satire essay about global warming

• The Inventory

Support Quartz

Fund next-gen business journalism with $10 a month

Free Newsletters

Using humor to talk about climate change makes it easier to take action

Climate change is not inherently funny. Typically, the messengers are serious scientists describing how rising greenhouse gas emissions are harming the planet on land and at sea , or assessing what role it played in the latest wildfire or hurricane .

Society may have reached a saturation point for such somber, gloomy, and threatening science-centered discussions. This possibility is what inspires my recent work with colleague Beth Osnes to get messages out about climate change through comedy and humor.

I have studied and practiced climate communication for about 20 years. My new book, Creative (Climate) Communications , integrates social science and humanities research and practices to connect people more effectively through issues they care about. Rather than “dumbing down” science for the public, this is a “smartening up” approach that has been shown to bring people together around a highly divisive topic.

Why laugh about climate change?

Science is critically important to understanding the enormity of the climate challenge and how it connects with other problems like disasters, food security, local air quality, and migration. But stories that emanate from scientific ways of knowing have failed to significantly engage and activate large audiences.

Largely gloomy approaches and interpretations typically stifle audiences rather than inspiring them to take action. For example, novelist Jonathan Franzen recently published an essay in The New Yorker titled “ What If We Stop Pretending? ” in which he asserted:

“The goal (of halting climate change) has been clear for thirty years, and despite earnest efforts we’ve made essentially no progress toward reaching it.”

Social science and humanities research have shown that this kind of framing effectively disempowers readers who could be activated and moved by a smarter approach.

Comics took a different path when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report in 2018 warning that the world only had until about 2030 to take steps that could limit warming to manageable levels. Trevor Noah, host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show , observed:

“You know the crazy people you see in the streets shouting that the world is ending? Turns out, they’re all actually climate scientists .”

On ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live , Kimmel commented:

“There’s always a silver lining. One planet’s calamity is another planet’s shop-portunity.”

He then cut to a going-out-of-business advertisement for Planet Earth that read:

“Everything must go! 50% of all nocturnal animals, insects, reptiles, and amphibians … priced to sell before we live in hell. But you must act fast because planet Earth is over soon. And when it’s gone, it’s gone .”

It’s getting hot in here

Social science and humanities scholars have been examining new, potentially more effective ways to communicate about climate change. Consistently, as I describe in my book, research shows that emotional, tactile, visceral, and experiential communication meets people where they are. These methods arouse action and engagement .

Scholars have examined how shows like Saturday Night Live , Last Week Tonight , Jimmy Kimmel Live , Full Frontal , and The Daily Show use jokes to increase understanding and engagement. In one example, former Vice President Al Gore appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in 2017 and took turns with Colbert serving up climate change pickup lines over saucy slow-jam background music:

Gore: “Are you climate change? Because when I look at you, the world disappears.”

Colbert: “I’m like 97% of scientists, and I can’t deny … it’s getting hot in here.”

Colbert: “Is that an iceberg the size of Delaware breaking off the Antarctic ice shelf, or are you just happy to see me?”

Gore: “I hope you’re not powered by fossil fuels, because you’ve been running through my mind all day.”

Comedian Sarah Silverman took time during her 2018 Hulu show I Love You America  to address the need for climate action. In her monologue, she focused on how climate change is driven “by the interests of a very small group and absurdly rich and powerful people.” She added:

“The disgusting irony of all of it is that the billionaires who have created this global atrocity are going to be the ones to survive it. They are going to be fine while we all cook to death in a planet-sized hot car.”

Breaching barriers and finding common ground

Research shows that in a time of deep polarization, comedy can lower defenses . It temporarily suspends social rules and connects people with ideas and new ways of thinking or acting.

Comedy exploits cracks in arguments. It wiggles in, pokes, prods, and draws attention to the incongruous, hypocritical, false and pretentious. It can make the complex dimensions of climate change seem more accessible and its challenges seem more manageable.

For four years we have directed “Stand Up for Climate Change,” a comedy project. We and our students write sketch comedy routines and perform them in front of live audiences on the Boulder campus. From those experiences, we have studied the content of the performances and how the performers and audience respond. Our work has found that humor provides effective pathways to greater awareness, learning, sharing of feelings, conversations, and inspiration for performers and audiences alike.Many disciplines can inform comedy, including theater, performance, and media studies. With my colleagues Beth Osnes , Rebecca Safran, and Phaedra Pezzullo at the University of Colorado, I co-direct the Inside the Greenhouse initiative, which uses insights from creative fields to develop effective climate communication strategies.

A comic approach might seem to trivialize climate change, which has life-and-death implications for millions of people, especially the world’s poorest and most vulnerable residents. But a greater risk would be for people to stop talking about the problem entirely, and miss the chance to reimagine and actively engage in their collective futures.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief

Our free, fast, and fun briefing on the global economy, delivered every weekday morning.

7 cartoons about COP26 and the fight against climate change

Artists take on the politics of global warming, humanity's race against time, and more

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Today's Newspapers A roundup of the headlines from the US front pages

By The Week Staff Published 7 May 24

Speed Read The Ministry of Defence became aware of the breach 'several days ago'

By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published 7 May 24

The Week Recommends Enjoy freshly cooked food within sight of the sea – whatever the weather

By Adrienne Wyper, The Week UK Published 7 May 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

These Satirical Nat Geo Headlines Aren't Too Far Off

McSweeney’s "National Geographic Articles in the Year 2030" actually reminded us of some pretty cool stories.

Just because we’re 129 years old doesn’t mean we here at National Geographic can't laugh at ourselves. So when Bob Vulfov of McSweeney’s mocked up some satirical National Geographic headlines from the year 2030 …well, we’ll admit it. We chuckled.

My personal favorite is “These Striking Photographs Show the Best On-Fire Lakes from Around the World”—it’s a spot-on impression of my own headline about climate change portraits that are, indeed, striking .

Tapping into Americans’ acute and partisan anxieties about climate change , Vulfov imagines 2030 as a dystopian desert wasteland where biker gangs and Trump hotels reign supreme. ( Read up on this running list of ways Trump is changing the environment. )

National Geographic is “proudly non-partisan,” Editor-in-Chief Susan Goldberg wrote in our March issue . But she explains that on climate change (and everything else), we're on the side of facts —the facts being that yes, the world is getting warmer, and yes, it's because of humans .

Since 1888, we’ve believed in the power of science, exploration, and storytelling to change the world, and we plan to keep going for a good while yet. So while we hope you get a laugh out of these headlines, we’d also love it if you joined us in the effort to share climate science with the world. Maybe— even amongst all the pictures of cute baby animals —together we can make a change.

Here’s a look at some more of those, um, future headlines, and their real-world analogues:

For Hungry Minds

Hey, remember forests i miss forests.

We really, really like forests too. So does this India man who’s spent the last three decades planting a forest bigger than Central Park , and this teenager who’s on track to plant a trillion trees .

Did Lemurs Have Personalities? If So, Were They Bummed Out When They Became Extinct?

Short answer: yes, lemurs have personalities . And while the IUCN does list several lemur species as endangered , none have yet gone extinct. But last year a small Australian rodent became the world’s first mammalian casualty of climate change . ( Meet the endangered animals of the National Geographic Photo Ark .)

If you liked “ Let’s Check In With the Billionaires Who Escaped to an Underground Bunker Nation As We Descended Into Pandemonium ”…

…then peer inside the lives of the million people who actually do live in underground nuclear bunkers .

95 Degrees Fahrenheit in December — Is This the Coldest Winter in Years?

It’s true 2014 was the hottest year then on record. So was 2015, and 2016. Watch this video to learn how NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies analyzes temperature data to determine warming trends.

Weird and Fascinating Outdoor Hobbies People Used to Have Before Our Lives Became a Never-Ending Sprint from Death

Going to National Parks to play Pokémon Go is not the weirdest outdoor hobby people have ever had—far from it. From finger-wrestling in 1930s Estonia to hurdle-racing in Maori canoes , humans have pretty much always enjoyed alfresco entertainment. (So do your brain a favor, and spend some time in nature. )

You May Also Like

Can laughter strengthen your immune system? Here’s what science says.

They believed a mongoose spoke to them. A media frenzy came next.

The world’s historic sites face climate change. Can Petra lead the way?

If you laughed at “ Five Ways the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Should Use Its $400 Budget ”…

…then take a minute to learn about how the EPA actually uses its funding, and what the federal budget cuts could mean for the environment .

This Photojournalist Spent a Week Following the Band of Violent Bikers Who Now Rule Us, But He Was Killed So We Didn’t Receive Any Photos from Him

A week? Please. Try a decade—like Paul Salopek, who’s been documenting his slow walk around the world since 2013 and still has a long way to go. Then we can talk.

Recycling: Get Caught and This Illegal Activity Will Get You Thrown in Jail

A little time in the clink is worth it when recycling just makes so much sense .

Seven Stunning Natural Wonders That Are Now Trump Hotels

No hotels in sight at any of the world’s 17 most wild and beautiful places . And, since these seven stunning natural wonders are all in Asia , no Trump hotels there either.

Aww! A Robotic Monster Hound Capable of Firing Heat-Seeking Missiles Has Won the Westminster Dog Show — And Our Hearts

This year, the Westminster Dog Show also featured cats —why not robots next?

Help Us Caption This Photo of Underwater New York City

Global sea level would rise 215 feet if all the world's ice melted , meaning New York City would indeed be underwater—as would about 200 million people across the globe.

Jumping Into an Active Volcano Because You’ve Had Enough? Choose from Our List of the World’s Top Volcanoes

We’d recommend Santiaguito, which has erupted nearly every hour for 94 years .

