To say that the issue of climate is resolved in the United States of America would be a falsehood. It is a commonly heard claim that 97% of climate researchers believe that global warming is real (Skeptical Science, 2012), and one would think that such consensus would inspire action among all positions of government. However, there is still the minority of scientists who do not explicitly agree with, or completely deny these beliefs. One such scientist is Richard Lindzen, who argues that there is an emotional, propagandistic reason why there would be such a large percentage of scientists who believe that climate change is caused by human factors.
In a 2015 lecture, Lindzen expresses a distaste for climate science that is based on the motivations
…show more content…
The data is presented in the form of information regarding rainfall in the region. The warrant here is that a decrease in rainfall would affect the Peruvian asparagus market whilst the argument is that the decrease in rainfall would cause the Peruvian economy to become strained. This information was created from Thompson’s own data and was also formed through the scientific process rather than using anecdotal evidence. Thus, from a scientist’s perspective, it may be more valuable than Lindzen’s …show more content…
As climate change is inherently a scientific topic, any claims regarding it should be founded in, well, science. A moral case may be presented as well, such as “We need to ensure that the earth will be a better place for our forebears.” Science should be discussed under the lens of morality supporting the creation of data and information, allowing the data itself to be questioned. Whether or not the data is ideologically motivated should be part of the discussion as well as the data that exists. However, there needs to be conflicting data to prove unethically collected data wrong. Should this be impossible to fulfill, it should be assumed that the data is sound until another data set proves it to be misleading or inaccurate. Arguably, this process may be seen as a fallacy itself; specifically, the Ad Ignorantum fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an argument is assumed to be true because there is no counter-argument. There is one key difference. This system expects to have conflicting arguments vying for superiority. It doesn’t require something to be true because nothing has proved it wrong, it expects it to be true because it hasn’t been proven wrong
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.
Mark Zepezauer’s article, “MK-Ultra from the Book the CIAs Greatest Hits” discusses the psychology experiment conducted by the CIA, MK-Ultra. The MK-ultra conducted a study that used mind control on their participants. Zepezauer recounts the events of the CIA tries to defend their stance by claiming they used the method in response to the brainwashing from the Chinese that was happening in the fifties. He says that mind control practices took place prior to 1953, but became popular after the experiment. He continues to explain how the CIA would use drugs, including LSD, and test them on their patients that were unaware of what tests were upon them. Zepezauer reveals that multiple suicides also took place in response to the given substances. He deliberated how the CIA rented out apartments and used prostitutes in their study. They used them to slip the drugs into their client’s pockets and the CIA would look through one-way mirrors to see the client’s response. Once the auditors discovered this, the MK-Ultra shut down and renamed the MKSEARCH. Mark Zepezauer
The scientific consensus about the bad effects of cigarettes on human health emerged decades before the social consensus did. Thus, the same is to be expected about the climate change issue. Dr. Hoffman stated that, “scientific knowledge is never socially or politically inert particularly when it prompts changes in people beliefs or actions”. However, it is important to understand that climate change skepticism will not be overcome by a forceful presentation of the science. The source of a climate change messages is very important, if the audience trust the communicator, they are more likely to trust their arguments. This goes along the impacts of Democratic and Republican’s views on climate change, which can be seen as somewhat
Lewis could support Lasn arguments because Lewis describes A&F as a place that does not seem un-Moonielike. Lasn make a distinction between the feeling of independence and the rules. Lasn mentions, “The atmosphere is quite un-Moonielike. We’re free to roam and recreate. No one seems to be forcing us to do anything we don’t want to do. In fact, we feel privileged to be here. The rules don’t seem oppressive. But make no mistake: There are rules” (378). Lasn emphasized the comfort ability the consumer culture creates for its members. The ambience of the culture he considers a cult is supposedly free and unrestricted. With that feeling, Lasn believes one becomes so welcome that they feel privileged- they belong here. The rules of the cult do not seem
Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.
