A grand narrative about the inevitable destruction of planet Earth by humans has been a hot topic, recently portrayed in movies such as I Am Ledgend, The Happening, and many more. In particular, a very good example is in the Disney-Pixar movie, Wall-E. In this portrayal, mankind had abandoned Earth as it could no longer sustain life. This fear lives in many people today, as we continuously pollute and manipulate the environment. Looking deeper into specific issues, we have come across the controversy concerning global warming. The proponents of global warming suggest several big factors that they believe contribute to the problem which include; carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel and gasoline, methane emissions from animals and arctic seabeds, deforestation, and the usage of chemical fertilizers. These supposed causes of global warming are thought to be producing negative effects such as; the rise in sea levels, more killer storms, crop failure, extinction of species and the disappearance of coral reefs. The beginning of this tale seems all too familiar. Others completely disregard the global warming hype, and believe that it is a conspiracy. Science is highly funded by government grants. Some believe these scientists are only producing results in favor of global warming which helps gain more governmental control. Looking on both sides of the issue has been quite interesting, as the opinions on this topic tend to be extreme. Only the future will tell how this global phenomenon will be recorded in our world’s history.ARTICLES FROM PROPONENTS OF GLOBAL WARMING:
Article One: Analysis from Blogspot.com:
Author: Ginovieto
Cow Farts causing Global Warming!?
Upon reading this blog, I first noticed that it wasn’t anything like the other global warming articles and bogs I had viewed. This blog has a whole new twist on how some individuals view global warming and its effects. When I think about global warming, I think about cars and buses and the large amount pollution that is being put into the air causing depletion of our ozone layer. As stated by most global warming articles, most destruction of the ozone comes from the combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories, and electricity production. All of these factors lead back to the effects of humans. It almost seems as if someone is looking for another source to blame other than humans and just decided to blame cows. And don’t most other animals burp and fart as well? Why put ALL the blame on the poor cows?!Prior to reading ginovieto’s post, I never even knew that humans and animals could be contributing to global warming because of the methane that is released through burping or “passing gas.” This blog is almost implying that before we take a bite out of that big bean burrito, we should think twice about the effects it could have on our body and eventually, the atmosphere. In this blog, he speaks on a report from California about cows causing more greenhouse gases then pollution from cars. If this information is correct and the source is reliable, that is just crazy! With the majority of my background coming from science, I understand that there is some probability in this concept. Science doesn’t look to find exact results from an issue, but rather looks for evidence and support to find the probability of something being true. I know that there is some truth in the idea of cows and humans being main contributors to the effects of global warming. However, it is surprising that we don’t hear more about this side of the story in the media. Even if cows are contributing to global warming, society would be in a whole lot of trouble without them. Cows are our source for milk, beef, and other dairy products. With a population that is on the rise, we need as many cows as we can get!
I thought the comic picture at the beginning of this article fit perfectly. Rhetoric can be viewed in any image; within this image, the author is arguing that global warming does not exist. Raced bodies can be viewed in the context of the traditional “white” farmer. Most people think of farmers as ‘white males from Wisconsin’ and that seems to be exactly what this image displays. As I mentioned previously: males. The gendered bodies of farmers are almost always thought of as a male, which is represented in this image. The farmer is feeding his cow beans. This action seems to deviate from the structured culture in that most cows are fed special food made specifically for them. If this article is true and cows do contribute the most to global warming, then Bessy is going to be the leading contributor to the destruction of our ozone layer! I also noticed that he is wearing a jacket so he doesn’t believe in the concept of global warming or the concept just doesn’t exist. Along with his jacket, all of his clothes seem to be big and baggy signifying that he doesn’t seem to care about his appearance. Maybe he lives in the middle of nowhere and doesn’t care what his self-image looks like or maybe his class determines what he can (or cannot) afford to provide to himself. Aside from the farmer, Bessy’s eyes are very big in this picture. It almost looks like she is scared to eat anymore because she knows about the effects that are caused from the methane released during a fart or burp. Hey, she can’t control what happens after eating a plate full of that magical fruit!
The blogger, ginovieto, seems to disagree with the fact that cows are contributing to the effects global warming is having on our climate. He doesn’t state facts on his side of the story, but he strongly states his opinion in the conclusion. Had he stated his side, I think he would almost be restating facts already presented by the media. Ginovieto seems to be an amateur in the area and knowledge of information on global warming. I think he concentrates on the big picture of global warming such as the information presented in the media. As I stated earlier, when I think about global warming, I concentrate on the buses, cars, and factories that are negatively affecting our atmosphere. My knowledge on the topic of global warming mainly comes from the media. I would classify myself as an “average joe” on this topic in that I know what global warming is and what influences its affects, but I am unfamiliar with specific details. I think ginovieto concentrates on the same aspects of global warming as I do. He doesn’t seem specialized in the field of science and environmental affects. The evidence that the media portrays constructs his knowledge of global warming, and its affects.
