textbooks that do not meet her standards of education. She and other members are hoping that they influence the state not to purchase the material. That will serve about five million Texas public schools for at least a decade. Most parent want the best for their children and that includes an education, but how can they deny climate change and call it an opinion if there is sufficient evidence to say otherwise? Children should be

97% of climate scientists agree that such increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are man-made (Global Climate Change: Consensus). Why then is it that the news media treats such widely held views by experts as debate rather than consensus? The answer may lie in the media’s current and skewed standards of what constitutes “objectivity” and “balance”.

As human beings, we need to respect the environment in which we live. This is important to greater our future and that of others to follow. Very few people realize that their daily behaviors have a direct impact on the environment, the atmosphere in particular. By emitting harmful gasses into the air on a daily basis is one of the main reasons of such climate changes. People notice such changes and yet don't do anything to help the situation. Wee don't realize the risks that such changes in temperature pose. Rather than trying to conserve gas or taking cold showers, we still go on through our daily activities reluctant to change that will in time benefit the earth. By conserving gas

In Networks in Contention: The Divisive Politics of Climate Change, Jennifer Hadden (2015) investigates the climate movement and the role of contentious actors during the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009. Hadden (2015) identifies two distinct civil society networks of the climate movement: conventional climate advocacy and climate justice activism. Hadden uses relational theory to understand the decision making processes of the conventional climate advocacy networks and climate justice activism networks. Detailing the history and evolution of these two networks, she maps where they overlap and where they become divisive. Hadden (2015) argues that, as climate change became more widely accepted, the climate movement grew to