Booth, W. (2006). Al Gore, Sundance's Leading Man. Washington Post.
Boreistein, S. (2006). "Is It Too Late To Stop Global Warming?" Retrieved May 1st, 2008, from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0403-01.htm.
CBS News. (2007). "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/07/tech/main3143742.shtml." Retrieved 23rd June, 2008, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/07/tech/main3143742.shtml. Climate Hot Map. (2001). "Global warming: early warning signs." Retrieved May 1st, 2008, from http://www.climatehotmap.org/.
Conant, E., Stein, S., Clift, E., Philips, M. (2007). "The Truth About Denial." Retrieved 21st June, 2008, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/6.
Cooler Heads Coalition. (1999). "Ice Sheet Retreat is Natural and Inevitable; Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels; Isle of the Dead: The Death Knell of Global Warming." Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from http://www.globalwarming.org/node/87.
Eco Bridge. (n.d). "Evidence of Global Warming." Retrieved May 2nd, 2008, from http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#Glaciers.
Goodman, E. (2007). "No change in political climate." Retrieved 22nd June, 2008, from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
Hertsgaard, M. (2005). "It's much too late to sweat global warming." Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL.
Lawson, N. (2008). "The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change." Retrieved April 14th, 2008, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557374&in_page_id=177.
Lindzen, R. S. (2006). "There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming." Retrieved 20th June 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB115127582141890238.html.
Lobe, J. (2004). "Damage From Global Warming Becoming 'Irreversible'." Retrieved May 4th, 2008, from http://www.countercurrents.org/en-lobe160304.htm.
Monbiot, G. (2006). "The Denial Industry." Retrieved 22nd June, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2.
New York Times. (2008). "Global Warming." Retrieved May 2nd, 2008, from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier#.
Oreskes, N. (2004) BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Retrieved 21st June 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Pielke Jr, R. A., Sarewitz, D. (n.d). "Winning and Losing the Global Warming Debate." from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/hp_roger/debate.html.
Rosenthal, E., Revkin, A.C., Barringer,F. (2007). "Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ " Retrieved 22nd June 2008, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1.
Watson, P. J. (2007). "Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax." Retrieved April 14th, 2008, from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Inconvenient Gore
Al Gore is an example of global warming as an issue which involves communication, media and science. He helped raise the profile of global warming, especially with “The Inconvenient Truth”. Gore used the scientific community to justify his position and the media to communicate that position to us the general public.
His funding of the project is a source of criticism towards his position on global warming. Like any other movie, An Inconvenient Truth relied on private funding. As a result the scientific research is a combination of private and state funded. The problem with private funding is that it could lead to a biased view, ultimately engineering answers rather than finding answers. Ironically, he himself has made accusations against large corporations for privately funding research to sow doubt inthe minds of the public about the credibility of global warming. How is his "documentary" any different? Would he really include information that did not support his view? Maybe he's just been more efficient at putting his agenda across. Al Gore tackles the issue of global warming from many mediums, using both traditional and new mediums.
He communicates his position primarily through the movie, but he has also published books, and has an official website. The more people talk about his work across those different media, public attention grows.
Gore’s high profile in the public and media has attracted a lot of criticism. Richard S. Lindzen criticizes Gore for pursuing a “moral crusade” rather than educating the masses about the real dangers of global warming. His concerns are echoed in William Booth’s article. According to Booth, Gore treats an inconvenient truth not as a message to the people about global warming but rather as a personal project that he wanted to get off the ground.
Global warming is a highly debated topic with many sides to the story. Gore presents one side of the argument; he combines both academic scientific data as well as mass media techniques to communicate his position. However, it is easy to assume that Gore is the champion of environmental politics and global warming. Consider the points I’ve raised so far; Gore presents his views using popular mass media movies and books. Sure he’s getting the message out there, but he is also selling his face and name to the public. He is one of many individuals out there in the world using science and media to enforce their own views.
Personally I think global warming is happening. But I realize now doing so much reading that I may have simply been foolishly absorbing all of what the media has been telling me without really considering all of the players and factors behind the claims.
On the internet, there are many millions of these views floating about, we cannot simply accept them face value.
His funding of the project is a source of criticism towards his position on global warming. Like any other movie, An Inconvenient Truth relied on private funding. As a result the scientific research is a combination of private and state funded. The problem with private funding is that it could lead to a biased view, ultimately engineering answers rather than finding answers. Ironically, he himself has made accusations against large corporations for privately funding research to sow doubt inthe minds of the public about the credibility of global warming. How is his "documentary" any different? Would he really include information that did not support his view? Maybe he's just been more efficient at putting his agenda across. Al Gore tackles the issue of global warming from many mediums, using both traditional and new mediums.
He communicates his position primarily through the movie, but he has also published books, and has an official website. The more people talk about his work across those different media, public attention grows.
