Sandra Steingraber Despair Not Summary

Society has ignored the changing climate for too long. With the hope of enlightening our generation, McKibben addresses this topic in a hostile manner to bring awareness. By illustrating an image of desolation, describing our planet to be an “inhabitable place” if we don’t change our habits, the author captures the attention of his readers (1). Eaarth is stylistically written in a suitable manner for the intended audience. McKibben refrains from scolding his audience by using “we” rather than “you”—intending that change is only possible if everyone, from all over the world, works together. Rather than simply discussing how climate changed has affected America, he speaks globally about this disaster—as it is typically worse in other countries due to their location on Earth. In addition to adding as aspect of fear, McKibben provides scientific evidence with every statement he makes about the changing environment. Rather than simply stating that temperatures are globally at an all-time high, he states, “Burma set the new mark for the Southeast Asia at 118 degrees, and Pakistan the new zenith for all of Asia at 129 degrees…warmest six months, the warmest year, and the warmest decade for which we have records” (214). On the other hand, McKibben provides so many statistics that it’s almost overwhelming to the

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

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.

On the other side of the argument we have anti-climate change activists, who are sceptical about the issue of climate change. They argue that climate change is an attention seeking stunt, and financial recognition of an irrelevant sector of the science community. Often just trying to convince people that climate change is a hoax.

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.

The documentary “Climate of Doubt” presented by PBS shines a light on the ongoing public debate on climate change and particularly whether it is man-made or a natural occurrence. According to the documentary, new public studies have found that only about 50 percent of Americans today believe that climate change is caused by human activity. PBS Frontline interview John Hockenberry explores and takes the audience through various interviews with scientists, politicians, and skeptics from both sides of the political spectrum to see what is causing the public divide. One side believes climate changed is produced through human activity and that the Fed Gov. needs step in and impose federal regulations like the cap and trade system to cap the amount

With the rise of calamitous news regarding extremists groups taking over certain states, countries threatening to go to war, and viruses spreading throughout the world; the outlook of humanity does not look good. In addition to these dire headlines is the matter of climate change, which, unfortunately, is not as alarming to the public eye. Nonetheless, climate change is a pressing matter as it will impact every facet of society from economy to even human survival. Perhaps the general public find climate change as a vapid subject because of its nature to react belatedly to human activity, and how it is often represented with numbers, graphs, and projections; things that are not compelling to those that do not understand its importance. Even

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

Michael E. Mann is a climate scientist and has been confronted by many climate change skeptics over the years. In the article “Besieged by Climate Denies, a Scientist Decision to Fight Back”, he discusses his position on why he thinks that attacks on science have no place in a functioning democratic society. He also discusses why he believes the “truth” about global warming will, without a doubt, gain wide acceptance in our society.

Most people believe that the controversy of the existence of global warming stopped long ago. In fact, that is very untrue. The common belief is that, yes the earth is warming, the glaciers are melting, and our atmosphere is being polluted, all due to man-made green house gases. What’s new? Shockingly there are still some scientists who disagree. Global warming; a very controversial phenomenon that is still happening, which already is not being handled sufficiently enough, is being argued that it does not exist whatsoever. This causes the general public to believe that they are being educated on the falsehoods of modern science, when in fact that they need to be educated on when to distinguish misinformation for themselves. These

The content in which the author’s argument is structured is crucial to the overall effect of her article. She begins with a statement describing how some feel uncertain about climate change and more specifically the disagreement about anthropogenic climate change. Subsequently, the author proves her main claim that humans are affecting climate change with supporting evidence from credible organizations. She continues to examine her gathered evidence to reinforce her argument as factual, and not merely opinion based. Towards the end of her article, she generates an emotional tone “our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it”, which connects her to the audience (par. 9). This advances her purpose because she then asks the readers to take action and listen to climate scientists, who have tried to make anthropogenic climate change clear to the public (par. 10).

Climate change is one of the most controversial and ongoing topics in society today. Scientist and politicians alike all have opinions, but very often they are not in line with each other. 97% of climatologists agree that climate change is happening, as well as many of the large corporations in this field such as NASA, the Geological Society of America, and the American Association for the Advancement of science. Still, these debates take place on sites such as climatedebatedaily.com or the worldwide conference that was held on June 6, 2015 that took place 79 countries. Both sides claim to have solid evidence that supports their theories, but it is evident to most scientists and corporations alike that the human race is creating our own destruction

Regardless of how visible the changes are presently there are changes occurring constantly. The climate has been changing for decades and that is only what we have scientific data on so the changing could potentially be going on for much longer. The people that favor this denial strategy are simply uncritical thinkers who either don’t want to accept the state of the world and the destination that we are heading or that they have too much financially at stake. Those who are in the latter situation have an ethical dilemma because they should agree with the facts, therefore agreeing with global warming but this would then call for action which for businesses especially will be costly. In our day in age, with our technology, it is difficult to claim you don’t believe in climate change. The acceptance of global warming is scary because it’s the acceptance of the destruction and distortion humans have cause to Earth but even more difficult is the response to the enlightenment. However, that is only half of the

The roles of science, the media, and politics greatly influence public opinion and understanding of the world around us. These three spheres of information and action are invariably linked when discussing complex global issues like climate change. However, the presentation and resolution of disagreement within the three spheres is incredibly independent. The many ways that climate change, specifically the debate on the existence of climate change, is portrayed within these spheres can greatly affect public emotion, knowledge, and policy of such an issue. This is particularly evident in the United States (US) (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). This paper attempts to briefly outline the portrayal and settlement of the debate on the existence of