Many people wonder why there is so much controversy on the topic of global warming. That is because of the public’s concern and debates over whether global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). Ever since mass media became globalized (media technologies that reach a large audience all across world), many feel that the topic on global warming is biased because of the major impact the media has on the public (it is written, published, recorded, reported, and televised). Almost the entire world is exposed to the media and it has led many people to believe that global warming is influenced by liberals that control the media to sell papers and fund environmentalists. The topic of global warming is an on going battle between liberals and conservatives.
…show more content…
A denier poster said “World population a century ago, about 1 billion, world population today, about 7 billion (12 billion by mid-century)... This then is the real problem facing mankind [sic] today (for you global warming fanatics), too many people taxing the resources of the planet, both energy and biomass.” Referrals to other “authorities” – deniers use this method as a way to back their argument by quoting “pseudo-experts” who argue against global warming. They will say something like “Might I recommend the work of [name removed] who is often maligned by the Suzuki group and other green peacer [sic] types who has done some excellent work on solar flares etc. and their effect on the earth’s …show more content…
One poster stated “We are between 90% and 95% certain that in the last 37 years there has been a warming trend.. Just imaging their report if this was 1930, and we had the prairie dust bowl and drought. There was no global warming in the 1930’s and the forecast is the same as today. Major prairie droughts occur every 60 years on average, and we are overdue. Cycles happen.” Uncertainty expressed by scientist – these deniers use hedging language to place in context claims as a way to critique scientific claims. A poster stated the following “I don’t remember ever reading an article in which the word “could” was used so often. No clear statements as to what will happen because they just flat don’t
A denier poster said “World population a century ago, about 1 billion, world population today, about 7 billion (12 billion by mid-century)... This then is the real problem facing mankind [sic] today (for you global warming fanatics), too many people taxing the resources of the planet, both energy and biomass.” Referrals to other “authorities” – deniers use this method as a way to back their argument by quoting “pseudo-experts” who argue against global warming. They will say something like “Might I recommend the work of [name removed] who is often maligned by the Suzuki group and other green peacer [sic] types who has done some excellent work on solar flares etc. and their effect on the earth’s …show more content…
One poster stated “We are between 90% and 95% certain that in the last 37 years there has been a warming trend.. Just imaging their report if this was 1930, and we had the prairie dust bowl and drought. There was no global warming in the 1930’s and the forecast is the same as today. Major prairie droughts occur every 60 years on average, and we are overdue. Cycles happen.” Uncertainty expressed by scientist – these deniers use hedging language to place in context claims as a way to critique scientific claims. A poster stated the following “I don’t remember ever reading an article in which the word “could” was used so often. No clear statements as to what will happen because they just flat don’t