Did Zebras Have Stripes On Their Skin? You Know What, Who Cares, I Ate a Sock for Dinner Tonight

Now you know once and for all—zebras’ skin is actually black under their striped coats , a pattern that may vary by climate . (Unfortunately, we can’t do anything about the sock.)

Watch the Elaborate Courtship of Two Gray Whales Shortly Before They Were Poached for Their Delicious Meat

Rest assured, the three gray whales caught in this elaborate courtship ritual were not poached—though controversial whaling practices remain in Iceland , Norway , and Japan , and even South Korea .

If you snickered at “ Photo of the Day: The Last Ice Cube on Earth ”…

…then feast your eyes on our monthly best-of Photo of the Day roundups .

Take a Spectacular 360° Journey Through the Stadium Where Repeated Recyclers Are Forced to Fight to the Death

You could…or you could explore Chernobyl's haunting ruins in these 360-degree photos .

Enormous Three-Headed, Nuclear Waste-Spewing Alligator Caught on Video is Not a Hoax

And neither is this one (though it is the size of a small car).

Related Topics

• CLIMATE CHANGE

This ancient society tried to stop El Niño—with child sacrifice

This deadly fungus is hitchhiking its way across the world

The gas in this exploding mine is odorless, colorless—and could transform the world

The Little Ice Age was brutal. How did people survive?

There's a frozen labyrinth atop Mount Rainier. What secrets does it hold?

• Environment

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Paid Content
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Don’t Just Watch: Team Behind ‘Don’t Look Up’ Urges Climate Action

The satirical film about a comet hurtling toward Earth is a metaphor for climate change. It has broken a Netflix record and its director hopes it will mobilize public action.

By Cara Buckley

“Don’t Look Up” is a Hollywood rarity on several fronts. It’s a major film about climate change. It racked up a record number of hours viewed in a single week, according to Netflix. It also unleashed a flood of hot takes, along with — in what may be a first — sniping between reviewers who didn’t like the film and scientists who did.

What remains to be seen is whether the film fulfills a primary aim of its director, Adam McKay, who wants it to be, in his words, “a kick in the pants” that prompts urgent action on climate change.

“I’m under no illusions that one film will be the cure to the climate crisis,” Mr. McKay, whose previous films include “The Big Short” and “Vice,” wrote in an email to the Times. “But if it inspires conversation, critical thinking, and makes people less tolerant of inaction from their leaders, then I’d say we accomplished our goal.”

In “Don’t Look Up,” a planet-killing comet hurtling toward Earth stands in as a metaphor for the climate crisis, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence playing distraught scientists scrambling to get politicians to act, and the public to believe them.

After the film premiered in December, climate scientists took to social media and penned opinion essays , saying they felt seen at last. Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted that it seemed like a documentary. Several admirers likened the film to “A Modest Proposal,” the 18th-century satirical essay by Jonathan Swift.

Naysayers, meanwhile, said the comet allegory was lost on those who took it literally, and questioned why Mr. McKay hadn’t been more straightforward about global warming. Writing in The New Yorker , Richard Brody said if scientists didn’t like what film critics had to say about science, “the scientists should stop meddling with art.”

Either way, at a time when leaders are failing to take the necessary measures to tackle the planet emergency, and the volume and ferocity of so-called “natural” disasters reach ever graver peaks, there is little question that the movie has struck a pretty big nerve. According to Netflix, which self reports its own figures and was the studio behind the film and its distributor, the movie is one of its most popular films ever, amassing an unprecedented 152 million hours viewed in one week.

“The goal of the movie was to raise awareness about the terrifying urgency of the climate crisis, and in that, it succeeded spectacularly,” said Genevieve Guenther, the founder and director of End Climate Silence, an organization that promotes media coverage of climate change.

“You can’t have movies that inspire people into action without a cultural acceptance of climate change,” she added, “which is what this movie will help produce.”

Hollywood has an uneven history depicting climate change in feature films, if it addresses it at all. Some films made their villains eco-terrorists — see Thanos in “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Godzilla: King of Monsters.” Or they present ecological collapse as inevitable — as in “Interstellar,” “Snowpiercer” and the Mad Max films. Rare is the film that imagines a world where humans successfully work together to allay the worst of the crisis, save biodiversity and wean themselves off fossil fuels.

While “Don’t Look Up” doesn’t provide a happy ending either, Mr. McKay has repeatedly stressed that he wants people to work toward that end. Netflix and climate scientists have partnered with an online platform that lists ways people can take action. One of the film’s stars, Jonah Hill, appeared on The Tonight Show and encouraged viewers to ask their congressional representatives to pass HR 794, the Climate Emergency Act. And Mr. DiCaprio urged his 19.4 million Twitter followers to get involved.

“We have the science,” Mr. McKay said on “The Daily Poster,” a website run by David Sirota, a journalist who is also a writer on the film. “We can do this. We have renewable energy. We could invest in carbon removal. There are a lot of things we can do if we have the action, will and awareness.”

Hollywood has played a role in defining big issues before. Stanley Kubrick’s satirical “Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb”— itself reviled at the time by some critics — and the “The China Syndrome” shaped attitudes about nuclear power and war. After watching the 1983 television film “The Day After,” which imagined the aftermath of a Cold War atomic battle, President Ronald Reagan wrote in his journa l that the film left him “greatly depressed” and hardened his resolve “to see there is never a nuclear war.” In 2012, while discussing his support of marriage equality, then vice-president Joe Biden credited the television series “Will & Grace” for educating the public.

Yet Michael Svoboda, a writing professor at George Washington University and contributor to the web magazine Yale Climate Connections, said while Mr. McKay is clearly impassioned about climate change, he was doubtful whether the film delivered a useful message that would produce results.

“Is he asking people to become more politically involved? Is he trying to reach across the aisle? That doesn’t seem to be the case at all,” Mr. Svoboda said. “Does it create a kind of fatalism, even nihilism, by virtue of its people accepting the inevitability after a good but not particularly well-coordinated fight?”

While “Don’t Look Up” took shots at both liberal elites and members of the right, Mr. Svoboda noted that by the film’s end it was clearly lampooning Trumpian populism. “It’s unlikely that’s going to reach anyone who’s skeptical of climate change,” he said.

All that said, the impassioned responses to the film suggests a hunger for more climate content, said Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, a marine biologist and co-founder of the think tank Urban Oceans Lab. That could put less pressure on one piece of work to be all things to all people.

“I would argue not whether one film is perfect, but that clearly we need a lot more of this stuff,” said Dr. Johnson.

“Some people are inspired by the dire science projections,” she continued. “Some are inspired by solutions. And some are inspired by focusing on a film that points to the absurdity of the fact that we’re ruining the one planet that it makes any sense for humans to live on.”

Dr. Johnson added that she hoped that the popularity of “Don’t Look Up” would prompt Hollywood to make more climate focused films. “If you don’t like it, make a better one,” she said. “I’ll watch.”

Cara Buckley is a climate reporter who focuses on people working toward solutions and off-the-beaten-path tales about responses to the crisis. She joined The Times in 2006 and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment. More about Cara Buckley

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

Giant batteries are transforming the way the United States uses electricity. Here’s how .

Are carbon offsets for air travel worth it? A lot of them don’t work and some might even be harmful, but there are alternatives .

Cattle ranches have ruled the Amazon for decades. Now, new companies are selling something else: the ability of trees to lock away planet-warming carbon .

“Buying Time,” a series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

• Archived Calls
• Volumes and Issues
• Special Issues
• All Publications

Using humor to engage the public on climate change: the effect of exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided satire on message discounting, elaboration and counterarguing

The research explores the differential impact of exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided satire about climate change on message processing. Analyzing experimental data (N =141) we find that one-sided satire offered by ‘The Onion’ ironically claiming that global warming is a hoax encourages viewers to engage in greater message elaboration and counterarguing. In contrast, two-sided satire offered by ‘The Weather Channel’ that makes jokes about those who believe in vs. reject human involvement in climate change is quickly discounted. We conclude by discussing the strategic value of incorporating one-sided satirical humor in communication efforts focused on climate change engagement.

Engaging citizens on the issue of climate change poses some unique challenges. Historically, much of the news coverage of climate change has presented a balanced approach, pitting the views of scientists who argue that climate change is heavily influenced by human activity against the more conservative political viewpoint that climate change does not exist or that it is natural rather than human activity that is responsible for significant shifts in temperature [Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004 ]. There is a general scientific consensus surrounding human induced climate change [NASA: Global Climate Change, 2019 ] and we have seen a shift toward more science-driven media coverage [Carrington, 2019 ], with journalists adopting a reporting approach that more accurately reflects the widespread scientific agreement on the topic [Hiles and Hinnant, 2014 ]. The conflict between scientists and the conservative opposition, however, still exists as a familiar narrative. In fact, science communication research has consistently showcased a highly politically polarized environment with individuals rejecting information inconsistent with their own personal beliefs about the causes and consequences of climate change [Hart and Nisbet, 2012 ]. Given the unique political environment surrounding climate change, it has been hard for science communicators, climate scientists, and others to cut through the clutter and promote tailored communication messages that encourage a more scientific view of climate change, rather than a view that is driven by social values and prior political orientations. One potential way to engage citizens in a more democratic, less divisive debate is to rely on alternative message types like satire to communicate about climate change [Nisbet and Scheufele, 2009 ].