“My Lady, I am submitting in its entirety the article written by Mr. Lofgren that nine newspapers rejected,” Godafrid pronounced. “Once again, there is documentation of how the Rochester Manninghouse Corporation purged Mr. Lofgren’s article from the World Wide Web. Additionally, I am forwarding compelling evidence indicating that the disregard for the freedom of information came at the behest of the World Governing Body. In fact, the office of John Jones-May issued point-by-point instructions commanding the media to reject news in any way injurious to the World Governing Body or its branches. News organizations not in compliance with these edicts faced the threat of closure. Thank you, Mr. Lofgren. Before we proceed further, we must establish
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%
Even scientists who think human activity is the main cause of climate change don't deny that natural changes will cause temperature fluctuations on Earth. However, their argument is that in the current cycle of climate change, the impact caused by man is far greater. But there’s no indication that the two sides of the climate change debate will reach any common ground in the near future on what scientific evidence is showing, or what policy decisions should be adopted.
As a lover of meteorology, I have always paid attention to the weather and natural world around me. I have noticed and taken record of the change of temperature, major weather events, and the changes in my backyard. When people mention climate change, I automatically think of a phenomenon that is true, and because of my personal experience with observation. I also have believed this to be true because those around me have never presented me with evidence to the contrary. The way that I know climate change is real is because of my perception. While others may perceive no significant change in the environment or the weather patterns that surround them, I recognize a change. I would therefore present the argument of climate change as one that is not just obvious, but supported by many scientists as well. Because of the way I would present this, my statements would not be left open to interpretation, as the way that scientists often present factual
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.
Unlike other problems in America; abortion, gay marriage, etc. climate change has a strong scientific consensus about the need for action. One can make a good case that abortion is good or bad. But can’t argue that based on the evidence, climate change is not happening. And just because most climate scientists believe that climate change is happening, does not mean that that any certain policy is the “right”
Gerald Graff is a professor of English and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Graff, in his essay, emphasizes the importance for instructors to teach and increase enjoyable courses that students shall truly understand. Graff assures that all kids have hidden intellectualism trying to emerge from within, and as a teacher he feels partly accountable to help those kids develop their competencies in educational work. The essence of Graff’s argument is for students to know that intellectualism lurks within them all, and they need to implement their potential at school. Furthermore, he enriches the essay based totally on his own life experiences, along with his hidden intellectualism, while he attended school during the anti-intellectualism
Climate change and the effect it has had on global warming has been a scientific subject discussed for the last 30 years; however, only recently has it became a highly debated issue in world politics and pop culture. In fact, according to United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), climate change is one of only a few topics that many countries across the world have agreed upon as a potential future cataclysmic issue which must be discussed by world leaders who should also address it with their citizens. The vast majority of scientists are not only
A meeting discussing global warming and the ongoing climate change (and the impact CO2 emissions have on the growing problem) has been in session in Peru for the past few days. Dozens of world leaders are gathering to discuss possible changes that can be implemented to halt the increase in temperature seen around the globe. However, many prominent scientists have stated that it may be too late for these world leaders to make any significant impacts (Associated). These scientists, and many other people around the world, believe that humans have contributed significantly to global warming, and as a result mankind needs to do whatever it can to combat this ongoing crisis. Nearly 3,500 miles away from Peru, United States Senator James Inhofe is in Washington D.C., representing Oklahoma in the United States Senate. Senator Inhofe is one of the loudest preachers of the belief that global warming is not the dire threat that so many scientists make it out to be. Inhofe has claimed that it is “arrogant for people to believe human beings are able to change what He (God) is doing in the climate” (Tashman). The Senator believes that only God controls the climate and the environment, and to even think that humans are impacting the earth’s climate is misguided (Tashman). These two opposing viewpoints bring with them questions of religion, politics, human responsibility, and ultimately the fate of the planet. On one side, there are those who say that the science is so concrete, and the
As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.