The Denial Of Climate Change

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.

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 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.

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.

Brian Sussman and Mark Hendrickson both deny global warming is due to the fact that human are polluting the earth with emissions and other waste products. They both agree that the climate around the globe is changing, but they both say that it is a natural occurrence. Mark Hendrickson and Brian Sussman both made great arguments against manmade global warming, but I am still a little undecided as to which side of the fence I am standing on.

"The pace of global warming is accelerating and the scale of the impact is devastating. The time for action is limited - we are approaching a tipping point beyond which the opportunity to reverse the damage of CO2 emissions will disappear."

Propaganda infested the debate on climate change after interest groups’ increasingly high expenditures financed the argument against climate change. Although propaganda is blatantly common on both sides, the opponents’ weakest link is the science and therefore the logic. Phillips and the Americans for Prosperity abundantly spent on advertisements that persuaded the American public's opinion on climate change. These advertisements were full of logical fallacies, admittingly by Phillips. Eventually, the U.S. Senate took a delagate role where “constituents’ opinions and preferences [are] reflected in legislative opinion”. From the ground up, Americans for Prosperity’s money and propaganda convinced the U.S. Senate to vote against the cap-and-trade

Hegemonic ideology is shaped in the news by Murphy’s above-mentioned notion of discursive framing. Murphy, however makes the sweeping assumption that discursive framing can be applied to similar conflicts, but this is not always the case. For the purpose of this literature review, discursive framing will only be applied to the concept of climate denialism that runs rampant in the Calgary Herald. Murphy (2015, p.355) asserts, “denial, dismissal, diversion and displacement are the four strategies that institutions use in order to exclude uncomfortable knowledge.” This debate has a tendency to occur outside academia and from what I have seen, occasionally surfaces in business journals that oppose

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 recent years, the controversial subject of global warming has been more predominantly brought to our attention. Is the threat of global warming real? Is it man-made or is this just a natural cycle of earth? Does it really affect earth’s inhabitants? Should action be taken against it? If so, what kind and to what extent? It cannot be only a coincidence that the alarmingly rapid climate change coincides perfectly with the increased amount of pollutants that humans release into the environment. The once stable climate has in recent years begun to skyrocket, thus altering the delicate structure of earthly life. This proves to be hazardous to the future of the planet; some people worry that many of the resources the environment provides that

One can say that Global Warming is perhaps one of the most controversial topic of debate in our time. Some say that it’s a hoax started by China, while others say it is the greatest challenge facing our planet. However, The truth is that Global Warming is real. It is an inconvenient truth. Denying it won't make it wrong ( fixed). We can’t run away from it, but we can prevent exacerbating it . Change needs to happen fast ( and to do that we should act fast), and ( that means ) now. If not, the world will be difficult place to live in.

Climate change otherwise known as global warming has been an ongoing issue for decades. Beginning in the 19th century, climate change has increasingly affected Earth and its atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are warming the Earth’s atmosphere, causing rising sea-levels, melting snow and ice, extreme fires and droughts, and intense rainfall and floods. Climate change has and will continue to affect food production, availability of water, and can add to many health risks in humans and animals. In fact, in an article by Justin Gillis titled, “Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries” he focuses on a paper written by a former NASA climate scientist, James E. Hansen, explaining the effects of climate change on Earth today. Although many believe Hansen’s theories in the paper are quite far-fetched, the author mentions, “Despite any reservations they might have about the new paper, virtually all climate scientists agree with Dr. Hansen’s group that society is not moving fast enough to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, posing grave risks” (Gillis). Gillis validates the fact that climate change has been rapidly expanding throughout Earth and society has not been able to reduce it fast enough. Many negative risks are being posed and will continue to mount if the issue of climate change is not taken seriously. Although climate change negatively affects nearly all aspects of Earth, it poses a big

This paper will discuss the issue of Global Warming. It is true that not everyone believes that Global Warming is an issue. Because of this there are two distinct groups, the Supporters and the Skeptics. Global warming is an issue that we face daily. Without immediate action we will soon have to face the consequences. This is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately by Congress so we can preserve the world's resources for our children as well as our grandchildren.

Imagine dramatic environmental changes, the displacement of millions, and various animal extinctions; these are all possible outcomes for the future. As a matter of fact, these ideas are not far-fetched whatsoever, because many reputable sources verify these claims. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities (NASA). In other words, global climate change is a stark reality because of human civilization. However, when the issue of climate change pops up in a conversation, a standard person would most likely not know about the topic or try to avoid it altogether.