The Relationship Between Right Wing Authoritarianism And Climate Change Beliefs

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.

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

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.

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

Indeed, wooden-headedness plays a large role inside of all organizations and human affairs, as seen by our American government. Even though there is a scientific consensus among the top scientists in the world that climate change is a real phenomenon, Trump and his administration have constantly ignored all contrary signs of climate change to focus on his preconceived notion that climate change was invented by China to set back our industrial capacity. Despite the fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Science has stated how “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society,” Trump continues to exhibit wooden-headedness by rejecting contrary evidence of climate change and pretending as if climate change doesn’t exist.

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.

With today’s broad spectrum of opposing political ideals, climate change is one of the most polarizing and argued points. In an article entitled “Why Some Conservatives Can’t Accept That Climate Change Is Real” by Carolyn Gregoire, we are presented the supposed thought process and biases held by modern conservatives. The author, Carolyn Gregoire, serves as a senior science and health writer at The Huffington Post. Though challenging competency is a common attack used on both sides of the political isle, this piece sidesteps petty mudslinging and instead takes root in the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Inherently, as a political piece, this article criticizes the conservative thought camp. In doing so, this article (like a majority of articles on the Huffington Post) is written towards a sympathetic, liberal audience. Pertaining mainly to psychology, there is no doubt logos is the appeal used by the author. Furthermore, with logos often comes strong, inductive reasoning. As we delve deeper into this article, we also will examine and explore several fallacies implemented by the author. Also

The goal of the paper is to answer the research question: “Within the U.S. general public, are conservative white males more likely than other adults to espouse climate change denial?” The authors utilize past research on identity-protective cognition as a theoretical basis for their study. Their general methods include using public opinion data from the Gallup annual environmental poll administered in the years 2001-2010 and conducting a multivariate statistical analysis. Variables analyzed include five indicators of climate change denialism, a “dummy variable” to control for direct effects

Climate scientists have come to the deduction that human activity is responsible for the Earth’s surface temperature rising at a very rapid rate over the past thirty years and the very serious implications that could result. The purpose of this paper is to answer why there are an astounding number of Americans that deny global warming despite the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. The hypothesis of this paper is: due to America’s shift from a functionalist perspective to a postmodern perspective; the population is more susceptible to information released by self interest groups attempting to sway public opinion. The study was a compilation of diverse methods. Using qualitative as well as quantitative research, the author came

The debate about whether human activity or natural occurrences impacting climate changes has been plaguing scientists, politicians, and journalists across the globe for quite some time. People’s lifestyle must change if a positive effect is to be caused on the climate and recreate a safe environment. Changes such the reduction of burning less fossil fuels which reduces greenhouse gases, changes in public perception are needed to clean the environment.

Climate change conspirators/deniers is a problem to today’s population. Climate change is defined as any irregularities in earth’s weather (NASA, 2017). Individuals who deny the scientific facts that are climate change is an interesting subset of the population. Climate change conspiracy theories typically challenge the scientific proof and ultimately claim that climate change is a hoax. The reasons these individuals give vary. For one, a major claim is that climate change is natural and not a result of human behaviour/consumption patterns. Another main argument is that the science is not reliable. Despite both, and hundreds of other arguments against climate change being proven wrong, these deniers continue to believe that climate change does not exist. The primary conspiracy theory that will be focused on is the belief that climate change is a sham. Two research questions that would help understand why individuals choose to believe this conspiracy theory are: are there any common demographics among climate change deniers; and, how is this belief perpetuated in the media?

In December 2015, almost 200 countries around the world, gathered in Paris to sign an accord to slow global warming. Only three developed countries did not agree with the accord. To most, it may seem that preventing global warming is necessary to protect future generations from heat waves, super storms, and extreme flooding. Classical liberalism can provide the best explanation of why some countries choose to ignore global warming.

One of important takeaway from Lakoff and “Psychologists are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously,” was the need to understand how the other side worldview before attempting to persuade them of anything. The experiment using text that featured either “innocents suffering” or “disgust” concerns was

Climate change has undoubtedly become one of the most prominent debate topics in the world today. With that being said, there are multiple aspects of climate change currently being discussed; causes of climate change, the idea that climate change may be a hoax, and whether or not climate change affects human health are three of the many ongoing debates about climate change. Climate change is surrounded by negative connotations, but Jay Leno, former host of NBC’s The Tonight Show, shed some light on the darkness of climate change, saying "According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” Although his first statement is rather true, Leno manages to lighten its load with a less true, but hilarious, comment. His words force one to realize that climate change impacts everyone in any area of the health triangle, whether it be through a joke such as Leno’s, or directly through issues such as pollution and pollen; the areas of the health triangle include physical health, mental/emotional health, and social health. Therefore, climate change is a threat to all aspects of human health; social health, mental/emotional health, and physical health.