Borrowing from extant work on the effects of exposure to political comedy on attitudes and behavior [for a review see Becker and Waisanen, 2013 ], recent research has tested the effects of exposure to humorous satirical messages on beliefs in global warming. For example, research by Brewer and McKnight [ 2015 ] and Brewer and McKnight [ 2017 ] found that viewing satirical content on the issue of climate change from sources like The Daily Show ( TDS ), The Colbert Report ( TCR ), and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver ( LWT ) bolsters existing views about climate change and the belief in a scientific consensus toward global warming, particularly among individuals who are less interested in the climate change issue. Recent work by Anderson and Becker [ 2018 ] similarly found that exposure to one-sided ironic humor positively influences belief certainty in and perceived risk of climate change, especially among viewers who are initially less likely to rate the climate change issue as important. In a similar vein, research by Skurka and colleagues [Skurka et al., 2018 ] showed that subjects who were assigned to view a satirical weather report were more likely to indicate an intention to engage in activism directly related to the issue of climate change by participating in a range of behaviors like contacting elected officials or volunteering with a climate advocacy organization. Finally, qualitative work by Bore and Reid [ 2014 ] found that viewing a satirical play about climate change promotes active and positive engagement with the issue debate, encouraging audience members to reflect upon and manage their feelings toward the conflict.

Research on the coverage of climate change on satirical programs like TDS and TCR suggests that these programs tend to affirm the reality of climate change rather than present a balanced approach, frequently targeting climate skeptics as the butt of the joke [Brewer, 2013 ; Feldman, 2013 ]. Viewers of these programs tend to subsequently pay greater attention to stories about climate change and the environment in other news sources [Feldman, Leiserowitz and Maibach, 2011 ].

While research on the effects of exposure to satirical content about climate change ultimately suggests that these comedic messages might be a helpful tool in engendering greater awareness, activism, and a more civil public discourse [Boykoff and Osnes, 2019 ; Feldman, 2017 ], research has yet to explore how these satirical messages are processed by viewers and whether viewers engage differently with humorous content that offers a one-sided perspective on the issue of climate change (as has traditionally been privileged on TDS, TCR , and LWT ) vs. a two-sided perspective, which is more similar to traditional news coverage of the climate change issue. In an effort to enhance our understanding of the net impact of comedic messages about climate change on issue engagement, the present investigation takes a step back to first consider how one-sided vs. two-sided satirical messages about climate change are processed, focusing on three related, yet distinct message processing variables including: (1) message discounting, (2) elaboration, and (3) counterarguing [Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne, 2007 ].

2 The cognitive processing of politically oriented comedy content

Research on cognitive engagement with political comedy tends to privilege a dual processing approach, relying on theoretical frameworks like the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) [Polk, Young and Holbert, 2009 ]. Collectively, this scholarship suggests that comedy is processed peripherally rather than centrally, with viewers expending most of their cognitive energy on simply getting the joke , or attempting to make sense of the incongruity that is present in the humor [Young, 2008 ]. More specifically, we know that viewers tend to simply discount comedic messages, classifying them as jokes that are not to be taken seriously, yet at the same time engage in more effortful, enhanced message processing [Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne, 2007 ]. This is particularly true if viewers like the comedic source or lack the ability or motivation to carefully inspect comedic claims [LaMarre and Walther, 2013 ; Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne, 2007 ].

At the same time, however, research has suggested that viewers do make an effort to connect humor with what they already know from other media sources or experiences, engaging in the process of message elaboration [Eveland Jr., 2005 ]. For example, Matthes [ 2013 ] found that viewers were more likely to engage in message elaboration when exposed to thematically related humor; this dynamic was particularly true for those who expressed a stronger need for humor (NFH). In contrast, work by Becker and Waisanen [ 2017 ] comparing the effects of exposure to humorous vs. serious presidential speech found that viewers were more likely to engage in message elaboration when viewing the State of the Union than when randomly assigned to view more humorous presentations from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Finally, a study on the differential effects of exposure to straight news vs. satirical comedy interviews with politicians found that the likelihood of engaging in elaborative processing after viewing comedy depended on prior orientations toward comedy (e.g., perceived learning from comedy and an affinity for entertaining news) [Becker, 2018a ].

In a similar vein, research has also shown that viewers are less likely to try to counterargue or disagree with a conflicting message present in politically humorous content [Polk, Young and Holbert, 2009 ]. This lack of counterargumentation is generally attributed to two related yet distinct dynamics. First, after working to understand the joke, viewers have less cognitive energy or ability to counterargue with the humor. Second, after enjoying and being entertained by the humor, viewers lack any subsequent motivation to pick apart any contradictory claims present in the jokes. At the same time, the type of humor may be a key determining factor as to whether viewers work to engage in more effortful message processing, including message discounting, elaboration, or counterarguing.

For example, research has shown that more complicated, ironic humor encourages viewers to engage less with the process of counterarguing. In effect, exposure to ironic humor lowers the ability to engage in argument scrutiny because it requires more cognitive resources to first understand the jokes [Polk, Young and Holbert, 2009 ]. Ironic humor by its nature is inherently complicated, literally presenting the opposite or inverse of its intended meaning [Young et al., 2019 ]. Viewers need a pre-established understanding of the topic or context to make sense of and actually get the ironic humor.

More specifically, engagement with irony is likely conditional on the complexity of the humor; in fact, the relationship between ironic complexity and humor appreciation can be thought of as curvilinear in nature. Simpler ironic messages more naturally promote message enjoyment and mirth, while more complicated messages are increasingly difficult to appreciate and engage with [Burgers, van Mulken and Schellens, 2011 ]. For many, these more complicated ironic missives are taken literally at face value rather than appreciated as humorous, contradictory content [LaMarre, Landreville and Beam, 2009 ]. At the same time, research suggests that more complex humorous messages like those that rely on irony can motivate viewers to engage with a message more deeply, engaging in more — if not ultimately better — counterargumentation [Polk, Young and Holbert, 2009 ]. As Polk, Young and Holbert [ 2009 ] ultimately suggest, while complicated ironic messages reduce the ability to engage in effective counterarguing, they also encourage viewers to try and expend more effort to unpack contradictory claims.

More playful humor, often defined as horatian satire [Becker, 2012 ; Holbert et al., 2011 ], has been shown to encourage message discounting since the content is more often classified as a joke designed to make us laugh rather than content that is trying to persuade us to take a critical stance on an issue or topic. At the same time, more critical humor, or juvenalian satire, has been linked with decreased argument scrutiny in part because viewers are expending more cognitive resources to first understand and parse the more aggressive and judgmental content [LaMarre, Landreville, Young et al., 2014 ].

Overall, it is clear that not all humor types are processed equally. While research has explored the differential processing of irony vs. sarcasm and horatian vs. juvenalian satire [Becker, 2012 ; LaMarre, Landreville, Young et al., 2014 ; Polk, Young and Holbert, 2009 ], scholars have yet to consider the differential message processing that might result from exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided satire and its potential impact on engagement with climate change.

3 Objective: the differential effect of exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided climate change humor

As Feldman [ 2017 ] notes, the vast majority of satirical content focused on climate change presents a one-sided perspective. Shows like TDS , TCR and even LWT use humor to make fun of climate skeptics, promoting combative sketches that echo the one-sided scientific perspective that climate change is real and caused by human activity. To these comedians, anyone who holds a contrary or more politically conservative viewpoint is worthy of intense mockery. This orientation towards the climate change issue stands in direct contrast with traditional news content that has focused on a two-sided, heavily framed perspective of climate change that presents both the view that climate change is happening and human caused (the scientific consensus) and the idea that it is not happening, or is naturally caused if it is happening [Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004 ]. In fact, as Feldman [ 2017 ] argues, viewers have come to expect one-sided, pro-science content from cable comedy, but a more balanced or two-sided perspective from network and cable news.

Traditionally, research on message sidedness and persuasion has suggested that one-sided messages are inferior from a credibility standpoint and are quickly discounted by viewers [Allen, 1991 ]. Two-sided messages, on the other hand, are seen as rhetorically superior in that they reflect both sides of the story by presenting a central narrative and an opposing and carefully constructed counterargument or competitive frame [O’Keefe, 1999 ]. These two-sided messages, particularly ones that directly refute the original claim, encourage greater argument scrutiny among viewers [O’Keefe, 1999 ]. Non-refutational or less confrontational two-sided messages are ultimately less persuasive and impactful in part because of their more benign nature [Hale, Mongeau and Thomas, 1991 ].

Importantly, two-sided messages are often connected with the concept of inoculation in that messages that present contrasting points of view provide viewers with the necessary information to inoculate themselves (or prevent themselves, much like a vaccine) from being persuaded by contradictory or less than credible information [Compton, 2013 ; Compton and Pfau, 2005 ]. Viewing the second or alternate frame of the argument has a neutralizing effect, rendering the original message ineffective from a persuasion standpoint [Niederdeppe, Gollust and Barry, 2014 ; Pfau, 1992 ]. Often applied to the context of strategic political communication, two-sided messages can encourage viewers to simply discount the content being presented [Pfau and Burgoon, 1988 ]. This dynamic has proven true with respect to political attack ads and more recently with respect to political comedy in a case that focuses on Donald Trump’s two-sided engagement with Saturday Night Live via Twitter [Becker, 2017 ; Pfau, Park et al., 2001 ]. In sum, two-sided messages present a counter narrative that ultimately distracts viewers from processing the original content, making it a less persuasive message overall [Becker, 2018b ].

Without question, research suggests that message sidedness is an important element of persuasion and is certainly worthy of consideration when trying to analyze the impact of satirical humor that addresses a wide range of political issues, including climate change. As such, the present research considers the differential effect of exposure to two-sided playful satire from The Weather Channel (hereafter, TWC ) vs. one-sided heavily ironic satire from The Onion on message discounting, message elaboration, and counterarguing. In examining message sidedness, we are also simultaneously examining the differences in complexity (highly ironic content from The Onion vs. more sarcastic content from TWC ) and tone (e.g., more critical satire from The Onion vs. more playful humor from TWC ) of the humor.

