Summary and Response to an Article: Besieged by Climate Deniers, a Scientist Decides to Fight Back by Michael E. Mann

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.

It is well known that politics and religion are two topics to never to be discussed with someone one does not know well. In today’s society, it feels as if this list of topics that are socially deemed inappropriate to discuss seems to be growing, with climate change now being a conservation to avoid. This aversion to discussing climate change appears to stem from the fact that the issue tends to polarize opinions, in which people fall into one of two groups: climate change skeptics and climate change believers. This paper seeks to address and analyze the ways in which climate skeptics speak about and understand climate change as well as how climate scientists understand climate change phenomena. More specifically, this paper focuses on how climate skeptics comprehend the relationships between grasslands, livestock, methane and nutrient cycling and how these interconnected concepts do not lead to the type of climate change that “green urbanities /green politicians/green activists/green elite” predict. The paper will conclude with an evaluation of the two differing positions between climate skeptics and climate scientists, in which I will determine which argument I find to be the most accurate.

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.

In modern America few problems prove to be as fundamentally problematic as the theory of human induced global warming. Its repeated coverage from within the media and political arena are influencing people worldwide, putting those who think differently in an outcast shadow. The truth of the matter is, to not believe in human induced global warming has become politically incorrect and unacceptable in the public eye. The theory of human induced global warming can be defined as the rise in temperature through human pollution of greenhouse gases resulting in catastrophic alterations in the earth 's environment. However, human pollution of greenhouse gases is so minor that it is not a contribution to the

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

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 essay “The Climate emergency” is based on a speech made by Al Gore at Yale University in April 2004 to a room full of students. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the United States under President Bill Clinton. He is also an environmental rights activist. In the beginning of the speech the former vice president shares a story about his trip to a Shoneys Restaurant with his wife Tipper to draw the audience in. (300-301). Once he captures their attention he is able to focus them on his real message.

Matt Patterson argues in “Global Warming – The Great Delusion” that the alleged scientific consensus surrounding the theory of global warming is based not on fact, but rather on a web of mass hysteria and deceit. Patterson contends that “In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species’ history”, and that the beliefs of global warming proponents are the result of their own delusional imaginations and a subconscious apocalyptic yearning toward which masses of people tend to subject themselves. While Patterson worries that what he perceives to be the

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.

There have been plenty of disputes regarding the infamous topic global warming, despite the fact that there is a unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. A history professor at UCSD, Naomi Oreskes, discusses this in her article, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. She begins her investigation by researching credible experts and environmental organizations, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, and several others. By utilizing these various sources as evidence it strengthens her argument about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. In this case, Oreskes audience consists of

Climate change, global warming, greenhouse effect—even if you only watch the news periodically, these are phrases that you have most likely become aware of. In short, climate change is the change global and regional patterns regarding climate; this is due to possible changes in the Earth’s axis, human activity modifying the composition of the atmosphere, or geographical activity such as volcanic eruptions [1]. Many have speculated and argued whether climate change actually exists. Regardless of your opinion, a staggering amount of scientists have accepted climate change as a reality. In fact, the much-admired astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson claims that individuals denying scientific facts is the “beginning of the end of an informed democracy” [2]. The article Climate Change: No Hiding Place supports Neil deGrasse Tyson’s notion stating “those who doubt that greenhouse gases are quite the problem they have been cracked up to be by most of the world's climatologists” [3]. While it may be difficult to see climate change presently, there are many indicators of its existence with the higher temperatures and acidity levels in the ocean, the melting of Arctic ice caps,

‘We must acknowledge that the debate over climate change, like almost all environmental issues, is a debate over culture, worldviews, and ideology’ (Hoffman, 2012: 32)

With the topic of global warming, there is a mixed belief on whether it is a scam or not within the population. Those who disagree with the idea of global warming believe that the government use this issue as a way to get money by citizens, and that the constant temperature changes are just naturally part of the earth's cycle. (MacMillan, A. 2016) Doubters of global warming also believe that humans are not what started the issue of climate change on Earth. They believe that the revealed data by scientists was all a lie to concern and scare people. (MacMillan, A. 2016)