In Robert J. Liftoff’s article Our Changing Climate Mind-set, he proclaims to the audience that it’s only after 4 catastrophic hurricanes: Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Maria that people see the immediate sense of danger that climate change is causing. Even before the catastrophic hurricanes that devastated millions of people, there were a drumbeat of storms, floods, droughts and wildfires that should have been a clear indicator of climate change. Although there are those that reject the idea that climate change is the result of human devices, awareness has been ever increasing thanks to the many scientist and politicians that she be a topic more heavily discussed. Although this came from a writer that isn’t that well known, the material was published
In Dangling Particles, Lisa Randall argues that the lack of good communication between scientists and the public leads to misunderstandings and problems; therefore, communicating clearly and genuinely is essential for scientific development because science matters to all people. The use of terminology in scientific articles is the main factor leading to miscommunications. Many scientific articles use difficult terms that are unclear to common people because not everyone has a background in science. For instance, the term “Global Warming” had lead to many debates because people had thought that this meant the earth is getting warmer. That’s why the term was changed to “Climate Change” in order to avoid misunderstandings.
In the article ‘Why Bother?’ Michael Pollan, a Professor of Journalism at the University of California, examines the dangers of climate change and how ordinary citizens can reduce its effects on the environment. Although most scientists are concerned and have warned nations of its disastrous effects some still deny the existence of climate change. As if melting ice caps and the ever-increasing blue waters were not enough proof, some citizens believe that climate change is an “unproven theory or a negligible contribution to natural climate variability” (Hall 3). Nevertheless, citizens who believe in global warning can change how they live for the better.
Global warming has been a growing issue to global security, with nations all around the world working to ease the soon possible negative effects. Throughout the world; many media outlets and sources online have covered and have formally addressed this topic. Each media and sources all holds bits of truths inside of them, however, all cannot be entirely unbiased. Most if not online sources covering this topic; list good reasons to battle climate change, due to this they all have their own manipulative techniques used to persuade the audience, favoring the liberal side CNN writes sources and has experts in specific fields to cover a topic relating to their political agenda, Nasa being a very pro-science uses logos to persuade the audience, CNS
Hi Classmate, To be honest with you, after reading this article and the other so far in this class, this presidential administration has really touched a nerve. I think our policymakers have set out to confuse the public and it has become a battle over climate science. Through this battle, Scientists and journalists have decided to go straight to the public, whereas before they would go straight to the politicians in a straighter formal format. Justin Gillis's article in the New York Times, “Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions” is an example of striving to create a simplified way of explaining global climate change to the public, because the science community is having to climb over mountains that President Trump and his administration have created.
However, it is up to the audience whether to take action, to research the topic more or do not make any changes. The persuasive techniques in the video are clear and open, therefore, it has an effect on the audience. It encourages not only to care about climate change, but also take specific steps to reduce it. Even though, the video by Bill Nye in National Geographic provides clear evidence and persuades audience that the climate change is an issue, there are people who believe it is not real.
From a natural science position, I want to recognize how science can devise ways to slow climate change. Additionally, I want to figure out how to reduce emissions from industrial sources. Keywords could be carbon emissions, climate change, and industrial. How can we educate people about climate change and clarify misinformation? From the social science lens, I want to know how we can appropriately teach people about climate change and highlight misinformation about the subject.
The text's meanings and purpose are climate change labels, the climate change debate, and the ‘science’ surround climate change. Moreover, in comprehending implicit-purpose, the text leans in favoring climate change. The text provides cynical adjectives in associating the term “deniers.” Words like “manipulating data,” “phony skeptics,” “ludicrous claims,” “cherry-picking,” and “Holocaust” are used relating to
When it comes to climate change we all practice cognitive dissonance, and it's because the science is difficult to comprehend. In Naomi Klein's book, This Changes Everything Capitalism vs. The Climate, "I told myself the science was too complicated and that the environmentalists were dealing with it . . . A great many of us engage in this kind of climate change denial" (2015, pg.3). Moreover, for example, just because my classmates took a course in environmental policy it doesn’t mean that they will come out as environmentalist. It takes a lot of understanding, because climate change involves multiple disciplines.
When communicating issues surrounding climate change, framing is a vital tool used by policymakers to help others understand its importance. The framing of climate change impacts policy, public opinion, and actions taken by individuals. It creates a sense of urgency for climate change that can help garner public engagement and support. According to Matthew Nisbet in the article “Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement,” “Frames are interpretive storylines that set a specific train of thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and what should be done about it” (Nisbet 15).
In a 2017 Gallup Poll, 3% of Americans found this issue to be an important problem (Gallup, 2017). Even though the issue of global warming is currently producing more “destructive hurricanes and longer and more damaging wildfire seasons” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2017). Global warming does not appear to meet the standard of a mainstream issue because it lacks controversy. Though there is a proportion of the population who does not believe that global warming is occuring, scientific evidence as well as visible changes in our weather patterns assert that this issue is real. The federal government,
Among his sources, Leslie calls upon, Dr. James Hansen, a climate scientist and the director of the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solution at Columbia University ("People - Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions,"
Next, on the news there is usually a debate on climate change so some think that it is a common belief and it shifts their beliefs. According to the The Huffington Post less than third of American citizens agree that climate change is real. For a country that has 318.9 million
They also point out that global warming consensus is not based on science, but for the political purpose. From my perspective, the severity of climate change indeed can affect the decisions of policy-makers, such as green policy and governance. But it does not mean that people can just ignore the consequences of the enormous emission of greenhouse gases in the past few decades. First of all, countries in Latin America and Africa tend to concern more about climate change issue than other regions. I have noticed that the majority of climate change skeptics mentioned in the documentary were from U.S..
A good example is described in "How Ecological Science is Portrayed in Mass Media. " In this journal, Baker, Williams, Lybbert, and Johnson (2012) conducted a survey to determine how much ecological science is covered in mainstream media. They concluded that it is rarely covered and that this trend is not changing over time (Baker et al., 2012). Newspapers and newsletters provided the most common outlet for ecology to the public in the Baker et al. (2012) article, which is a similar statement that was made in the Gerbner (1987) and Nisbet et al.