Given our understanding of the present state of satire focusing on climate change [Feldman, 2013 ], we anticipate that viewers will expect a one-sided satirical presentation, making connections between the ironic comedy content from The Onion and what they already know or have seen through other media sources. Their familiarity with this presentation will allow them to quickly counterargue the humorous content, as they try to find flaws in the speaker’s argument. This process allows them to understand whether they agree with the messages being presented. In contrast, viewers should quickly discount any two-sided messaging in part because it deviates from the normal satirical discourse surrounding climate change, but mostly because it is playful and non-confrontational in orientation — it’s simply funny.

Moreover, we expect that the tone of the humor will play an important role in message processing, with viewers attempting to engage more with the highly ironic, one-sided humor of The Onion even if they lack the motivation or ability to fully break down and process the message’s content. In contrast, we expect the more playful, non-refutational two-sided humor presented by TWC to be quickly discounted by viewers as humor, who will then subsequently be less likely to engage in message elaboration or counterarguing in response to this type of two-sided, playful content. Put more formally:

H1: Viewers will be more likely to discount the two-sided humor of TWC as opposed to the one-sided satire from The Onion .

H2: Viewers will be more likely to engage in message elaboration when exposed to the one-sided satire of The Onion as opposed to two-sided content from TWC .

H3: Viewers will be more likely to counterargue the one-sided satire of The Onion rather than the two-sided satire of TWC .

4 Issue importance and climate change: a question of moderation?

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to note the potential moderating role of interest in and perceived importance of the climate change issue on message processing. As previous research on message-sidedness has shown, audience favorability toward the topic is an important moderator of a message’s effectiveness [O’Keefe, 1999 ]. The more interested a viewer is in the issue being discussed, the more likely they are to pay attention to humorous media content, particularly if that content aligns with their prior disposition or viewpoint toward the issue [Becker, 2014 ; Boukes et al., 2015 ].

Research on political comedy effects has highlighted the potential for comedy to engage viewers across a range of complicated political issues including net neutrality and climate change [Becker and Bode, 2018 ; Bode and Becker, 2018 ; Brewer and McKnight, 2015 ; Brewer and McKnight, 2017 ]. While this research generally suggests that comedy is more impactful in engaging less politically interested individuals via the gateway effect [Feldman, 2017 ], we know less about the potential moderating role of issue importance on comedic message processing. While recent work has suggested that exposure to satire reinforces global warming belief certainty and risk perceptions among those who view the climate change issue as less important [Anderson and Becker, 2018 ], more work is still needed to tease out the differential effect of issue importance on message processing. More specifically, for the purposes of this study, it is important to consider whether there is any potential interaction between issue importance and differential exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided satirical messages on message processing. We therefore pose a research question to consider this potentially important moderating relationship:

RQ1: Does perceived importance of the climate change issue moderate the effect of exposure to humor on message processing?

A three-group experiment was created using Qualtrics. Undergraduates ( N = 141) were recruited from a large public university in the U.S. West and a private college in the East. 1 Students completed the online study between October 23–November 9, 2017 in exchange for extra credit.

After a pretest questionnaire measuring political interest and issue importance, subjects were randomly assigned to watch one of two experimental video clips or a control.

Subjects in the first experimental condition ( n = 47) watched an April 2017 two-minute video entitled, “WARNING: We’re saving small talk,” produced by TWC about rising temperatures and the impact of climate change on casual small talk about the weather. The playful short clip was two-sided in orientation in that it showcased satirical behavior and conversation among everyday individuals who were both happy and uncomfortable with unseasonably warm temperatures and potential connections with climate change. At one point, the female reporter notes, “But today, confusion about changing climate has made weather too hot to talk about.” The clip then cuts to an altercation between two surfers — one is complaining about the cold weather while the other gets in his face about “melting all the glaciers.” The video then shifts to a stand-up comedian who is heckled by the crowd for making jokes about the weather “being nuts.” A respected source of weather news and information in the United States, TWC is generally perceived as a straightforward media source, yet has worked as an outlet to diversify their media content to include other material including satirical humor.

Subjects in the second experimental condition ( n = 48) watched a September 2017 two-minute video produced by The Onion entitled, “Climate Change Researcher Describes Challenge of Pulling Off Worldwide Global Warming Conspiracy.” In the video, a fake climate scientist presents a one-sided, highly critical satirical argument about a conspiracy among scientists, politicians, and celebrities to persuade the public that global warming is a hoax. He begins by ironically stating, “People don’t realize how much work goes into convincing the public that climate change is real. Studies, conferences, documentaries, it’s all a tireless effort by the global scientific community to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public. Getting every single scientist in the entire world to propagate the lie that human activity causes global warming is a colossal undertaking.” The video continues to ironically claim that the public and the media have accepted the conspiracy that climate change is manufactured. Well-known for its satirical take on news, sports, politics, science, and more, The Onion has been a familiar source for comedy in the United States for more than three decades.

Subjects in the control ( n = 47) viewed a September 2017 two-minute video news report from Good Morning America about a worker falling from a broken Ferris wheel in North Carolina as he tries to help two boys.

All of the videos were captured via YouTube and edited to remove comments, ads, or related video suggestions. A validation mechanism was set so that subjects had to remain on the video screen for at least two minutes and could not scroll forward through sections of the video clip before advancing to the survey. A series of manipulation checks followed to confirm that subjects rated the videos correctly across a series of attributes (e.g., whether the video was entertaining, funny, negative, amusing, humorous, serious, or sarcastic; 1 = “not at all entertaining,” to 7 = “extremely entertaining”). 2 A posttest questionnaire then measured key concepts like message processing, message elaboration, counterarguing, and demographics.

Measures used in the analyses are outlined below.

5.1 Dependent variables

Message discounting ( M = 2.88, SD = 0.76) was based on agreement (1 = “strongly disagree,” to 5 = “strongly agree”) with four related statements (Cronbach’s α = .76) adapted from prior research [Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne, 2007 ] including: (1) “The speaker in the video was just joking,” (2) “The video was intended more to entertain than persuade,” (3) “The speaker was serious about advancing his views in the video,” (reverse coded), and (4) “It would be easy to dismiss this video as simply a joke.”

Message elaboration ( M = 2.98, SD = .92) was based on agreement (1 = “strongly disagree,” to 5 = “strongly agree”) with four related statements (Cronbach’s α = .86) featured in previous research [Matthes, 2013 ] including: (1) “During the video, I intensively thought about what the speaker said,” (2) “I concentrated on the arguments of the speaker,” (3) “During the video, I critically reflected on what the speaker said,” and (4) “I didn’t really think about the message of the speech,” (reverse coded).

Counterarguing ( M = 2.60, SD = 0.89) was based on agreement (1 = “strongly disagree,” to 5 = “strongly agree”) with four related statements (Cronbach’s α = .76) adapted from prior research [Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne, 2007 ] including: (1) “I found myself actively agreeing with the speaker’s points,” (reverse coded), (2) “I found myself actively disagreeing with the speaker,” (3) “I was looking for flaws in the speaker’s arguments,” and (4) “It was easy to agree with the arguments made in the message,” (reverse coded).

5.2 Independent variables

Experimental Condition . Random assignment to viewing either the one-sided satire of The Onion ( n = 48), the two-sided satire from TWC ( n = 48), or the control ( n = 47) was included in the analysis.

Demographics. Controls for gender [the sample was 61.3% female (coded as 1)], age ( M = 19.51, SD = 2.15), identifying as a Democrat or Independent [(each variable independently dummy coded as 1); 41.5% of the sample were Democrats; 26.1% Independent/something else; 23.2% Republican]; and conservative political ideology ( M = 3.54, SD = 1.57; 1 = “very liberal,” to 7 = “very conservative”) were included in the analysis.

Predispositions. A measure of political interest ( M = 3.55, SD = 1.07) was based on a response to the question: “Some people follow what’s going on in government and public affairs most of the time, even when there’s not an election. Others aren’t that interested. Would you say that you follow what’s going on in politics and government … (1 = “never,” 2 = “hardly at all,” 3 = “only now and then,” 4 = some of the time,” and 5 = “most of the time”). Participants were also asked to indicate how important a series of issues, including climate change , were to them personally ( M = 7.59, SD = 2.17; 1 = “not at all important,” to 10 = “very important”).

Media Evaluations . Participants were asked to evaluate the media organization sponsoring the video across four attributes (1 = “untrustworthy,” to 7 = “trustworthy,” 1 = “unreliable,” to 7 = “reliable,” 1 = “dishonest,” to 7 = “honest,” and 1 = “not credible,” to 7 = “credible”). A media evaluation index ( M = 4.66, SD = 1.54; overall Cronbach’s α =.96) was based on the combined mean score for these four attributes per organization. The mean scores for The Onion ( M = 4.23; SD = 1.67) and TWC ( M = 4.12; SD = 1.46) were comparable and there were no significant differences between the media organizations across individual attributes. 3

5.3 Analytical Plan

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed initially to assess whether there was significant variation in the dependent variables of interest across conditions. A set of independent samples t-tests followed, evaluating whether there were significant mean differences in message discounting, elaboration, and counterarguing for those assigned to view the one-sided ironic, highly critical satire presented by The Onion vs. the two-sided playfully sarcastic satire from TWC . Finally, hierarchical ordinary least squares regression (OLS) was used to more fully explore significant predictors of variation in the key dependent variables of interest and whether perceived importance of the climate change issue moderated the differential impact of exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided humor on message processing.

We turn first to the ANOVA analyses which confirm that there was significant variation across conditions for the three dependent variables of interest: message discounting F (2, 132) = 22.53, p < .001, η 2 = .25; message elaboration F (2, 132) = 8.15, p < .001, η 2 = .11; and counterarguing F (2, 132) = 9.40, p < .001, η 2 = .13.

