A Review Of The Article Review

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.

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

Yes, the researcher has got the ethical approval from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s ethical committees before the study. The participants were explained fully and the interviews are recorded. Confidentiality is also guaranteed. The participants can also leave the research whenever they want, so they are not forced to be interviewed, giving false answers.

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.

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

When it comes to personal privacy, private license plate scanners collect billions of personal records per year, which contribute to vast databases that can be used by law enforcement. In the article “Private License Plate Scanners Amassing Vast Databases Open to Highest Bidders,” RT, March 6th, 2014 has increased that they tenfold its plate scans since September 2010, and adds 70 million scans a month. Following that, the publication In These Times, a progressive activism journal out of Chicago, continuously in their article “who has a right to track you?” Corporations argue that they have a right to collect data. These alternative viewpoints are presented quite differently, however. This essay will be about, does corporation have a right

Christine Todd Whitman chose to write this op-ed months into the Trump presidency at a time when many natural disasters plague the country. In it she addresses both the administration and her fellow Republicans, many of whom do not view climate change as a threat. Whitman’s principal grievance with Scott Pruitt, the current director of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), is his creation of a “red team” to research an opposing view to the scientific consensus on climate change. In her op-ed, Christine Todd Whitman condemns the way Scott Pruitt runs the E.P.A. and tries to convince the reader that climate change is a tangible threat. Whitman makes it clear that her criticism is not that of a lay person or a contrarian but comes from experience and a common worldview.

Richard A. Epstein is a frequent contributor to the Hoover Institution, and his piece, “Scott Pruitt And The Environment”, hopes to ease hysteria over President Donald Trump’s selection of Pruitt as the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt denies the importance of climate change, he is a pro-industry former attorney general of Oklahoma. Epstein dances around rhetoric on both sides of the polarized climate change debate, creating a discourse which seems unbiased to the casual reader. This rhetorical analysis will strive to keep its proverbial ear to the ground and listen to the elephants hustling in the distance. References leading to right-wing contributors, language that evokes a sense of loss, and taking

Ultimately, Wagemans findings prove that while scientific argumentation as a whole is inaccessible to the public, use of topical argumentations can direct the media focus and public attitudes towards environmental issues. Through applying the same analysis that Wagemans applied in this article, the utilization of topical argumentations becomes evident in the debate over the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline. Because Wagemans expounds that these topical argumentations are imperative to the public’s conception of scientific research, analyzing the monikers employed by groups conveying scientific research such as the Minnesota state government and Enbridge becomes a gauge for how each side is mediating the public’s attitudes towards the pipeline. Wagemans

Rhetorical techniques can make or break a paper. The proper use of rhetorical ‘tools’ such as metaphors or the overall structure of the paper allows for the writer to channel the reader’s attention to the argument(s) they’re trying to make/prove. However, when used improperly, the reader interprets the writer to be a non-credible source because the rhetorical techniques he/she is uses are either too obvious or they do not create an easy and focused experience for the reader. Some of the most significant rhetorical techniques are overall structure of the paper, the use of data and statistic in the paper, and the appeal to credibility. In the papers, ‘Why companies fail to respond to climate change’, by Tobias Finke, and ‘How to Unleash Climate

This raises the question of whether media influence can change ideologies and sway communities’ opinions on fracking. A study was conducted on how different types of media on both sides of the fracking debate influenced readers’ perceptions and beliefs about the gas industry. This experiment examined narrative versus informational types of news, meaning whether the information is presented as more of a story or as a more factual compilation. It also examined how participants’ perceptions were impacted when comparing environmental and economic “frames.” Framing refers to the “the process by which the mass media define and construct issues by emphasizing certain dimensions to the exclusion of others” (Shen, Ahern & Baker, 2014, p. 99). The study evaluated how people’s attitudes about fracking changed after reading either narrative or informational news articles on the topic, and framed with either an economic or environmental perspective (Shen et al., 2014, p. 101). The study found a significant relationship between the type of news presented and a change in the participants’ attitudes (Shen et al., 2014, p.

The author of “Be Sure You're Right, Then Go Ahead”: The Davy Crockett Gun Craze is by Sarah Nilsen. The purpose of the article is to give detail of how Davy Crockett became the emblem that was known for guns and coon skin hats. The author does not specifically identify the purpose of the article. The purpose is well stated in the detail given about how the legend became a legend and what part Walt Disney played in it. The war, families, television shows, toy makers, and any other company that could profit from Davy Crockett and The Wild Frontier played a major role in making Davy such a legend.

“We feel helpless in the face of our knowledge, and we’re not sure we want to know anything more,” (Steingraber 674). Due to the fact that this crisis has multiple causes, those who accept the responsibilities that go along with solving this environmental issue feel as though their to-do list is never done, filling with one problem after another. Often times these activists begin to feel helpless. There isn't just one cause of the problem but multiple. Sandra Steingraber stated “the environmental crisis is actually two crisis, although they share a common cause. You could view it as a tree with two main branches,”(672). She understands that it isn't just one single problem but multiple problems with the same cause. People may fix one “branch” but they don’t realize that there are other “branches” that needs to be

Will the state fulfill the desires of the community like it promises? Many Denver residents of the article Colorado Aims to Expand a Main Artery, but beleaguered Neighbors Balk do not think so; nor the author Julie Hurwitz. Despite the expansion helping with the flow of traffic, it is causing many negative impacts on the current residents. It is the city’s most controversial topic.

Both sides pose arguments regarding the environment. Proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline state that the pipeline is environmentally sounds and extremely safe. An argument opponents make is that carbon dioxide emissions from tar sands extraction is equivalent to adding 5.7 million passenger vehicles to the roads annually. The EPA report states that over the course of 50 years, this proposed pipeline would emit 1.37 billion more tons of GHG into the atmosphere. This would contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Department of State concluded that the amount of greenhouse gases that would be released would be equivalent to 300,000 passenger vehicles annually. Because the studies these stakeholders used to present their argument came to very different conclusions, with a huge difference in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, looking at the logic of their arguments aids in determining which side is more accurate. The proponent side offers an extremely low number of equivalent passenger vehicles, while the opposing side offers an extremely high number. However, when looking at the reasoning that the opposing side offers helps understand this side. Opponents to the Keystone