The situation about environmental protection began to change in the early 1980s, as the Reagan administration labeled environmental regulations a burden on the economy and tried to weaken them and reduce their enforcement (Dunlap and McCright, 2008). The anti-environmental orientation of the Republican Party became important yet again following the Newt Gingrich led Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, sparking a modest negative reaction from the public (Dunlap,2002), and has been greatly amplified during the George W. Bush administration (Pope and Rauber, 2004). According to Dunlap and McCright (2008) the divide has been most obvious among political elites, such as members of Congress, who tend to be more ideologically concentrated on contrasting positions than the general public. The latest research from Gallop (2009) shows a currently very large gap between Republicans and Democrats in terms of believing that facts about global warming.
Eagan and Mulllin (2009) believe to a large extent, people’s perceptions are likely to be guided by the contradictory discourse of elites, with the consequence that more partisan and politically sophisticated citizens will express more consistent beliefs. Americans’ beliefs about the existence of global warming are unstable (Eagan and Mullin, 2009). The belief level in 2009 represents an eight point drop from a year earlier, when 61% of respondents surveyed by Gallup agreed that global warming effects had already begun (Saad, 2009). This instability in opinion reflects the low public salience of the climate change issue and the sharp disagreement among policy elites about the problem and potential solutions. Regardless of the media’s culpability, currently the media is not a trusted so...
... middle of paper ...
...vating a moral orientation through which to address climate change and the broader challenges facing America and the world. (Goldstein and Wapner, 2006)
The Republican presidential contenders consider global warming as a hoax or, at best, make light of its importance. The most vocal denier is Rick Perry, the Texas governor and longtime friend of the oil industry, who claim that climate change is an unproven theory created by "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects." Unfortunately, because of the economic downturn, addressing climate change has become less urgent for voters but that doesn’t mean that the issue is going away. The nation badly needs a candidate with a logical, disciplined national strategy. We have yet to find a Republican who fits that description. (NY Times, 2011)
He includes references from scientists with different backgrounds and public statements from government officials to support the claims that he made. Not only that, Scranton is a doctoral candidate in English at Princeton University, and he has written for The New York Times, Boston Review, and Theory & Event. Also, Scranton has published a novel about the Iraq war. His achievements and academic background certainly increase his credibility. His scientific and political sources add to his credibility even more so. The examples included in the logos paragraph is only a representation of the evidence featured in his article hence the use of the plural version of scientists and government officials in this essay. Even though Dr. Scranton has credible sources, he does fail to consider a portion of UTA readers. He mentions that the “question is no longer whether global warming exists” but instead questions how we are going to deal with it (par. 9). As a result, Scranton ignores the readers that might not believe in global warming; he does not recognize this small audience in his article, and as a consequence, readers might find Scranton to be slightly arrogant. Despite the failure to acknowledge this alternate view, Scranton does have the public’s interests at heart. The purpose of the article is to convince readers to take action and help save humanity
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, D.C: Island Press.
“It’s the end of the world as we know it.” In addition to being the lyrics to a very popular song, these words represent the beliefs that Michael Pollan expresses in his article, “Why Bother?” Michael Pollan is an award-winning American journalist who maintains quite a passion for the climate crisis that seems to plague our news. In addition to writing many books on environmental conservatism, he teaches journalism at the University of California - Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Sadly, in this article, it seems as if Pollan gives in to his own titular question and surrenders to the force of climate change.
Gore’s logical appeals emphasize the danger and significance of global warming in a cogent, engaging multimedia platform. Rather than monotonously expounding upon detail after detail, he uses interactive visual aids to clarify his claims. As Stefan Lovgren, in “Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Movie: Fact or Hype?,” abbreviates, “the documentary handles the science well.” Gore is confident in the delivery of his information; he talks to his audience with ease and precision. He states, “[t]he relationships are actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide...
Global warming has been an issue for quite some time now and only recently has it been adopted by a mass amount of people in their efforts to fight against it. However, there are people and organizations who claim that global warming does not exist or is not caused by human activities. After reading my text, Taking Sides, on the debate between members of UCS and members of the CEI, I wanted to do a little research of my own to see if the claims they were making were accurate. Even though members of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Competitive Enterprise Institution argue two opposite sides of the global warming issue, they have much in common within their tactics to win the debate. Both organizations have credible and discreditable backgrounds and pay enormous amounts of money to those in administration to gain their support as well as donating money to other organizations for their support. The UCS and CEI also use scientists to prove their positions to be correct, and they both provide scientific evidence on both sides.
