The article (or more of a video) that I chose is on youtube and can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w
I decided to look up more own article for this blog post to get an even more diversified opinion of the global warming crisis/scam. When performing a youtube search for global warming, I can across Glen Beck's segment on CNN where he talks about Global Warming and his release of his new book titled, "An Inconvenient Book." In this segment, which he actually calls "An Inconvenient Segment," beck attacks Gore and his fellow global warming crisis-callers and their ideas. The very fact that he is mocking Gore right off the bat with the names of his produced media goes right to the point of trying to de-legitimatize Gore and his production. Furthermore, he calls "Gore believers" psycho and tries to completely falsify everything that is said in his documentary. He throws out facts such as "weather related deaths are down 95% since 1920." Beck only puts a plug in for his book briefly, before he goes to a "legitimate source" to disprove global warming, the founder of the weather channel, John Coleman. Coleman stars out with a quote outline his outright view on global warming: "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled, and highly offended by it. Global Warming IS A SCAM."
This attempted legitimization using "reputable" sources is very similar to every argument that advocates for global warming use. The two sides, although they may never admit it, argue their viewpoint in symmetrical ways:
1. The argument begins with the statement of a found fact. Something about temperature, ice melting/freezing, human health...whatever grabs the listeners attention.
2. The argument then proceeds to attempt to delegitimize the opposing argument. In my example, this is done by explaining that the "Gore psychos" fabricate the data and do not look at the facts. Furthermore, scientists are only looking for information that is in support for global warming. Due to the political nature of the issues, the scientists are afraid to speak out and present the "true facts."
3. Usually this will segue into an "expert testimonial" in favor of the supported side. This political maneuver appeals to the uneducated public that can be easily persuaded by “striking facts.” Because there facts come from an expert, they carry more weight, and when they are read on an “exclusive report,” the authority of the expert skyrockets. This social/ethopolitcal move allows each side to make there case.
Unfortunately, each side to the global warming argument conducts their reports in this way. The (seeming) unclarity of the issue at hand has left debate of each side to be misleading. Both sides only report the figures and data that benefit the argument they support. In addition, the data is often simplified and does not accurately represent all the figures that can be found.
Something I found very interesting in this article was John Coleman's statement that the scientists that say global warming is an issue "have an agenda." This relates to Crichten's quote where hes says that everyone has an agenda, except for him. It seems as if the antagonists to global warming propose that it is a fabrication of data in order to make money and earn grants.
No matter which side you look from, you will find data that can be disproved by the other side. Global warming is an issue that will be debated for many years to come, and I do not think that scientists can come out with data that fully prove that it is or is not happening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a great find with the Glenn Beck piece. It's interesting to note that his argument seems to be primarily a personal attack on climate scientists and enviromentalists. This is very similar to Crichton's depiction of this group (fags that can't use guns), although much less subtle/intelligent. And his expert source was the weather channel's founder? Seriously? It's hard to imagine the weather channel has an agenda beyond telling me what the weather in Australia happens to be like this afternoon.
ReplyDeleteI did a bit of research on Glenn Beck too. Interestingly, I've come across a few sources that say he's starting to embrace--or maybe just acknowledge--the science behind global warming. That being said, it's worth exploring what a master Glenn Beck is at the other side of science--rhetoric. He is able to speak to the emotions and hearts of so many, regardless of what the science may say. I wrote about this a bit in my blog, but to sum it up, Glenn Beck's rhetoric is a huge impediment to making global warming science seem factual. He is cutting off Latour's "Public Representation" loop. He speaks in terms of talk show rhetoric, and that has a power, that, in many ways, is equal to scientific fact.
ReplyDelete