Next, we review the results of the independent samples t-tests comparing mean differences in message processing variables for those assigned to view the one-sided, ironic satire put forth by The Onion vs. those assigned to view the playfully sarcastic two-sided satire put forth by TWC . As the results show, subjects who were exposed to TWC were somewhat more likely to engage in message discounting, t (87) = 1.82, p = 0.073; M = 3.38 for TWC vs. M = 3.04 for The Onion . Since the results of this first t-test approach but do not achieve significance, H1 is not fully supported by the research. The independent samples t-tests were significant for both message elaboration and counterarguing. Specifically, subjects assigned to view The Onion were significantly more likely to engage in message elaboration, t (87) = 3.54, p < 0.001; M = 3.42 for The Onion vs. M = 2.75 for TWC , and counterarguing t (87) = 2.17, p < 0.05; M = 3.01 for The Onion vs. M = 2.60 for TWC . H2 and H3 were supported. 4

Next, hierarchical regression was used to further tease out any significant factors that might help to better explain variation in message discounting, elaboration, or counterarguing, and consider the potential moderating role of perceived importance of the climate change issue. Only the analysis of message elaboration is reported here, as the models for discounting and counterarguing failed to yield significant predictors beyond random assignment to the experimental conditions.

Table 1 displays the results of the hierarchical linear regression model explaining variation in message elaboration. As Table 1 shows, demographic variables were entered as block 1, followed by predispositions in block 2, and evaluation of the media outlets in block 3. Block 4 features dummy variables for viewing The Onion or TWC , while block 5 includes a set of interaction terms combining importance of the climate change issue with assignment to the humorous conditions.

As the data in Table 1 show, females ( β = .18, p < .05) and Democrats ( β = .34, p < .05) were significantly more likely to engage in message elaboration (block 1 incremental R 2 = 9.8%). While not significant initially, evaluation of the media sources was significant in the final model ( β = .23, p < .10; block 3 incremental R 2 = 1.3%). Onion viewers were significantly more likely to engage in message elaboration ( β = .34, p < .001; block 4 incremental R 2 = 9.9%). In addition to this significant direct effect for exposure to The Onion , the interaction between climate change importance and viewing The Onion was significant ( β = .23, p < .01; incremental R 2 = 5.3%).

Displayed graphically in Figure 1 , the results suggest that exposure to The Onion resulted in greater message elaboration among those who already rate the issue of climate change as personally important ( M = 3.73) vs. those who feel the issue of climate change is important but were assigned to view TWC ( M = 3.02). Exposure to The Onion also resulted in greater message elaboration among those for whom the issue of climate change is less important ( M = 2.85 vs. M = 2.49 for those who feel the issue is less important and were assigned to view TWC ). Simply put, viewing the ironic one-sided satire of The Onion encouraged those who already care about climate change to further connect the comedy with what they already know from experience or related media content and also had a modest impact on those who view climate change as less important. This finding offers interesting insight with respect to RQ1 , suggesting that one-sided satire is particularly relevant for those who already see climate change as a personally important issue and even impactful for those who rate it as less salient. The final regression model explained 29.4% of the variance in message elaboration, telling us a great deal about the various factors that influence the differential processing of one-sided vs. two-sided humor.

7 Discussion and conclusions

Engaging citizens with the politicized issue of climate change has been a challenge for communication researchers and policymakers alike in our crowded media environment. Recent research has started to consider whether humorous message types like satire can help engender greater participation, knowledge, and activism on the issue of climate change [Anderson and Becker, 2018 ; Bore and Reid, 2014 ; Brewer and McKnight, 2015 ; Brewer and McKnight, 2017 ; Skurka et al., 2018 ]. An important precursor to this satire effects research is understanding how viewers process different types of humorous messages. By exploring the differential impact of exposure to the one-sided ironic satire of The Onion vs. the more playfully sarcastic two-sided satire of TWC on message discounting, elaboration, and counterarguing, the present study places message processing at the forefront. The results ultimately suggest that more playfully sarcastic two-sided content from sources like TWC may be more likely to be quickly discounted, while ironic, highly critical, one-sided commentary offered by The Onion and other outlets encourages greater message elaboration and counterarguing. In our particular case, those who already rate the issue of climate change as important are also more likely to engage in message elaboration after exposure to The Onion ’s highly critical and ironic one-sided satire. At the same time, The Onion is also impactful for those who do not rate climate change as a personally important issue. Building on what research by Anderson and Becker [ 2018 ] has recently shown, it seems that one-sided, ironic satire may be more useful as a tool for climate change engagement than more playful content that sarcastically presents both sides of the issue debate.

Research on the effectiveness of climate change communication more broadly is interested in understanding how bringing one closer to the issue may persuade them into greater concerns about, more belief in, or greater likelihood of taking action on the topic [Lyons, Hasell and Stroud, 2018 ]. Similar to a local weather event or an immediate health impact, humor is thought to be another means through which we can remove the psychological distance from the abstract and complex issue of climate change [Bore and Reid, 2014 ]. Importantly, our study adds to the growing literature that demonstrates the effectiveness of one-sided messages from sources like The Onion in reaching both those who are already highly engaged with the climate change issue and even those who are less interested from the outset. At the same time, our study suggests that two-sided humor present in mediated content popular across social media outlets is not a panacea for reaching various audiences on such a divided topic. It may be that a face-to-face setting for such humor (e.g., stand-up comedy, a theatrical presentation) is better suited to such engagement, while viral video content is simply associated with the often vitriolic nature of online discussions surrounding the climate change debate [Bore and Reid, 2014 ; Boykoff and Osnes, 2019 ].

Overall, our findings confirm that message sidedness, complexity, and the tone of the satire being presented are important factors worthy of careful study. One reason why the one-sided, highly critical ironic satire presented by The Onion results in greater message elaboration and counterarguing than the more playfully sarcastic two-sided satire offered by TWC may simply be that The Onion ’s presentation aligns with existing highly critical, one-sided satirical humor focusing on the issue of climate change that has appeared on cable television (on TDS , TCR , and LWT ). The Onion gives viewers yet another example of the familiar and targets a common enemy — climate skeptics. At the same time, it may be the ironic nature of the content driving engagement, since viewers need to deeply engage with the comic text to understand that the fake climate scientist in the video doesn’t really believe that global warming is a hoax. By twisting the common scientific consensus on climate change and presenting the ironic inverse of most scientists’ testimony on the issue, The Onion gets viewers to pay attention in an attempt to make sense of the comic incongruity. In doing so, they think more intensively about the message (e.g., message elaboration) and at the same time, endeavor to pick apart the scientists’ ironic claims (e.g., counterarguing). In contrast, the two-sided more playfully sarcastic satire presented by TWC is quickly discounted.

Before concluding, it is important to point out some of the limitations of our study. First, we rely on a small student sample ( N = 141; with just under n = 50 assigned to each experimental stimulus group). While our results our robust and these younger individuals are at the heart of the climate change debate and the core of the political comedy audience we recognize that relying on a convenience sample of this kind limits the generalizability of our results; future research should work to feature, larger, more representative samples. Second, our measure of message elaboration is based on self-reported behavior rather than a thought-listing type exercise that forces subjects to engage in real-time elaborative processing. Third, while we rely on a well-established, highly reliable measure of counterarguing, we recognize that some of the individual rating scales may map better onto evaluating one-sided vs. two-sided content. Nevertheless, multiple studies have used these constructs when examining cognitive responses to two-sided content [for an example, see Nisbet, Cooper and Garrett, 2015 ]. Lastly, we fully recognize that subjects were exposed to one short burst of video content. While we feel that incorporating additional stimuli content would have introduced unnecessary noise into our experimental design, we recognize that our findings are limited to this particular case study.

Importantly, the stimuli content is drawn from established media outlets and represents real video content subjects could easily encounter on YouTube or in their social media feeds. Privileging real world content over fake, newly produced content allows us to achieve greater ecological validity. At the same time, it is clear that the humorous stimuli we chose feature three varied elements, apart from being from different media sources: (1) the sidedness of the message (e.g. the one-sided content from The Onion vs. the two-sided presentation from TWC ), (2) the tone of the humor (e.g., the critical juvenalian satire of The Onion vs. the more playful, horatian satire of TWC ), and (3) the humor’s complexity (e.g., the highly ironic Onion vs. the more sarcastic TWC ). While we therefore cannot explicitly say whether it is the one-sidedness of the message or the tone or the complexity of the humor that leads to greater message elaboration and counterarguing after exposure to The Onion , we can suggest that at least in this experimental case, all three factors may be important and worthy of future study, especially as we seek out new ways to cut through the communication clutter and further engage citizens on the climate change issue. On the whole, messages that present a clear point-of-view and do so in a critical and ironic fashion have greater potential to engage viewers with the climate change debate than playful messages that sarcastically present two sides of the story.

In sum, our research suggests that highly ironic, one-sided satirical messages may serve as a useful tool for climate change engagement. Humorous messaging from The Onion and other sources may be particularly useful for individuals who already care about the issue of climate change, giving them another bit of shareable social media content to post on their news feeds and circulate among friends who might be less interested in climate change but easier to persuade given shared political outlooks. Given the highly contentious and politicized nature of the climate change debate, humorous messages may indeed serve as a useful tool to cut through the communication clutter, reducing the issue’s psychological distance among like-minded communities [Bore and Reid, 2014 ]. Our research suggests, however, that attempts to engage individuals on the topic using two-sided messages may be less persuasive. As such, humor is not necessarily always the answer to reducing politically polarized divides on the issue of climate change. It may be more that the type of humor matters more than relying on humor in and of itself to foster engagement. Moving forward, future research should consider the intervening role of key predispositions like open-mindedness on the differential processing of one-sided vs. two-sided humor on the topic of climate change [Nisbet, Hart et al., 2013 ].

