Rhetoric is extremely powerful tool when debating a controversial issue such as climate change. Arguments consist of believers and those who refuse to accept the validity of the scientific research. Climate change is defined in the scientific community as a long term change in climate due to emission of fossil fuels and human activity specially in the late 1980s to present day. Even though there is documented evidence of the reality of this issue the subject is highly debated. Findings have shown that this refusal to can be choked down to two things. Public opinion is altered on climate change because of how the issue is presented in news sources and used in biased explanations which are articulated by people of power.

The consensus among most scientists is that they believe climate change is happening. On the other hand, this issue is still highly debated within the public and scientific community. Evidenced by scientists one such as Lonnie Thompson, whose worked was published by The US Government, confirms documented reasons for elevated temperatures. Her research reveals why the current situation is not only fact, but one that demands attention. This evidence suggest that the current warming is unprecedented, and based on 160-year record of direct temperature measurements her findings suggest the climate is changing at a catastrophic rate. But despite all the evidence, “societies have taken little action to address this global-scale problem. Hence, the rate of global carbon dioxide emissions continues to accelerate. As a result of our inaction, we have three options: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering” (Thompson). The message of many in the scientific community is there is a direct response in human activity and warming temperatures which are causing drastic changes in climate. With this in mind, there is a pattern emerging in which credible evidence of climate change is disputed by and authoritative sources who claim their research is false. The debate has become a “Rhetorical contest, one where opposing sides try to achieve victory through playing on fear, distrust, and intolerance” (Hoffman). Rather than debating if greenhouse gases affect the ozone layer, this topic has strayed away from what is causing climate change and morphed into one of ethics and world views. As a result, author and scientist Andrew Hoffman discusses in his book at length, how people either believe or disagree with climate change. He communicates their opinions are based on their cultural exposure to the topic. Further dictating that this issue is no longer scientific but social. He attempts to talk about a so called “rhetorical war” giving insight to how people are quick to latch onto one side. He documents evidence of how the public’s opinion is so quickly swayed, based on what type of rhetoric is used in news sources. Subsequently citing people in authoritative positions having the most effect. To illustrate, a New York Times article highlights the president’s role in climate change and questions if his rhetoric even has credibility. The central claim of the article revolves around mass media and the effect of rhetoric. Throughout the article, the author uses many media outlets to communicate his claim, that leadership effects public understanding.  The New York Times article communicates how important a focus on climate change is for the presidency. Discrediting climate change is the cause of the worsening current world situation. Consequently, US president Donald Trump and his team are the main perpetrators claiming that the earth is not experiencing any type of climate change. 

As a result of the rhetoric and ideology used in Donald Trump’s new ecological programs, public opinion has been compromised. His most damaging claim surrounds global warming in which he suggests climate change is not happening. As a direct response to Trump being elected, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, whom decide every year whether the events of the previously helped or hurt the environment, used a symbolic clock to show the campaign had directly affected their time estimate. Furthermore, the head of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, recently publicized that carbon dioxide was not a primary contributor to global warming. These accusations disregard a vast amount of evidence indicating that human production of carbon dioxide traps heat at the Earth’s surface effecting protective ozone layer. This information even dates back to the 19th century, and has been reconfirmed throughout the last 100 years through studies and experiments since its initial finding.  His claim seems to “Appear to signal that the Trump administration intends not only to roll back President Barack Obama’s climate change policies, but also to wage a vigorous attack on their underlying legal and scientific basis” (Davenport). His statements are important because of authoritative presence and his ability to enact laws which shape people’s perception of the issue. For this reason, comments and information such as Pruitt’s claim signifies that the White House is considering a 17 percent cut to the budget of NOAA, one of the nation’s premier agencies of climate science research.

As a response to the White House’s allegations half of America’s physicians have banded together on the grounds of climate change. Their mission is to make clear to the public how much of a real threat climate change accurately is. Climate change, they said, is making people sick (Brown). They created the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, comprised of family doctors, pediatricians, obstetricians, allergists, geriatricians, came out with a report showing that death can be a direct response to climate change. They cited examples such as violent weather problem and the spread of dieses through contaminated food and water. The doctors also take on a position of authoritative power, using their influence on the public. They want to counteract Trump, and use their platform to respond to fictitious rhetoric. 

Considering the ability of rhetoric, authors John Dryzek and Alex Lo write about a forum conducted in which they had the public deliberate on climate change. The forum’s goal was to communicate how rhetoric can be used to convince the non-believers of the reality of the climate change. The forum used analogy and framing to impart the negative effects of climate change and found that rhetoric used in support of climate change left the public believing in the issue. The authors focus this finding and base their argument on the importance of word choice and evidence (Davenport). A similar study was done, focusing on the idea that climate change rhetoric effects the way Americans perceive the issue. Researchers experimented to see how much rhetoric in turn effected the outcome of personal opinion. They believed that framing climate change as a personal issue, would have a positive effect on readers believing in the reality of climate change. This in fact was false and caused even less advocacy of the issue.  They experimented with the national public and sent out series of messages about addressing climate change as a national priority. They framed question on how ‘you’ as an American would think climate change would have on your own life. They communicated a message made in which it either made them hopeful or sad. Their results of this method compared with those who received just the basic information on climate change found that people were 17 percent less likely to sign the petition and join the organization (Levine). This discovery highlights the previous evidence of Trump’s word choice effecting the American public.

An atmospheric chemist Rachel Pike, also challenges the rhetoric of the white house. She speaks on the massive scientific effort behind the bold headlines on climate change. Through her Ted Talk she provides examples of her work in climate change and reveals how much work go into these headlines. This article, shows the other side, unlike Donald trump their information is checked and researched multiple times so that they can provide readers with an accurate representation of what is happening to the planet (Pike).  She is credible because of her vast research and work experience in the field of climate change. 

To counteract, a source explains how some people of power view that climate change is false. Accredited scientists have been making predictions regarding the environment for decades. This author main claim, shows his evidence for climate change being false. He communicates his view that this issue is a man-made idea. He cites research of the earth goes through cooling and warming periods. The author explains how this is just a natural process. The source dispels popular myths of global disaster, including the following: depletion of the ozone layer. This a huge part of Donald trump’s campaign the idea that the ozone layer is still intact. The author’s arguments to seeks to dispel global warming through the use of scientific facts.  The author is credible because of his use of outside information (Bailey). This research was hard to come by and shows that many scientist dispute this. The date written of the article can used to show that scientific research has changed.

People in power position do effect public opinion in regards to climate change and even other issues. Evidence suggest there is a direct correlation in how the environment is going in the opposite direction due to the president. These articles prove that when one uses different forms of rhetoric it reaches different audiences. all have a similar theme or idea, that centers around rhetoric. These articles prove that when people in power positions uses different forms of rhetoric it reaches different audiences.