Gore’s high profile in the public and media has attracted a lot of criticism. Richard S. Lindzen criticizes Gore for pursuing a “moral crusade” rather than educating the masses about the real dangers of global warming. His concerns are echoed in William Booth’s article. According to Booth, Gore treats an inconvenient truth not as a message to the people about global warming but rather as a personal project that he wanted to get off the ground.
Global warming is a highly debated topic with many sides to the story. Gore presents one side of the argument; he combines both academic scientific data as well as mass media techniques to communicate his position. However, it is easy to assume that Gore is the champion of environmental politics and global warming. Consider the points I’ve raised so far; Gore presents his views using popular mass media movies and books. Sure he’s getting the message out there, but he is also selling his face and name to the public. He is one of many individuals out there in the world using science and media to enforce their own views.
Personally I think global warming is happening. But I realize now doing so much reading that I may have simply been foolishly absorbing all of what the media has been telling me without really considering all of the players and factors behind the claims.
On the internet, there are many millions of these views floating about, we cannot simply accept them face value.
Leading the global warming debate
It’s hard to deny global warming is something that seems so inevitable, and the general consensus, scientific or not, is that it is at least a possibility. Temperature increases as well as other scientific facts are hard to ignore. But how do we know this? It is the role of the mainstream media that fuels our ambitions to ‘know’ about what is happening to our world.
In the last couple of years the level of attention on the subject has been gigantic. Now we have public camps and divisions where people are either skeptics or faithful zealots of global protection and sustainable development.
How can we assess the impacts of the mass media? Do we now fully believe that we the grassroots movements can change the world? Or are the ‘denialists’ right in that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to change the world without the powerful oil cartels and corporatists that dictate the global economy? After all they are the ones that invest in the world and our interests in their products.
For the purpose of this blog, we can look at two major players – the scientific community and the media. The former provide information and data to justify global warming, and the media transfer those findings to the general public.
But these groups are not as homogenous as we might think. There are the privately funded scientists who are paid by corporations to carry out research, while others are publicly funded by the states. Within the media, there is also a funding difference; the corporate funded and independent media. There is another level of difference which is the medium; traditional medium which includes television/film, radio and print; and the new medium primarily focusing on digital technology, the paradigm of which is the internet.
And all of those divisions do beg the question: If there is so much conflict within these groups how do we know who is right? Do they all have their own personal agendas for whichever direction their leaning towards in the subject of global warming? Or are they intentions really truthful?
It’s too easy nowadays with the mass influence of the media to think that well, I see all those famous people and the stuff on the news saying how global warming is a threat, and it’s real and it’s here, then “oh crap” we’re all in trouble. But there’s also the reverse thinking which is that global warming is just another idea popularized by the mainstream media, which I can't deny is a valid point considering all of coverage devoted to the issue.
Maybe the idea now is stop debating whether it's true and start thinking about whether we can do something to prevent. But that's probably where governments are expected to do the hard work, because as individuals it is hard to think that we really would make much of a difference, even if we really do believe in global warming and its dangerous impact on the earth.
"Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes."
In the last couple of years the level of attention on the subject has been gigantic. Now we have public camps and divisions where people are either skeptics or faithful zealots of global protection and sustainable development.
How can we assess the impacts of the mass media? Do we now fully believe that we the grassroots movements can change the world? Or are the ‘denialists’ right in that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to change the world without the powerful oil cartels and corporatists that dictate the global economy? After all they are the ones that invest in the world and our interests in their products.
For the purpose of this blog, we can look at two major players – the scientific community and the media. The former provide information and data to justify global warming, and the media transfer those findings to the general public.
But these groups are not as homogenous as we might think. There are the privately funded scientists who are paid by corporations to carry out research, while others are publicly funded by the states. Within the media, there is also a funding difference; the corporate funded and independent media. There is another level of difference which is the medium; traditional medium which includes television/film, radio and print; and the new medium primarily focusing on digital technology, the paradigm of which is the internet.
And all of those divisions do beg the question: If there is so much conflict within these groups how do we know who is right? Do they all have their own personal agendas for whichever direction their leaning towards in the subject of global warming? Or are they intentions really truthful?
It’s too easy nowadays with the mass influence of the media to think that well, I see all those famous people and the stuff on the news saying how global warming is a threat, and it’s real and it’s here, then “oh crap” we’re all in trouble. But there’s also the reverse thinking which is that global warming is just another idea popularized by the mainstream media, which I can't deny is a valid point considering all of coverage devoted to the issue.
Maybe the idea now is stop debating whether it's true and start thinking about whether we can do something to prevent. But that's probably where governments are expected to do the hard work, because as individuals it is hard to think that we really would make much of a difference, even if we really do believe in global warming and its dangerous impact on the earth.
"Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)