In conclusion, our study examines the differential processing of one-sided vs. two-sided humorous messages in an attempt to complement existing research on comedy’s effect on engagement with the climate change debate. We look forward to future research that continues to connect political comedy with the issue of climate change and accounts for variations in message-sidedness, tone, and humor complexity. As our research shows, we see great promise in comedy’s ability to enhance the debate over climate change, promoting a more deliberative and democratic public discourse in our increasingly complex digital communications environment.

Allen, M. (1991). ‘Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages’. Western Journal of Speech Communication 55 (4), pp. 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374395 .

Anderson, A. A. and Becker, A. B. (2018). ‘Not just funny after all: sarcasm as a catalyst for public engagement with climate change’. Science Communication 40 (4), pp. 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786560 .

Becker, A. B. (2018a). ‘Interviews and viewing motivations: exploring connections between political satire, perceived learning and elaborative processing’. In: Political humor in a changing media landscape: a new generation of research. Ed. by J. C. Baumgartner and A. B. Becker. Lanham, MD, U.S.A.: Lexington Books, pp. 79–94.

— (2018b). ‘Live from New York, it’s Trump on Twitter! The effect of engaging with Saturday Night Live on perceptions of authenticity and the saliency of trait ratings’. International Journal of Communication 12, pp. 1736–1757. URL: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8626/2326 .

Becker, A. B. (2012). ‘Comedy types and political campaigns: the differential influence of other-directed hostile humor and self-ridicule on candidate evaluations’. Mass Communication and Society 15 (6), pp. 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.628431 .

— (2014). ‘Humiliate my enemies or mock my friends? Applying disposition theory of humor to the study of political parody appreciation and attitudes toward candidates’. Human Communication Research 40 (2), pp. 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12022 .

— (2017). ‘Trump Trumps Baldwin? How Trump’s tweets transform SNL into Trump’s strategic advantage’. Journal of Political Marketing , pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2017.1411860 .

Becker, A. B. and Bode, L. (2018). ‘Satire as a source for learning? The differential impact of news versus satire exposure on net neutrality knowledge gain’. Information, Communication & Society 21 (4), pp. 612–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2017.1301517 .

Becker, A. B. and Waisanen, D. J. (2013). ‘From funny features to entertaining effects: connecting approaches to communication research on political comedy’. Review of Communication 13 (3), pp. 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.826816 .

— (2017). ‘Laughing or learning with the Chief Executive? The impact of exposure to presidents’ jokes on message elaboration’. Humor 30 (1). https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2016-0056 .

Bode, L. and Becker, A. B. (2018). ‘Go fix it: comedy as an agent of political activation’. Social Science Quarterly 99 (5), pp. 1572–1584. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12521 .

Bore, I.-L. K. and Reid, G. (2014). ‘Laughing in the Face of Climate Change? Satire as a Device for Engaging Audiences in Public Debate’. Science Communication 36 (4), pp. 454–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014534076 .

Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M. and Vreese, C. H. de (2015). ‘At odds: laughing and thinking? The appreciation, processing and persuasiveness of political satire’. Journal of Communication 65 (5), pp. 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12173 .

Boykoff, M. T. and Boykoff, J. M. (2004). ‘Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press’. Global Environmental Change 14 (2), pp. 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 .

Boykoff, M. and Osnes, B. (2019). ‘A laughing matter? Confronting climate change through humor’. Political Geography 68, pp. 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.09.006 .

Brewer, P. R. (2013). ‘“Science: what’s it up to?” The Daily Show and the social construction of science’. International Journal of Communication 7, pp. 452–470. URL: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1941/862 .

Brewer, P. R. and McKnight, J. (2015). ‘Climate as Comedy: The Effects of Satirical Television News on Climate Change Perceptions’. Science Communication 37 (5), pp. 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015597911 .

— (2017). ‘“A Statistically Representative Climate Change Debate”: Satirical Television News, Scientific Consensus, and Public Perceptions of Global Warming’. Atlantic Journal of Communication 25 (3), pp. 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2017.1324453 .

Burgers, C., van Mulken, M. and Schellens, P. J. (2011). ‘Finding irony: an introduction of the Verbal Irony Procedure (VIP)’. Metaphor and Symbol 26 (3), pp. 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583194 .

Carrington, D. (17th May 2019). ‘Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment’. The Guardian . URL: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment .

Compton, J. (2013). ‘Inoculation theory’. In: The Sage handbook of persuasion: developments in theory and practice. Ed. by J. P. Dillard and L. Shen. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA, U.S.A.: Sage, pp. 220–237.

Compton, J. A. and Pfau, M. (2005). ‘Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research’. Annals of the International Communication Association 29 (1), pp. 97–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2005.11679045 .

Eveland Jr., W. P. (2005). ‘Information-processing strategies in mass communication research’. In: The evolution of key mass communication concepts: honoring Jack McLeod. Ed. by S. Dunwoody and L. Becker. New York, U.S.A.: Hampton Press, pp. 217–248.

Feldman, L. (2013). ‘Cloudy with a chance of heat balls: the portrayal of global warming on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report ’. International Journal of Communication 7 (22), pp. 430–451. URL: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1940/861 .

— (2017). ‘Assumptions about science in satirical news and late-night comedy’. In: The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Ed. by K. H. Jamieson, D. Kahan and D. A. Scheufele. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–332.

Feldman, L., Leiserowitz, A. and Maibach, E. (2011). ‘The science of satire: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as sources of public attention to science and the environment’. In: The Stewart/Colbert effects: essays on the real impacts of fake news. Ed. by A. Amarasingam. Jefferson, NC, U.S.A.: McFarland, pp. 25–46.

Hale, J. L., Mongeau, P. A. and Thomas, R. M. (1991). ‘Cognitive processing of one- and two-sided persuasive messages’. Western Journal of Speech Communication 55 (4), pp. 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374394 .

Hart, P. S. and Nisbet, E. C. (2012). ‘Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cutes amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies’. Communication Research 39 (6), pp. 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646 .

Hiles, S. S. and Hinnant, A. (2014). ‘Climate change in the newsroom: journalists’ evolving standards of objectivity when covering global warming’. Science Communication 36 (4), pp. 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014534077 .

Holbert, R. L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather, J. and Morey, A. (2011). ‘Adding nuance to the study of political humor effects: experimental research on Juvenalian satire versus Horatian satire’. American Behavioral Scientist 55 (3), pp. 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210392156 .

LaMarre, H. L. and Walther, W. (2013). ‘Ability matters: testing the differential effects of political news and late-night political comedy on cognitive responses and the role of ability in micro-level opinion formation’. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 25 (3), pp. 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt008 .

LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D. and Beam, M. A. (2009). ‘The irony of satire: political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report’. The International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (2), pp. 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208330904 .

LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., Young, D. and Gilkerson, N. (2014). ‘Humor works in funny ways: examining satirical tone as a key determinant in political humor message processing’. Mass Communication and Society 17 (3), pp. 400–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891137 .

Lyons, B. A., Hasell, A. and Stroud, N. J. (2018). ‘Enduring extremes? Polar vortex, drought and climate change beliefs’. Environmental Communication 12 (7), pp. 876–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1520735 .

Matthes, J. (2013). ‘Elaboration or distraction? Knowledge acquisition from thematically related and unrelated humor in political speeches’. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 25 (3), pp. 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt005 .

Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E. and Byrne, S. (2007). ‘All joking aside: a serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages’. Communication Monographs 74 (1), pp. 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896 .

NASA: Global Climate Change (2019). Scientific consensus: earth’s climate is warming . URL: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ .

Niederdeppe, J., Gollust, S. E. and Barry, C. L. (2014). ‘Inoculation in competitive framing’. Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (3), pp. 634–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu026 .

Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E. and Garrett, R. K. (2015). ‘The partisan brain: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (1), pp. 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474 .

Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T. and Ellithorpe, M. (2013). ‘Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects and climate change’. Journal of Communication 63 (4), pp. 766–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040 .

Nisbet, M. C. and Scheufele, D. A. (2009). ‘What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions’. American Journal of Botany 96 (10), pp. 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041 .

O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). ‘How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages’. Annals of the International Communication Association 22 (1), pp. 209–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1999.11678963 .

Pfau, M. (1992). ‘The potential of inoculation in promoting resistance to the effectiveness of comparative advertising messages’. Communication Quarterly 40 (1), pp. 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369818 .

Pfau, M. and Burgoon, M. (1988). ‘Inoculation in political campaign communication’. Human Communication Research 15 (1), pp. 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00172.x .

Pfau, M., Park, D., Holbert, R. L. and Cho, J. (2001). ‘The effects of party- and PAC-sponsored issue advertising and the potential of inoculation to combat its impact on the democratic process’. American Behavioral Scientist 44 (12), pp. 2379–2397. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121958384 .

Polk, J., Young, D. G. and Holbert, R. L. (2009). ‘Humor complexity and political influence: an elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ’. Atlantic Journal of Communication 17 (4), pp. 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870903210055 .

Skurka, C., Niederdeppe, J., Romero-Canyas, R. and Acup, D. (2018). ‘Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions’. Journal of Communication 68 (1), pp. 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx008 .

Young, D. G., Bagozzi, B. E., Goldring, A., Poulsen, S. and Drouin, E. (2019). ‘Psychology, political ideology and humor appreciation: why is satire so liberal?’ Psychology of Popular Media Culture 8 (2), pp. 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000157 .

Young, D. G. (2008). ‘The privileged role of the late-night joke: exploring humor’s role in disrupting argument scrutiny’. Media Psychology 11 (1), pp. 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701837073 .

