Starting with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) that was established by two United Nations organizations World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), global climate change since then has been a reoccurring social and
scientific topic worldwide. For climatologists, climate change is undeniable as
it is based on various researches and scientific data, therefore the negative
opinions are seen as not validated (Nuccitelli, 2013). On the other hand, the
skepticism on climate change is based on the absence of strong arguments and
lack of proof because of research limitations (Aykut et al., 1012). Many
scientists agree upon the realness of climate change and the common view that
it derives from human activity. On the contrary, some scientists disagree and
this skepticism receives even more media attention. If there are approximately
97 per cent of scientists that agree upon an issue, there is always those 3 per
cent that are skeptic, says Christine Todd Whitman, a former Administrator of
the Environmental Agency (Dastagir, 2017).

Individual views

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Recent GSS study shows that in US people trust scientists (40%)
more than the Supreme Court (26%), organized religion (20%), major company
owners (18%), banks and financial institutions (14%), the executive branch
(12%), the press (8%) and the Congress (6%) (gssdataexplorer.norc.org, 2016). According
to Pew Research Center, when people have a negative opinion towards
science it is usually because of the three approaches:

–         
Personal identity.
Individual’s opinion is influenced by the people that surround him, the environment
they live in, family they grew with and later on, and colleagues they work with
(Paul et al., 2005);

–         
Religious views.
People are likely to take extraordinary measures to what they are though to be
sacred (Gerten & Bergmann, 2012);

–         
Political
preferences. People need to be able to differentiate between a scientist, a
politician, or another official in terms what they call “science” or
“scientific” (Hart, 2015).

These views influence their way of
thinking towards many issues from early years and it is hard to affect such
people. Whether they were raised in some manner, thought religiously or attached
to some political party, tossing new facts will rarely change their minds because
of their fundamental beliefs (people-press.org, 2014). One of mostly discussed
study topics – the climate change – became a curse word in the political arena
as it became a significant issue in political party agendas. Dan Kahan, Yale’s
psychology and law professor and a member of Cultural Cognition Project, states
that global warming is not based on knowledge of the topic but rather is linked
to “what you are” – the mindset and environment of an individual (Dastagir,
2017).

Media coverage

From the beginning of modern science, society’s viewpoint
was positive towards it and it is believed that science is one of the main
drives of human progress (Summers, 2016). A lot of discussions about
environmental issues are covered by media and most of them are during various
economic or political talk shows, live interviews and etc. The main shortage in
these arguments is that they present minimal scientific facts and more populist
statements. Main attention while talking about the certainty of global warming
should be concentrated on three major increases in media coverage. They are
concentrated more on the factual proof and less on dramatic outcomes or, vice
versa, on highlights of future pledges (Boykoff, 2007).

–         
Ecological/numerological.
In the summer of 1988 North America experienced a draught and expansion in
Yellowstone National Park that were linked to global warming by various
scientists.

–         
Political.
Margaret Thatcher’s warnings on global warming, NASA’s Goddard Institute for
Space Studies Dr. James Hansen evidence on climate change existence.

–         
Scientific.
Formation of IPCC, various conferences on the topic of climate change.

On the contrary, it is important to
notice Bush administration’s war on science case that took politicization of
scientific research to new levels. After realizing that science and their goals
are not on the same page, the administration constantly abused science by misrepresenting
it to the public in order to pass policies in their interest.  Then, the public had no clue about the
speculations the Bush administration ran, but nowadays it is considered as an
exceptionally creative and selective labeling of proposed projects (Nisbet,
2009).

Evidence

After looking through the media
coverage, it is crucial to see on what basis were these issues based.

–         
Environmental
protection reports. Various evidence shown in reports from environmentalists
that cover observations of wildlife and the highlighted changes.  The alterations in microsystems are based on
key stages of annual life cycle as the environment they live in directly
affects it. The deviations from normality signal changes in the environment (epa.gov.com).

–         
NASA’s Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS). A computer analysis program was created
to calculate average temperature trends during 1951-1980 on the same month to
see the trends in temperature changes. The data loaded into this tool include:
estimated temperature changes from 6300 metrological stations worldwide,
ship-based and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperature and the
measurements gained through Antarctic researches. The strong climate change
trends of the past three decades are linked to aerosol and greenhouse gas
effects (earthobservatory.nasa.gov, 2005).

–         
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). Formation of organizations to identify climate change as an issue
not a technical description of changing weather (Hulme, 2016).

As a result, the evidence behind
these major events is rational and science-based. Moreover, the climate change
is not politicized and derives from human-activity. The only politicization
towards climate change can be found in party agendas – when the environmental
issues do not go along with their prioritized points. After stating a point
whether it is scientific or politicized, society chooses whether to believe it
or not and this decision is based on their fundamental beliefs rather than
actual existence of a problem. Therefore, the climate change is not politicized
and actually exists according to the evidence whereas society’s mistrust
derives not from scientists, but from media framing.

Author