Article Two: Analysis from blogspot.com
Author: Adam Voiland
Benefits of Cleaner Vehicles
The author, Adam Voiland is an earth science writer for NASA thus giving him an intriguing subject position. In the bio on his website, adamvoiland.com, he states that he “reads [a]large number of scientific journal articles.” Many scientists receive grants from the government, and NASA is owned by the government, thus he will have an innate, yet likely unintentional, bias in regards to many issues involving governmental control and global warming.
ARTICLES FROM OPPOSERS OF GLOBAL WARMING:
Article Three: Analysis from The Canadian National Post
Author: Lawrence Soloman
The Ice-Core Man
fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/26/lawrence-solomon-global-warming
I decided to focus on an article titled “The Ice-Core Man” at nationalpost.com. This article focused on Dr. Jaworowski’s Ice-Core theory, which is one of the main scientific theories that skeptics call on, for the most part everyone is in agreement that the climate is changing and despite how impactful the effect is mankind is a contributor but some skeptics still hold out, and this article was the basis of the many skeptics’ arguments.
I really liked the article because it had numbers and scientific data from various studies and experiments of Dr. Jaworowski. The author seems to take Dr. Jaworowski’s side which is that ice core data isn’t a valid predictor of CO2 levels because CO2 is much more soluble in water then other gases such as nitrogen. Thus the low levels found in the ancient air trapped within the ice are probably not entirely accurate. The author Lawrence Solomon takes a very informative stance by giving the reader facts and evidence which really explains the whole argument.
The author of the article used the credibility of Dr. Jaworowski who is a well respected scientist throughout the scientific community to make the article credible to the common audience. Even as a believer in global warming this article made me think twice about what I’ve heard, not only because of the CO2 levels in the ice but because of the experience Dr. Jaworowski had with the issue. He was fired from the Norwegian Polar Institute because funders of the institute felt his work would be immoral if it served to undermine “climate research.” This highlights the problem many skeptics have with all the hype over climate change; science often comes second to the political agendas of many governments and large businesses. Many research projects are sponsored by green energy companies who use the findings to highlight the need for their products. This goes both ways though because many large corporations fund projects that question the idea of climate change in order to keep the status quo.
The author Lawrence Solomon is a member of energy probe: Energy Probe is a consumer and environmental research team, active in the fight against nuclear power, and dedicated to resource conservation, economic efficiency, and effective utility regulation. Which I thought was interesting because the group is very environmentally conscience. This adds a bit of credibility in my view because it eludes to the idea that he is writing in order to inform people of the flawed basis of ice cores, not necessarily his own agenda.
The issue of climate change has become so popular that during president Obama’s campaign it “green energy” was one of the main concepts his campaign promising to promote. With the Arab Spring, the Japenese Tsunami, and the killing of Bin Laden climate change was pushed out of the public spotlight but due to recent files for bankruptcy by two governments backed green energy companies it has been brought back to our attention. I thought that this article was not only a good scientific skepticism but also showed some of the underlying problems that there is with climate change and how we are dealing with it.
Article Four: Analysis from a Forbes Blogger
Author: Charles Kadlec
The Goal is Power: The Global Warming Conspiracy
I read an article called The Goal Is Power: The Global Warming Conspiracy. The author Charles Kadlec, is completely rhetorical, arguing for the position that Global Warming is a hoax. However, his goal in this article is not only to prove his point, but also to unveil the fraudulence of the other side, accusing them on many occasions of being partial by only publicizing the tid-bits that agree with their theory. Kadlec argues that global warming is not about science, but about politics. He stresses the issue of agency and high stakes in the tone of the proponents of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). A big concern of Global Warming believers is the regulation of carbon dioxide. However, the way they present the issue is twisted with the use of their language and specifically with the use of the word ‘carbon’ when they say it is necessary to press forward in “regulating carbon emissions”. Kadlec states, “The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but CO2, that we exhale with every breath”. This language is misleading and presents a partial view that skews reality. He continues with arguing that science has been corrupted by the millions of dollars that world governments pour into research through grants. He also talks about the cost of going green to stop global warming. Not only is it costing companies millions of dollars to 'go green', but the American Bird Conservancy estimates up to 300,000 birds are killed by wind farms in the U.S. each year, roughly the same as the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Kadlec focuses on the many issues that global warming proponents choose to ignore.
COMPARE AND ANALYZE
With the analysis of these articles, our group has found that there are two distinct sides to the issue of global warming. Each side presents their information in a way that highlights their best interests. The proponents of global warming construct their arguments in a way that dramatizes the actual urgency of the situation. Are cow farts really a main concern of our society? Will the gas emissions from vehicles really contribute to serious health issues and global climate change if nothing is done? Could it be that scientists do not understand the CO2 levels of the past? Is the government creating an alliance with scientists, ideal results in exchange for endless grants? Yes, the world has warmed up in the past several decades, but is this just a climate cycle? These are all questions that could potentially be recorded in the history books of generations to come. At this point in time, there is no certainty in which side is correct. However, there are two ideologies that produce these opposing views. The global warming proponents tend to be more liberal and progressive. They see this as a real problem, that could have dangerous global implications. The opposers to global warming tend to be more conservative. They recognize the impact of the human society on the environment, but believe there are more urgent issues at hand. These two groups are battling for control of the public opinion on global warming. We have analyzed views from both sides, as well as a view of an 'average joe' who was inclined to chime in on the issue. Every source we found presented a partial truth. This is more prevalent through major news sources, as they are usually associated with a political view. Due to this political affiliation, it is helpful to dive into personal blogs or alternative media sources for an attempt to discover the truth. However, it is inevitable that biases and subject positions will exist in utterly every publication, especially with an issue as controversial as global warming.
