Rhetoric is an 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 can be choked down to one thing; which is that public opinion being is altered because of how the issue of climate change is presented and 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. Evidence by scientists, such as Lonnie Thompson, whose work 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 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 1). The two sides in this debate is the white house verses the scientific community. Both have documented proof, and have the ability to back their side. The white house backed by President Donald Trump, has turned climate change into a social issue; 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, how people either believe or disagree with climate change. He communicates that 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. Additionally, Opinions in the United States today, are based on the fact that most Democrats believe in climate change and, Republicans do not. Because of this: “Battle lines drawn, the social debate around climate change is now devolving into a cultural schism in which opposing sides do not debate the same issues, seek only information that supports their position or disconfirms the other’s, and begin to demonize those who disagree with them” (Hoffman 6).  In response, people cling to a side and only believe what that side is telling them, the president is guilty of this. The current US president represents the republican party, subsequently his climate change policy and his advisors only communicate message of climate change not existing. Therefore, the American people are at a disadvantage as to what to believe about climate change and it is the president's job to inform them. Discrediting climate change is the cause of the worsening current world situation. 

As a result of the rhetoric and ideology used in Trump’s new ecological programs, public opinion has been compromised. 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 felt that, “This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual…as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used by a President-elect of the United States in cavalier and often reckless ways to address the twin threats of nuclear weapons and climate change,” (Bowerman). The fact that bulletin expressed such concern with one man’s actions and words reveal why the president has such power in determining public idea.  The outcome of people’s opinions of what is happening when temperatures go up is based on the word choice of the president. Moreover, "Never before has the Bulletin decided to advance the clock largely because of the statements of a single person. But when that person is the new president of the United States, his words matter" (Bowerman).  His word choice and actions matter, they affect everyone. Currently the president is using his rhetoric for the advantage of himself and the republican party. 

Likewise, the head of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, recently publicized that, he believed that carbon dioxide was not a primary contributor to global warming. When asked Pruitt said, “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see” (Johnston). His 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. In response to Pruitt’s statements environmental correspondent Ian Johnston wrote that, “The idea that there is still a debate about carbon dioxide’s impact on the climate is a standard line used by ‘sceptics’ and it may be that Mr. Pruitt accidentally overstepped the mark by saying something that is scientifically illiterate” (Johnston). Not only do his words dispel the facts, but they also have the power to change the way people see the climate change issue. With Pruitt being appointed as the head of the environmental programs he has the power to not only publicized how he feels, but he can also act on his feeling. With the confirmation from the white house, Pruitt intends, “To 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 actions are an example of why an authoritative presence is so vital for climate change understanding. For this reason, comments and information such as Pruitt’s claim signifies why rhetoric is so persuasive. This issue is no longer justified by evidence but change alter thinking based on the delivery of facts and in some cases alternative facts. 

As a response to the White House’s allegations regarding climate change half of America’s physicians have banded together on the grounds of climate change. They stated that, “We physicians in medical societies representing over half of the nation’s doctors see a need to share our growing understanding and concern about the health consequences of climate change with all Americans. The report published on The Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health website details how: “Most Americans understand that climate change is real and are concerned about it. But most still see climate change as a faraway threat. The reality, however, is starkly different” (Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health). This reality to the doctors is a completely different reality than that of the president. Their mission is to make clear to the public how much of a real threat climate change accurately is. For them, “climate change is already causing problems in communities in every region of our nation, and from a doctor’s perspective, it’s harming our health” (Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health). They created the Medical Society to show their authoritative response in hopes of countering claims of the white house. They cited examples such as violent weather problem and the spread of dieses through contaminated food and water. The doctors also take on their influential position of power, and are using 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 statements that Donald trump makes without any fact backing, 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 She states that one headline report was written by 620 scientists from 40 countries: “They wrote almost a thousand pages on the topic. And all of those pages were reviewed by another 400-plus scientists and reviewers, from 113 countries” (Pike). She communicates when writing on the issue of climate change they consult with many people rather than having just one perspective. Therefore, for Trump to have the power to use his word choice to dismiss the evidence of 620 scientists shows the capacity that rhetoric has. 

To counteract, scientist Richard Bailey, whose research was published in the 90s, explains how some people of power view that climate change is false. He cites that, accredited scientists have been making predictions regarding the environment for decades. To contradict, his main claim shows that climate change is false. He communicates his view that this issue is a man-made idea. He mentions 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 (Bailey). This a huge part of Donald trump’s campaign the idea that the ozone layer is still intact. The author’s argument was to dispel global warming through the use of scientific facts, but since his publishing a vast amount of evidence shows otherwise.  For this reason, the importance of his evidence goes back to the fact that it was only credible after unofficially being confirmed by positions of power.  With the new perspective of President Trump false evidence such as this can become truth in the eyes of the American people. 

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. Authoritative presences use different forms of rhetoric to reach different audiences, and when they reach these audiences their idea about a topic will be altered.  Therefore, people must understand that their words have power and what they do with those words will affect people. As American citizens it is our duty to inform people of the reality of climate change.  
