Furthermore,there are some deniers that use system that is not logical or valid beingbacked to evoke public outcry of accepting the logical case of globalwarming to be a false event. ‘ExxonMobil, Western Fuel Industries,and the American Petroleum Institute are among the leading think tanks thatpromote doubt over global warming science and oppose clean energypolicy’ (Pilkey, 2011: 49). This indicates the cause of manydeniers to be supported by some large industrial organisation.Most of the listed organisation are energy companies, it explainsthat a change to clean energy policy will affect their business long-term.Backing deniers will allow people to dispute and cast scepticism overglobal warming.
To provide a case of action ‘Between 1998 and2005 ExxonMobil gave almost $16 million dollars to anti-globalwarming advocacy organizations’ (Pilkey, 2011: 49). This formof practise occurs to raise unethical awareness because it allowsdeniers to put a different spin on global warming by arousing specific thoughto possibly gain public support. Leading the aim to make sure thatit eventually delays or defeat cases by creating doubt to the change inclean energy policy. From this case, it is true to say that funding denierswill increase trust and support points from some agenda they believe to.Combating thecause of global warming has aroused questions to be answered whensome form of natural event occurs. Knowing who the key believers and deniersare and how they source their information from will provide an openunderstanding of their claims. Romm statesthat ‘Some scientific conclusion or theories have been so thoroughly examinedand tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, thattheir likelihood of subsequently being found wrong is vanishinglysmall.
Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as facts. This is thecase for the conclusion that the Earth system is warming and that much of thisis very likely due to human activities’ (Romm, 2015: 3). Romm’s viewimplies that researchers source their findings through the use of variousprocesses and the chances of an error is slim. This shows an openunderstanding of acceptance even if a fault is found through research.
Theseprocess aims to send out clear massages for people tounderstand situations openly. Whereas Inhofe claims that ‘Globalwarming activists often take the high moral ground and claim that they are on acrusade to save the planet for future generations. But policies would give ourchildren a substantially depressed quality of life’ (Inhofe, 2012:1). Inhofe perception completely differs comparedto Romm about global warming. Inhofe argues that strongregulation put in place to combat global warming will affect future generationslifestyle. It suggests a possible outcome with no evidence backing it up.
However, despite the differences, these assumptions arebacked by what they believe is true. Inhofe views show deniersmostly propose on particular theories to undermine the cause,while Romm informs how the cause is gained from. Comparisonof these two views demonstrates that mostbelievers like Romm are researchers that studies it and denierslike Inhofe are officialthat argues it.