Amy B. Becker is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Loyola University Maryland in Baltimore, MD. Her research examines public opinion toward controversial issues, the implications of new media technologies, and the political effects of exposure and attention to political entertainment including late night comedy. E-mail: [email protected] .

Ashley A. Anderson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Journalism and Media Communication at Colorado State University. Her research interests include public opinion and public engagement around issues of science and emerging technology, particularly in the online communication environment. E-mail: [email protected] .

1 A review of the data confirmed that there were no significant differences in the dependent variables of interest between college campuses.

2 The manipulation checks confirmed that subjects found both satire clips comparably entertaining, funny, amusing, humorous, sarcastic, and not serious; there were no significant differences between The Onion and TWC on these evaluation items. As expected, subjects found the one-sided satire of The Onion ( M = 4.31, SD = 1.45) to be significantly more negative than the two-sided playful satire presented by TWC ( M = 3.04, SD = 1.29); t (93) = 4.52, p < .001.

3 While there were slight differences in the attribute ratings for the two media organizations, none of these differences were significant. Subjects rated each organization similarly for the attributes of: trustworthy ( Onion M = 4.23, SD = 1.66; TWC M = 3.89, SD = 1.64); reliable ( Onion M = 4.12, SD = 1.67; TWC M = 3.98, SD = 1.61); honest ( Onion M = 4.40, SD = 1.71; TWC M = 4.54, SD = 1.44); and credible ( Onion M = 4.19, SD = 1.89; TWC M = 4.07, SD = 1.71).

4 As expected, the three dependent variables are related, yet distinct components of message processing. According to the data, message discounting is correlated with message elaboration ( r = .23, p < .01) and counterarguing ( r = .32, p < .001). Only the correlation between message elaboration and counterarguing is insignificant ( r = .04, p = .62).

Table of Contents

Non specialist summary.

This article has no summary

Jane Savard

Paper 3: rhetorical analysis of a satire.

Saturday Night Live’s take on Bush’s view of Global Warming mocks his illogical reasoning and knowledge. The skit, featuring Will Ferrell as Bush satirizes President Bush’s (at the time) speech, looks, opinion on the topic of climate change through witty diction and sarcasm. Bush is at his home in Texas while he ironically makes a special address to America about the important issue of global warming. Through the employment of satirical tools, rhetorical strategies, and fallacies, this satire portrays Bush as a disinterested and unknowledgeable politician.

Through parody, Will Ferrell imitates a speech given by George Bush (the president at the time) by mocking his knowledge and view on Global Warming. Ferrell pokes fun at George Bush’s physical and intellectual qualities by dressing and speaking like him. The spoof satirizes Bush’s knowledge about global warming when he wrongfully explains some effects of global warming with an unsure tone of voice, and then says “I’m not going to lie to you I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.” According to Thank You For Arguing , Bush uses repetitive use of code language in order to appeal to certain audience. This skit sarcastically ridicules Bush’s code language when “Bush” talks about his administration’s concern about Global warming: “Global warming is an issue that my administration is very concerned about, deeply, deeply is a deep kind of concerned way.” This repetition satirizes how President Bush speaks, and sarcastically portrays Bush’s lack of concern about the issue by over exaggerating how “deep” his administration’s concern is.

Saturday Night Live’s skit portraying George Bush employs several rhetorical tools in order to emphasize Bush’s lack of knowledge and concern about Global warming. Through the use of understatements, the spoof satirizes Bush’s ignorance when he says “the so-called global warmings.” it makes him seem as if he is really understating the effects and the importance of global warming, which in turn causes him to look ignorant. Towards the end of the skit, “Bush” starts to run out of things to say, and doesn’t provide any solutions to the problem of climate change. Instead he lacks concern and understates the problem by saying, “Global Warming, don’t worry about it” and that “Nature needs to listen to us.” Bush seems like he’s not too worried about the effects of global warming, and that we have it under control, because we don’t need to listen to nature. This only makes him look like he is disinterested and quite uneducated on the facts about global warming.

Another rhetorical tool of formal logic used to satirize George Bush is the trait of utter stupidity. According to Thank You For Arguing , “the arguer’s failure to recognize his own logical fallacies” (Heinrichs 178). For example, when “Bush” says that the liberals use things called “facts” the camera man tells his that facts cannot be disputed because they’re real, and “Bush” replies with, “how do you know that.” This satirist tries to highlight Bush’s utter stupidity by showing that he doesn’t even understand that he is wrong, and still tries to argue.

The satirical piece mocking George Bush by Saturday Night Live employs various fallacies in order to jeer at Bush’s illogic and false reasoning. When talking about climate change, Bush states that 6,000 years ago there weren’t problems with Global Warming, so if it didn’t happen before, it isn’t going to happen now. This logical error is the fallacy of antecedent, “It was hot back then too, why do you think Adam and Eve were naked?” Clearly, SNL is satirizing Bush’s reasoning skills by making it seem as if he doesn’t know the scientific explanation of why Global Warming exists. A humorous way in which Bush is satirized is through the fallacy of ignorance. He states, “It seems as if liberals and godless tax raisers are trying to make me look bad by using such things as facts and scientific data.” This is clearly a funny way to poke fun at the way Bush illogically argues against the other side. The satirical piece makes it seem as if Bush feels that facts aren’t going to prove that there has been climate changes, so therefore Global Warming doesn’t exist. Towards the end of the skit, “Bush” diverts his attention away from the topic in discussion, and says, “Let’s talk about something that really matters like keeping steroids out of t-ball.” SNL uses the fallacy of red herring in order to emphasize that Bush doesn’t know what else to say about climate change, or how to propose a solution. This statement also uses the satirical tool of understatement, because this topic diversion understates the importance of climate change.

President Bush’s lack of knowledge and disinterest is being mocked by Saturday Night Live. Through this parody, Ferrell makes fun of how Bush talks and acts. By portraying him as uneducated on the topic at hand, Bush looks as if he doesn’t know the slightest thing about global warming. The skit makes it seem as if he undermines the effects and importance of climate change to America. The use of several fallacies highlights Bush’s unreasonable logic about the explanation and solution to global warming. This satire was created in order to make fun of Bush in a humorous manor through satirical tools, and fallacies. In the skit, Bush never really proposes a solution or explanation to global warming, but does propose that “we don’t need to listen to nature, nature needs to listen to us.”

One thought on “Paper 3: Rhetorical Analysis of a Satire”

I didn’t see an essay on Haley’s blog, so I thought I would comment on yours since you are the next person below me on the list.

1. Where does the writer introduce and summarize the arguments he or she will rebut? Share ideas on arrangement and effectiveness.

The writer briefly introduces and summarizes the arguments she uses in her introductory paragraph. I think this is a good place to do this, obviously, and the thesis effectively summarizes the content of the paper.

2 . What is the common ground or concession(s) this writer offers? Offer suggestions for improvement.

It seems that the main point the author is trying to make is that Saturday Night Live’s skit using Will Ferrell portrays George Bush as an idiotic and irrational man. I feel that the author did a good job expanding upon the rhetorical tools the skit used and fallacies it spotted with George Bush. The only suggestion I would make would be to reorganize your arguments to follow the timeline it appears in the video. This way it would be more easy to understand for the audience.

3. Comment on the effectiveness of the line(s) of argument. Offer at least two suggestions to strengthen the argument.

I suppose my previous comment would apply to this. Ordering the arguments in chronological order may enhance the overall argument. That is the only suggestion I can think of, as the paper does a good job of rhetorically analyzing the skit.

4. How does the writer’s outside sources enhance his or her position? Make some suggestions for additional resources.

The author’s use of “Thank You for Arguing” enhances her position greatly by providing key rhetorical insight on techniques and flaws of orators. Another source that could be of use to enhance the paper would be a report or article that points out George Bush’s fallacies. This extra support would help to enhance the author’s views.

5. Comment on what is successful about the paper and make three overall suggestions for improvement.

The paper successfully analyzes the rhetoric used by Will Ferrell and Saturday Night Live in their skit about George Bush and his position on global warming. The author uses an outside source effectively, naming several rhetorical tools and fallacies displayed in the skit. The one suggestion I would make is the one I named before: to reorder your argument a bit to follow the order used in the video. Overall, the essay, in my opinion, only needs little change to reach good quality.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Just another weblog

Global Warming Satire essay

GlobalWarming Satire

Theadvent of global warming has received a lot of attention in thepublic space no other invention has received as much attention inthe public realm except the invention of sliced bread. All mediaoutlets are focusing on bringing the public to understand the illeffects of global warming, and how joint effort is the only way tohalting the destruction of planet earth. However, after intensecontemplation, one may realize that global warming is not such a badthing. The following discussion reveals why global warming may be ablessing, and not a curse, as media outlets and scholars paint it.

Related essays:

• Global warming essay
• Global Warming essay
• On Global Warming essay
• Theory and Context Is Global Warming a Fashion Trend? essay

Tobegin with, global warming is good because people will savesignificant amounts of energy that usually go to waste. For example,on a cold day, people turn their furnaces on to warm their businesspremises or homes. If global warming occurs, furnaces will not benecessary, thus, entrepreneurs and homeowners will save money. Also,the use of natural gasses will be kept to a minimum or be used forthe production of more important products such as fertilizers or infuelling cars and machines.

Globalwarming will also create new, habitable areas for humans. This ideamay sound ridiculous, but after serious contemplation, one willrealize that with global warming, polar ice caps and icebergs willmelt away. Therefore, these previously inhabitable regions willfinally be habitable since all the ice will have melted thus,availing land for real estate development and farming. Also, as aresult of the coastline extending inland, people living in the newcoastal areas will experience an increase in property value sincethey will now be living closer to the beach.

