Project Blog #4
The topic I chose was climate change because I feel that it has substantial research and evidence behind it, so I wanted to see how the two sides differed on their sources and interpretations of it.
The interest group on the left, Sierra Club, believes that more action needs to be done for the climate crisis. They say that everyone depends on a healthy world and that social and environmental issues are tied. In the article “Abrupt Permafrost Thaw Has Scientists Worried” they explain the rise of permafrost thaws are a result of an increase in methane and carbon dioxide emissions. They cite Charles Miller, Deputy Science Lead for NASA’s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment, and explain that human emissions will need to be greatly decreased to the point that “We need to be at not only zero emissions but really negative emissions territory to help stabilize the environment.”This article reinforces their view that climate change is a real problem and action needs to be taken quickly. Their interest in the effects of the thaw also aligns with their belief about everyone’s lives being tied to the environment. In the article, they mostly use logic in their argument. But, on the main page of their website, they also use emotions to persuade readers. The intended purpose of the artifact is to inform on the current state of the climate and to push readers to do more to save the environment. It may be used to try to persuade people on the right to care about the environment, but its main audience is likely people who already are aware of and care about climate change. The article could be biased towards climate change action because the interest group mostly revolves around pushing for reform and action for the climate. This will scare away people who do not believe in climate change, as the website mostly caters to climate change activists. The left consists of more young people, so the future of the environment will be of great concern for them. Minorities are the people who are usually most affected by climate change, so they may be more active in fighting for climate change.
The right-wing interest group I chose was the Heartland Institute. They mostly believe that the global warming threat is exaggerated by climate alarmists and that “The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.” The article I selected from them is “LETHAL CARBON-IMPERIALISM IN GLASGOW AND DC”. Here, they talk about Pope Francis and Joe Biden’s meeting in Rome to ‘discuss “efforts grounded in respect for fundamental human dignity,” including “tackling the climate crisis and caring for the poor.”’ They elaborate on how “[c]limate changes due to human activities pose no catastrophic threats to people or planet.” They state that climate alarmists are using the climate crisis to keep poorer nations from industrializing, keeping them “energy-deprived, impoverished, jobless, dying.” This article shows their belief that the climate crisis is exaggerated. They believe that it has a negative effect on the economy and industrialization and that the benefits outweigh the risks. Throughout both the article and the main page of their website, they use emotion and authority to persuade voters, citing “50 independent scientists from 15 countries”. They intend to persuade more people into believing that the global warming crisis is false, but the main audience is people whose beliefs align with them. Their emotional and aggressive language likely scares people on the left from believing them. The main bias from this source is their belief that climate change is not detrimental. Because of this, they view everything through a completely different lens than the previous source. People who believe that climate change is a risk and people who do not deeply deep dive into why climate change is exaggerated will not be convinced by their persuasion. The demographic of this group tend to be older Americans, so they may not want to see such drastic changes in something they have been used to for all their life. They also may care less about the environment because it will not directly affect them as much in the future due to them being close to reaching their life expectancy.
The beliefs of the two interest groups completely differ. But, they both believe that the government is not doing enough for their cause. They both use emotion in some way to try to connect to the viewers, but whereas the left uses sympathy, the right uses aggression. Their weaknesses also are similar, as they both see the issues through a biased lens. But, the right’s scientists are often not cited or not as trustworthy as the left’s. The post I find more convincing is the Sierra Club’s, as it has more evidence and cites multiple scientists and one from NASA. It may also be more convincing to the American public, as their tone uses less emotions and use a more neutral “fact reading” tone.
