In the introduction, “Making Climate Change Understandable” from the book, Climate Change: What It Means For Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren by Joseph DiMento and Pamela Doughman, discuss a sensitive subject in today's society and political universe. The introduction is about climate change and incapability of people understanding, believing, or considering climate change as a huge concern. The authors’ argument conveyed is that climate change is a world issue that humans do not understand or accept, but need to in order to act and eliminate the change of climate. According to the authors, climate change is confusing due to education, consensus of scientists, and different effect of climate change in regions. Education, as presented
…show more content…
Dimento and Doughman establish that humans don’t understand climate change because politicians manipulate or change scientists research to make the belief in climate change disappear. The different statements cause a lack of consensus between politicians and scientists as stated in, “Some people believe scientists lack consensus on the human contribution to climate change.”(5) People not knowing who to believe creates a confusion and misunderstanding, preventing humans from taking action as implied by the authors. All of the confusion leads the authors to establish climate change is real and humans are the cause, as stated in, “...scientists share the conclusion that climate change is real, serious, and human-induced.” (7)This statement is stated to tell readers to make a change and help the climate. Evidence to support humans are the cause of climate change and to prove it is real, the authors’ include the US National Academy of Sciences report, “Carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuel is presented the largest single climate forcing agent, accounting for more than half the total positive forcing since 1750”(7-8). Clearing the truth and consensus between politicians and scientists, makes the argument stronger since more people will be capable to understand climate change because the confusion is gone and humans can take action to improve …show more content…
Dimento and Doughman listed benefits in, “...climate change will create wealth for some: not only existing fossil fuel industries...but also entrepreneurs, industries, and institutions.”(11) The acknowledgement of the benefits developed a stronger argument, since the authors are more credited to be truthful and honest. The authors use of “ some”(11) and “as usual”(11) created a negative tone. The tone implied that even though it is a benefit, businesses always profit from everything, so if climate change is eliminated, businesses will still make
Dimento and Doughman establish that humans don’t understand climate change because politicians manipulate or change scientists research to make the belief in climate change disappear. The different statements cause a lack of consensus between politicians and scientists as stated in, “Some people believe scientists lack consensus on the human contribution to climate change.”(5) People not knowing who to believe creates a confusion and misunderstanding, preventing humans from taking action as implied by the authors. All of the confusion leads the authors to establish climate change is real and humans are the cause, as stated in, “...scientists share the conclusion that climate change is real, serious, and human-induced.” (7)This statement is stated to tell readers to make a change and help the climate. Evidence to support humans are the cause of climate change and to prove it is real, the authors’ include the US National Academy of Sciences report, “Carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuel is presented the largest single climate forcing agent, accounting for more than half the total positive forcing since 1750”(7-8). Clearing the truth and consensus between politicians and scientists, makes the argument stronger since more people will be capable to understand climate change because the confusion is gone and humans can take action to improve …show more content…
Dimento and Doughman listed benefits in, “...climate change will create wealth for some: not only existing fossil fuel industries...but also entrepreneurs, industries, and institutions.”(11) The acknowledgement of the benefits developed a stronger argument, since the authors are more credited to be truthful and honest. The authors use of “ some”(11) and “as usual”(11) created a negative tone. The tone implied that even though it is a benefit, businesses always profit from everything, so if climate change is eliminated, businesses will still make