Authors: Alexis Aafedt, Whitney Weymiller, Matthew Cherrey, Tom Souder, and Jordan Wing
Really nice post i really like how you guys took articles from just about every side of the spectrum. One thing that i found myself most interested in was the blog by Charles Kadlec. In response to claims that CO2 effects the o-zone you referenced him by his comment
ReplyDelete“The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but CO2, that we exhale with every breath”. This was very interesting to me because it almost implies that just because it comes from a supposedly clean part of your body, it therefore isn't harmful. Well, under this assumption a fart made of methane and very smelly would be harmful (and like you cited cows evens worse!) a booger as well, although not a gas at first once it turns to liquid form and evaporates would create a very "dirty" impact. I also liked how you referenced graphs and how the impact something that is often associated with loads of research and professionalism can really influence people. It does create a sort of rhetoric that demands attention and credibility from the viewer. It happens in even some cases where a graph may be completely accurate with a substantial amount of research done that still holds a Rankean perspective. For example, manipulations done to the graph by design, scale, and audience its presented too.
I have to say that you did a great job！Global warming is an international issue which catches every one's attention all over the world. We, as the general publics, get the idea about global warming mostly from all kinds of media. Since we lack the essential background about this scientific topic, what we can do is just get as much information as we can to try to get fully understanding about it. But the more we know it, the more we feel confused because nobody can give us an adequate explanation about how it happen or how severe the situation is.
ReplyDeleteThe articles you mentioned exactly represents the typical ideas nowadays： Are the so-called green house gases really the factors to warm up the globe? Is it just a trick played by the governments and the big profits organizations? Still nobody could and will tell us. The only channel is the media, which may be controlled by the great politicians and businesses to a great extent.
As to the conclusion, I think I couldn't agree with you more that we should not only get the information from official media but also collect some ideas from some personal websites or pages. Though the majority rule taught us that the minority is subordinate to the majority, sometimes we will find out that the truth is always fetched by the minority and the fact is usually covered by the majority.
Each science teacher I have had for school makes almost an identical claim: regardless of why it is happening, global warming IS real. I have been shown temperature trends, chemical contents in the air, sea level changes, and numerous other charts and graphs that serve as evidence that global warming is occurring.
ReplyDeleteMy science professors have all taught global warming as a real and current event. Last spring in Geology we even covered global cycles, namely, the Milankovitch cycles. According to the Milankovitch cycle (which is based off of eccentricity, tilt, and precession), the way the Earth moves affects the amount of radiation it receives, which thus affects temperature.
All in all a pretty cool theory, but Milankovich predicts that we should be in a cooling phase right now, yet our findings show the reverse is happening.
The only incident of cool temperatures in recent years that I have ever been taught were due to a large volcanic eruption. The eruption emitted such a large volume of gas particles that it created a haze, blocking out the sun, creating artificially low temperatures for nearly a decade.
I'm not even sure if it is possible or practical to find the true "culprit" behind global warming, but it sure is a great topic to research and cross-analyze!
Great work you guys.
I want you all to know I really enjoyed your post! It was very smart and provided a lot of opposing and similar views. I could tell you work well together! In you analysis/conclusion I thought you were dead on when you discussed the two different ideologies of global warming. Liberals are the believers and the ones who want change. They want there to be more of an effort into doing something about global warming. Liberals are the ones who believe humans play a part in global warming. While on the other hand there are the conservatives. The non-believers. They don't necessarily want to take the time to create change. They like to put blame on everything but humans for the "so-called" global warming. They are two very interesting and different ideologies. I have found that the two ideologies like you explained have different media outlets. I've seen more liberal blogs than conservative blogs and more conservative national news pieces than liberal national new pieces. This is an issue that is not going to be resolved soon. I am curious to see what media outlets both conservative and liberal will report in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think that this was a very interesting subject to choose since there is so many people who have different opinions on this. I think that the news sources you guys chose were perfect for analyzing this subject. It was also interesting to see that you were all able to stay reasonable with each others opinions since this is such a touchy subject for some people.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how a scientific issue has devolved into a political issue. There may be some discrepancies in the details but science is science. One can really get a sense of how much influence politics can have on our lives. It's such a large issue with so many variables that inevitably many different ideas and opinions have formed, leading to the politicization of it.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to compare these blogs with some more typical news sources, as the bloggers are likely exposed to many different media outlets and their opinions are likely formed either directly or indirectly from these sources. While seemingly pure and unfiltered, these bloggers ultimately have to get their information from somewhere.