"Gore"-ing the IPCC: How U.S. Conservative Media Has Framed the Climate Change Debate
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to examine the conservative U.S. media's response to global climate change in 2007 and 2008, focusing on manifest claims that emerged after the awards and nominations achieved by Al Gore and the IPCC. This analysis highlights the general topics mentioned and counter-claims made by conservative syndicated columnists when discussing global warming.Over the two-year period from January 2007-December 2009, the conservative syndicated columnists were consistent in how they mentioned the topic of global warming. The columnists chose "global warming" to define the phenomenon more often than "climate change." This would allow for single-year data to appear more credible in refuting long-term trends. They also frequently connected Al Gore to their discussion of global warming and proceeded to attack his credibility instead of attacking the scientific evidence or claims made by climate scientists. Finally, the two least used counter-claims by the columnists were the two claims that admitted (to some extent) that anthropogenic global warming is indeed occurring. This study provides a small window into the denial machine against climate scientists and shows a need to further examine the power and influence conservative syndicated columnists have as a member of the conservative media.
Collections
- OSU Theses [15752]