there are some deniers that use system that is not logical or valid being
backed to evoke public outcry of accepting the logical case of global
warming to be a false event. ‘ExxonMobil, Western Fuel Industries,
and the American Petroleum Institute are among the leading think tanks that
promote doubt over global warming science and oppose clean energy
policy’ (Pilkey, 2011: 49). This indicates the cause of many
deniers to be supported by some large industrial organisation.
Most of the listed organisation are energy companies, it explains
that a change to clean energy policy will affect their business long-term.
Backing deniers will allow people to dispute and cast scepticism over
global warming. To provide a case of action ‘Between 1998 and
2005 ExxonMobil gave almost $16 million dollars to anti-global
warming advocacy organizations’ (Pilkey, 2011: 49). This form
of practise occurs to raise unethical awareness because it allows
deniers to put a different spin on global warming by arousing specific though
to possibly gain public support. Leading the aim to make sure that
it eventually delays or defeat cases by creating doubt to the change in
clean energy policy. From this case, it is true to say that funding deniers
will increase trust and support points from some agenda they believe to.
cause of global warming has aroused questions to be answered when
some form of natural event occurs. Knowing who the key believers and deniers
are and how they source their information from will provide an open
understanding of their claims.
that ‘Some scientific conclusion or theories have been so thoroughly examined
and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that
their likelihood of subsequently being found wrong is vanishingly
small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as facts. This is the
case for the conclusion that the Earth system is warming and that much of this
is very likely due to human activities’ (Romm, 2015: 3). Romm’s view
implies that researchers source their findings through the use of various
processes and the chances of an error is slim. This shows an open
understanding of acceptance even if a fault is found through research. These
process aims to send out clear massages for people to
understand situations openly. Whereas Inhofe claims that ‘Global
warming activists often take the high moral ground and claim that they are on a
crusade to save the planet for future generations. But policies would give our
children a substantially depressed quality of life’ (Inhofe, 2012:
1). Inhofe perception completely differs compared
to Romm about global warming. Inhofe argues that strong
regulation put in place to combat global warming will affect future generations
lifestyle. It suggests a possible outcome with no evidence backing it up.
However, despite the differences, these assumptions are
backed by what they believe is true. Inhofe views show deniers
mostly propose on particular theories to undermine the cause,
while Romm informs how the cause is gained from. Comparison
of these two views demonstrates that most
believers like Romm are researchers that studies it and deniers
like Inhofe are official
that argues it.