Zach Freshwater
Tired of the same old same old? Ready for a change of pace? Well, if you’re lucky and climate change follows through, you might get your change! Thanks climate change! After angering republicans and SUV drivers for almost a decade, the climate change debate is nowhere near over. Both groups claim to have incontrovertible truth that climate change either exists or doesn’t exist and with such seemingly factual arguments, it’s hard to tell who’s right. Two recent articles, one in Nature magazine and one in the Wall Street Journal pretty successfully sum up the debate. The Nature article calls for a government action plan to inform the public of climate change’s dangers while the Wall Street Journal piece denies the validity of the entire issue. While I definitely align more closely with the arguments in the Nature article, the Wall Street Journal piece is far more convincing. The writer in the Nature piece could have been more convincing if they would have used more hard facts and examples. Yes climate change is a major issue and it needs our attention, but if you don’t adequate express it’s danger no one will take it seriously.
The editorial piece in Nature, “Reach out about climate” explains that the US government needs to take an active role in changing public perception of climate change. The article explains that “2011 was a bad year for political progress in tackling climate change,” and as such, move improvements must be made. After showing that the government provided more definitive statements about argon gas than climate change, the piece tries to press the need for more government activism. The central issue in the article is that public awareness and sentiment towards climate change is diminishing. Comparing the climate change issue to radon gas again, the author explains that the “risks risks are not immediately apparent and they are easily ignored.” The public is not forced to face the effects of climate change immediately, so it ignores it. The author argues that a campaign to express risk is essential. They claim that by informing the public of climate change’s dangers, change and activism would be more easily spurned. The primary function of the piece is to call together and action plan that would change perception and action towards climate change. The author calls on government, citizens, scientists, and organizations to pull together for change. Communication, according to the author, is a major issue and must be opened up between these groups to make any headway. I thought it was a little ironic that the author was calling for a greater understanding of the climate change issue, but provided almost no facts or backing for their argument. They primarily clung to the assumption that climate change was real, and attempted to create no argument otherwise. If there was no debate over the existence of climate change, there would be no need for such support, but as the article explicitly states, such debate is massive.
While the Nature editorial acts as a proponent of climate change action, a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece argues contrarily. The article, signed by over a dozen scientists claims that climate change is not real and does not deserve governmental attention. The piece points out multiple holes in the logic of climate change. Citing the benign nature of carbon dioxide, the scientists argue that if anything, the worlds current CO2 output will actually help productivity and life on Earth. The scientists claim that, “exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.” They explain that human and plant evolution occurred under high levels of carbon dioxide. The article’s primary goal is to dissuade readers from buying into climate change. While the Nature article claims the majority of scientist believe in climate change, this piece does not. The authors of the Wall Street Journal argue that a large body of scientists currently disagrees with climate change. The article explains that young scientists “furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse.” They believe that climate change is an irrational response to dated climate information. Unlike the Nature author, the Wall Street Journal scientists argue against government involvement in climate change action.
While the Nature article clearly supports a governmental intervention promoting climate change awareness, the Wall Street Journal article piece denies climate change altogether. I disagree with the Wall Street Journal article over several issues, but it’s argument are undeniably stronger. The Nature article offered nearly no factual backing to its claims and seemed a bit speculative. The intentions behind the Nature article were to call for an increased awareness of climate change, but it did exactly the opposite. It provided a nearly textbook example of what the Wall Street Journal article disapproved of. The Nature argument was based not on facts, but a predisposition to believe that the readers aligned with the author’s arguments.
Works Cited:
Allegre, Claude. "No Need to Panic about Global Warming." Wall Street Journal Jan. 2012: 1. Web. .. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html>.
Editorial. "Reach out about climate" Nature.com. 4 January. 2012. 2012 Nature Publishing Group.
No comments:
Post a Comment