Rhetorical Strategies In Climate Change

The portrayal of scientific issues, such as climate change, in the US media largely disregards the mechanisms used to validate debate in the scientific community. This disregard can be attributed to complex scientific nomenclature in reports, and more importantly, the reliance and continued employment of “journalistic norms” (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). Journalistic norms can be described as ways that news is presented. Implementation of journalistic norms by the media on a particular issue may include personalization that magnifies the present-day importance, an authority-order bias tendency to interview authority figures, and a necessity to provide balance and equal weight to two sides of an argument (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). The aim for balanced reporting and assigning equal weight to

In regards to scientific facts, Gore explains that when it comes to samples and the analyses of many articles and studies on the matter, “the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we are causing global warming and that, it is indeed a serious problem” is zero. (Gore) At first, he also uses overemphasis and exaggeration when referring to mass media and its claims that, many

Although the climate scientists who say that the climate is changing (about 97 percent by some estimates) far outnumber those who don’t, Gore's comments indicate the strength of the

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

Matt Patterson argues in “Global Warming – The Great Delusion” that the alleged scientific consensus surrounding the theory of global warming is based not on fact, but rather on a web of mass hysteria and deceit. Patterson contends that “In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species’ history”, and that the beliefs of global warming proponents are the result of their own delusional imaginations and a subconscious apocalyptic yearning toward which masses of people tend to subject themselves. While Patterson worries that what he perceives to be the

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.

Charles Krauthammer writes an excellent article by attacking the debate over climate change in “The Myth of “Settled Science””. He opens up the article stating that he takes a neutral stance and that neither those who agree or disagree with climate change are right. His main go to target is President Obama. Charles believes that the global warming debate can never be settled. This is because, science is always changing. Based on support of Richard McNider and John Christy, science and technology cannot prove that climate change is a fact or doesn’t exist. With examples of unnecessary mammograms that cause harm rather than good, he questions how can science predict the future based on certain events. He proves that Hurricane Sandy wasn’t the

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

Today, we live in a dog-eat-dog, who’s better than who world. We live in a world where one person’s opinion on something is more important than another’s because they simply are more qualified. With all of the news sources and media outlets, we are left to figure out which source of information is more correct than another based on the credibility and qualifications of its author. This same problem occurs in the topic of climate change. When we look up information about climate change we must evaluate the credibility of the authors who are writing the articles we are reading. Once you are able to figure out which author is more credible the next step is to determine which author is more persuasive and able to convince the reader that their

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”.

In this article, Akerman pushes several points as to why Climate Change doesn’t exist or that it’s effects are non-existent. He goes on to state how global leaders are using this to push alternate agendas such as further taxation and change the global economy as a whole. However, the article is constantly discredited by its lack of scientific facts to back up claims as well as the constant

In this paper, I will be doing just that; I will be analyzing documents about climate change. As climate change is a controversial topic, there are many sides to this subject. I will be analyzing science-based articles from NASA, and NOAA and comparing them with the views of scientists, and popular news outlets.

This document explores the lack of quantitative and qualitative coverage of global climate changes in the newspapers of the United States, which contributes to the American society’s poor knowledge of scientific facts regarding this subject. Considering that the newspapers are one of the many good sources from which people get up-to-date information, and that a considerable number of people still have high regard for the press media as a reliable source of vital news reports, it is unreasonable to undermine the connection between journalistic practices and our knowledge about global climate change.

Global warming has been an ongoing issue for some time. Some people believe it to be true while others believe it to be fake and not caused by humans. However, when reading “Irma and the rise of Extreme Rain”, by the author David Leonhardt, published by The New York Times, believes rising air temperatures are the cause of the extreme rainfall that occurred during Hurricane Irma. David Leonhardt is a notable man who has been in the journalism business for a while now. In 2011 he won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary which is only awarded to those in the realm of journalism. David is also the founder of The Upshot; a Section in The New York Times that looks at data and graphics to provide information to daily news providers.

“When taking the heating of the entire climate system into account, our planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past 15 years” (Cook). Our planet is becoming warmer. When scientists add up all the heat warming the land, oceans, atmosphere, ice melting, earth is accumulating heat equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second. Global warming is a serious issue faced by our world as there has been a significant increase in temperature over the years. But the article published by Dr. Mark Sircus on “Global Warming -largest science scandal in the history” refutes the theory of global warming. Dr. Sircus states that there is no linkage between carbon dioxide and temperature leading to global warming, the sea level is not rising, arctic sea ice extent is now higher and climate change is due to solar activity. Dr. Sircus also points out that that the recent weather changes are not in line with global warming and “we are in the beginning of a deep freeze” (Global Warming - Largest Science Scandal in US History). NASA and the scientific community states that global warming is not a hoax and there is a rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to greenhouse gases released as people burn fossils. NASA states that the “key indicators of global warming are based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance and of receding glaciers, sea ice, and