The presentation on climate change was one that their rhetoric really struck me as a bit controversial. I would not call myself a "climate change denier", but there are just a lot more questions that I have to climate change that Green Peace and Heartland don't directly discuss. I feel like I am in the middle on this issue because I know both sides are right on some points and wrong on others, but regardless, they are both extreme. It is pretty evident that with this presentation, the group (NADS?) were against the denial of global climate change. One part that really stuck me was the part on the psychology behind climate change denial. They talk about how we "screen out" the information that we don't want to believe and how we want to talk about pleasant things. I don't know how much I fully believe this. I have heard more and more about our generation being more concerned about current issues, and wanting to talk about it and make a difference in the world. One example is HERE, I'll let you look around the website a bit, but one of their links I particularly liked was THIS ONE. I think that yes, there is a lot more information available, like the NADS talked about, but I don't think that it is leading to climate change denial and escape, I think it is leading to more conversation about the issue, whether for or against. I think that just because people are talking about how climate change doesn't exist, doesn't mean they are trying to deny the "facts". They are not just denying climate change because it is convenient, maybe they actually have valid points. That is what bothered me a bit with this section. Just because they don't agree, doesn't mean they don't have any truth to what they may be saying.
Another point with the rhetoric that bothered me a bit was the section on "crazies" denying climate change. The last point on there talks about deciding who is right and not being to extreme about anything. I think this is a really big paradox because isn't the presentation a bit extreme? I mean, it is completely denying the other side of the story, and presenting it with a "climate change is happening" seeing device. Calling people that don't necessarily believe in climate change "crazy" to me is very extreme, and also very offensive to a lot of people. Also, the images with the scale totally tipped one way and talking about State of Fear as State of Whatever to me shows a bit of extreme views, and makes me question whether this group really looked at both sides before putting together the extreme views. I think it is a paradox because they talk about not being extreme on views, but the presentation itself was very extreme, and that left me a bit confused.
Now I don't want it to seem that I am all negative on this presentation. I think it does present the views very clearly, but some of the information I didn't exactly agree with. The rhetoric was very, very important, and also very well done, but I was held back by the extremity of it, and some ideas that I didn't particularly agree on.
Rachel, I really liked your post, and was actually thinking of doing something similar when planning my own blog post. Despite my views on global climate change, I was also struck at the extreme diction chosen by the presenters and wondered if they came at the project too one-sided to even consider opposing information. Calling the opposition the "crazies", for me, is akin to the "fuck you" response that Evans utilizes so often; it doesn't get you anywhere and even brings a negative connotation to the one using it.
ReplyDelete