...nd by our position. However, the battle against global warming, GMOs and DDT alarmism is unfortunately far from the end. The alarmist environmental movements have been endorsing these swindles for many years that include some influential groups in the government, science, business and liberal media. Up to this point, the majority of the debates were based on predictions and now we are at the point where the actual facts are showing that the predictions are incorrect. The real picture of these debatable topics are becoming more clear and unless something major occurs in the near future it is going to be difficult for the environmental groups to continue to support their untruthful stories. Solomon’s article proves that today’s governments that used to support the idea of global warming are reconsidering their position and aiming to steer in a different direction.
Climate change created by human activity is one of, is the single biggest threat to life on earth, sea levels are rising at a rate double then that of the last century,400,000 people die a year from climate change related causes, and if we don’t do anything about it within 25 years, millions of people will suffer from disease, fall into poverty, and suffer from extreme hunger. Despite all the evidence, one of our country’s major political party refuses to acknowledge that climate change is man made or a threat.
Climate Change has become an incredibly controversial topic because of the bid to win votes. As with any successful political party, capital and supporters are needed to fund and support campaigns and activities to secure votes. The Democratic and Republican parties have taken opposite sides of the ring regardless of scientific proof. In relation to global warming, the Democrats represent the environmentalists in the green corner and the Republicans represent the current energy tycoons in the red corner. The two opposing parties are simply trying to one up each other with each rhetorical combination thrown. The more irrational or misconstrued the rhetoric, the more the crowd rooting for each fighter reacts and the more independents rally to
Sheppard, M., (2010). Post climategate: Towards a reassessment of the global warming. Retrieved February 13, 2010, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20017
In 1989, seventy five percent of Americans identified themselves as environmentalists, and the number has continued to grow since then (Walls 1). Environmentalism is now the most popular social movement in the United States, with over five million American families donating regularly to environmental organizations (Walls 1). Environmentalists today focus on what kind of world they hope to see in the future, and largely deal with limiting pollution and changing consumption rates (Kent 1 and 9). Modern environmentalists also have much different issues than those Carson’s America faced. With climate change becoming more threatening each year, protection of the natural world is needed more than ever. Pollution has caused the warmest decade in history, the deterioration of the ozone layer, and species extinction in extreme numbers (Hunter 2). It not only threatens nature, but also human populations, who already suffer from lack of clean water and poisoning from toxic chemicals (Hunter 16). Unlike environmental actions in the 1960’s, which were mostly focused on protection, a massive increase in pollution has caused efforts to be focused on environmental restoration (Hunter 16). Like in the time of Silent Spring, environmentalists are not only concerned with one country. Protecting the environment remains a global issue, and every nation is threatened by the
Al Gore mentions Mark Twain’s quote, “what gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so”; we sometimes think we know what something is but we have no clue about what’s true and what’s not. Many people know what global warming is but when asked to go in depth they just say “oh it has to do with heat and it affecting our environment”. “Even if humans were causing global warming, and we are not, this could be maybe the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.”- Senator James Inhofe. How ignorant must this senator be? There is evidence supporting the fact that global warming is occurring. It’s not until the world is ending that people that have the same mind set as this man will finally understand that global warming is happening. Yet, they will still have the audacity to say “I didn’t think global warming was THAT important.” “If a frog jumps into a pot of boiling water, it jumps right out again because it senses the danger. But the very same frog if it jumps into a pot of lukewarm water that is slowly brought to a boil, will just sit there and it won’t move. It’ll just sit there even as the temperature continues to go up and up. It’ll stay there, until it’s rescued. People are like the frog, we’ll jolt sometimes before we become aware of a danger; however, if it seems gradual even if it’s happening quickly, we’re capable of just sitting there and not
* Fritsch, Albert J. Environmental Ethics: Choices for Concerned Citizens. Garden City: Anchor Press-Doubleday, 1980.
Subpoint A: Not long ago, a documentary film called “An Inconvenient truth” came out in 2006. This film raised international public awareness of climate change and reenergizing the environmental movement. A former U.S Vice president Al Gore campaigned to educate citizens about global warming through a simp...
Spotts, Pete. "Global warming? Public attitudes often at mercy of the weather, study finds." Christian Science Monitor 13 Jan. 2014: N.PAG. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 June 2014.
The controversial subject of global warming according to a large amount of scientists is not a prominent concern. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all. If so many scientists believe it is not a concern then why should we think any different? Well, a consensus shows that in reality 97% of all climate scientists agree that global warming is an issue and that it is most likely due to ...