Hum/111 Week 3 Assignment Detecting Media Bias
I chose to do my paper on an article that I had read on Forbes.com called 'Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit'. This is a topic that has always sparked my attention, and after reading the article I think it will be great for this type of paper. The report is more of an environmental and energy issue but I still think it falls into play with an economic report. I do not think the report was well written and not too sure about the clearness and accuracy of the report. In my opinion this argument is very single-minded. It is not about whether the U.S. Reducing it's CO2 emissions would have a significant impact alone on the total reduction in emissions, it's the global political influence that the U.S. has that would encourage other governments to follow suit which would then make an enormous difference. The U.S.'s refusal to make any pledges to significantly reduce its CO2 emissions acts as a massive deterrent to developing economies to do the same.
The argument from the writer is incredibly short term as well. This isn't something that will make us wake up tomorrow to an apocalypse, this is an ongoing and gradual change that will impact the U.S. and worlds food security, especially developing countries over the next 100 years or more. The writer talks as though a 10% change in just 10 years is not significant, but this is the blink of an eye and a continued increase on this scale may not have a major influence now, but will do very soon if it continues. I hate the bias and the poorly referenced information that the writer uses that tries to make others think the U.S. Should not have any part to play in reducing CO2 emissions.
It is my belief that when something as serious as our environment, it needs to be addressed in a much more critical way. The thinking of the writer is extremely biased reporting that the part that the U.S. could play is not enough. I am sure that if I looked into more sources
The argument from the writer is incredibly short term as well. This isn't something that will make us wake up tomorrow to an apocalypse, this is an ongoing and gradual change that will impact the U.S. and worlds food security, especially developing countries over the next 100 years or more. The writer talks as though a 10% change in just 10 years is not significant, but this is the blink of an eye and a continued increase on this scale may not have a major influence now, but will do very soon if it continues. I hate the bias and the poorly referenced information that the writer uses that tries to make others think the U.S. Should not have any part to play in reducing CO2 emissions.
It is my belief that when something as serious as our environment, it needs to be addressed in a much more critical way. The thinking of the writer is extremely biased reporting that the part that the U.S. could play is not enough. I am sure that if I looked into more sources