Moreimportantly, the use of green energy solutions will be emphasized.Today, the most reliable form of energy in homes and businesses iselectricity. If global warming is left to progress at its currentpace, in about ten to fifteen years, the heat from the sun will be sostrong that solar panels that have the capacity to develop energythat has the same potent as electricity will be created. Thishappenstance means that people will be in a position to purchasedevices such as ACs to cool their homes without having to considerassociated increases in electricity bills.

Theproblem of water shortage will also be solved. Since water, in theform of ice, will move from mountains to lowlands, people in regionswith inadequate water supply will have better chances to accesswater. Currently, a lot of water is trapped in the highlands, in theform of ice. Global warming will melt this ice, turning it intowater, which will then find its way to lower ground. Thus,governments will be in a position to channel the water, throughpipes, to the arid and semi-arid regions. Alternatively, governmentscan also come up with initiatives that deliver this water to dryregions at subsidized prices consequently, increasing the standardand quality of life of the people in the dry regions.

Ina recap of the above discussion, the negative effects of globalwarming are, largely, exaggerated. Scientists contend that globalwarming will lead to irreversible effects, which are detrimental tohuman survival. However, if one takes a step back to look ateverything with an open mind, he will realize that global warming isthe best thing that can happen to planet earth, considering the tougheconomic times that are currently being experienced. Various benefitshave been advanced, as discussed above.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

• PERSPECTIVES
• Military & Aerospace
• AI & Big Data
• Power Management
• Industrial Control & Automation
• Programmable Logic
• Prototyping
• Test & Measurement
• Wireless & Networking
• Silicon Grapevine
• Education Link
• EETimes University
• Tech Papers
• Special Projects

Sponsored by:

Understanding the Crisis of Climate Science

Climate solutions research series.

Approximately 30 years ago, climate scientists stated the world needs to avoid a 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature increase, relative to 150 years ago, or “bad things” will happen. Their warning was based on climate models.

However, most climate models do not match today’s observations. Therefore, they are probably wrong, to some extent. This also means the “avoid 1.5 degrees Celsius” recommendation is probably wrong too, since it is based on those models.

Global warming rate

The global warming rate is the increase in average global temperature over a 10-year period. It was measured at 0.18 degrees Celsius increase per decade between 1970 and 2010, and this roughly agreed with climate models. In other words, for over 40 years, climate scientists and their models seemed OK.

However, over the last 10 years, monitoring equipment tells us the warming rate increased 50% to 100% , to between 0.27 degrees Celsius/decade and 0.36 degrees Celsius/decade.

This increase is not explained by more carbon dioxide, more methane, tipping points, or El Nino, nor is it explained by most climate models.

One possible explanation is the world reduced air pollution over the last 10 years to improve health, and this reduced global cooling since sunlight reflects off air pollution and back into outer space. More about this theory in a moment.

The situation is too difficult to describe

The disconnect between the observed and the predicted warming rate is so crazy, journalists find it difficult to describe. Subsequently, the public does not understand the following:

• Most climate models do not match observations
• Most climate models are probably wrong to some extent
• The climate problem is probably worse than we thought
• Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will probably not fix this
• We need to look at increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere to avoid significant pain over the next 30 years

Who understands this?

One of the most respected climate scientists in the world is James Hansen . He was the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ) for 32 years, and he is the author of one of the most important climate papers published in 2023. The paper is titled “ Global Warming in the Pipeline ” and the remainder of this article is a summary of this paper.

Warming rate measurements

The warming rate is measured directly using temperature sensors throughout the world and is measured using satellites. The warming rate is roughly proportional to the earth’s energy imbalance (EEI), which is the amount of energy that enters the Earth’s atmosphere from the sun, minus the amount of energy that leaves the planet due to outgoing heat radiation.

EEI is often referred to in units of Watts per square meter of Earth surface area, on average over a 24-hour period (i.e. W/m 2 ). The energy from the sun is approximately 340W/m 2 , and the outgoing radiation is approximately 337W/m 2 . Therefore, the difference (i.e. EEI) is approximately 3W/m 2 . As noted previously, EEI (W/m 2 ) is roughly proportional to the warming rate (e.g. degrees increase in average global temperature per decade).

Warming rate components

The warming rate is made up of multiple components that add together. These are roughly illustrated below.

As one can see, some components increase global warming (red), whereas others decrease global warming (blue). These combine to get total warming (green), which is the same as observed warming.

Global cooling, shown above in blue, is caused by sunlight reflecting off of particles and droplets in the atmosphere. These are referred to as “aerosols,” and in some cases they are caused by air pollution.

Global cooling uncertainty

What is fascinating about global cooling is the error bars. These tell us climate scientists do not know if this is a little, or a lot.

What is more fascinating about the error bars is the impact this uncertainty has on climate models. If planet cooling is large, then climate models say significant changes will occur to our planet over the next 30 years. Otherwise, models suggest we have more time.

The folly of 1.5 degrees Celsius

When climate scientists warned “avoid 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming,” they ignored the above error bars. If they included them, they would have stated something more like “avoid 1.5±1 degrees Celsius.” Also, the observed increase in warming rate over the last 10 years suggests a lower value is more accurate, such as “avoid <1.0 degrees Celsius.”

The average global temperature in 2023 was 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the average global temperature 150 years ago. In other words, we have already breached the threshold.

What to do?

One strategy to address global warming is to identify people who know the most about the problem, as well as the solution, and get behind them with financial support. There are two people that come to mind: James Hansen, and airplane executive Wake Smith.

We need better instrumentation that directly measures global cooling from sunlight reflecting off of particles and droplets. This would produce data that enables us to reduce the size of the error bars noted previously, improve accuracy of climate models, and more accurately quantify the degree of urgency for national leaders. Hansen is familiar with the needed instrumentation , having studied it for 32 years as the director of GISS.

Smith is also an important part of the climate solution. He is the author of “ Pandora’s Toolbox ,” a book on how to increase the reflectivity of the atmosphere. He served as the President of Pemco World Air Services, a leader in aircraft modifications, as well as the President of a Boeing division. Both are invaluable experience for what is needed.

To fix this, scientists and engineers need to figure out how to increase the reflectivity of the atmosphere, at reasonable cost (Smith), and without inflicting harm (Hansen).

Share this:

Glenn Weinreb is the CEO and Owner of GW Instruments (www.gwinst.com), a manufacturer of data acquisition hardware and software. He founded this company in 1985 while an electrical engineering student at MIT. GWI's products are used by scientists and engineers to interface sensors to computers for purposes of measurement and control. GWI designs hardware, has it manufactured by a firm in the USA, and then sells worldwide through a network of distribution channels. He developed GWI's products and therefore has much experienced designing analog and digital electronics, writing software (embedded systems, Windows/Macintosh application software, website) and doing mechanical design. He is experienced with raising venture capital (from Sigma Partners), setting up distribution, management, sales/marketing, web design, and manufacturing

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must Register or Login to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Sample details

Global Warming

Related Topics

• Healthy Food

Global Warming Satire

According to the research conducted by scientists, global warming is not a problem at all. In fact, it is beneficial for the environment, economy, and society in general. As the world warms up, people will not need to heat their houses, resulting in saving money and natural gas. Power plants will also consume less fossil fuels, reducing pollution. The melting of icebergs and polar ice caps will increase the coastline, creating beachfront property and reducing the cost of shipping fruits, which will also decrease world hunger. The increase in carbon dioxide levels will result in more plant growth, decreasing the prices of fruits and vegetables and benefiting the plant industry. Therefore, instead of degrading global warming, we should look at it as a blessing as it has more positive outcomes than negative ones.

Extensive scientific research suggests that global warming is not a cause for concern but rather has advantageous effects, benefiting humanity in various aspects. The increase in temperature and rising ocean levels, along with elevated carbon dioxide levels, have positive impacts on the environment, economy, and society overall. As global temperatures rise, there will no longer be a need to heat homes, which brings several advantages including cost savings for homeowners and businesses while also conserving natural gas for other uses.

Moreover, power plants have the ability to reduce their electricity output, leading to a decrease in the consumption of fossil fuels since coal is commonly used for generating electricity. Furthermore, as temperatures continue to rise, there will be a melting of icebergs and polar ice caps resulting in an unexpected consequence: the coastlines will shift inward by several hundred miles. As a result, individuals who possess property along the newly formed coastline can anticipate an increase in their property value as it transforms into beachfront property.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Furthermore, the proximity of citrus fruits and other coastal fruits to the novel coastline would result in decreased shipping expenses and bring these fruits closer to other areas, potentially reducing the number of destitute countries worldwide. Additionally, without icebergs or polar ice caps present, naval transportation would be facilitated as captains no longer have to worry about encountering icebergs like the Titanic did. Moreover, an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would lead to a noticeable growth enhancement in plants.

The increasing growth of plants will lead to a decrease in the cost of fruits and vegetables, ultimately solving global hunger problems. In addition, the plant industry will benefit greatly from this rise in plant growth. As a result, every yard will thrive and look impressive, reducing the burden of yard maintenance and saving families a substantial amount of money. Rather than being seen as a negative issue, global warming should be considered as a positive development.

The perception of global warming should be changed positively. Rather than concentrating on the downsides, it is crucial to acknowledge the advantages that come with global warming. These benefits comprise increased property values, enhanced plant growth, reduced food prices, and diminished world hunger. Global warming should not face any criticism given its abundant offerings. It is essential for everyone to embrace this remarkable occurrence, particularly future generations who will greatly profit from it. We are fortunate to anticipate these favorable aspects.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/global-warming-satire/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Natural Resources
• Tropical rainforest

Check more samples on your topics

Global warming: a threat to sustainability.

Sustainability

            Global warming is a current issue that should be given much attention because it affects the stability and sustainability of the planet. In some cinematic depictions, climate change will eventually lead to the annihilation of the whole mankind and all other living species on the planet as a result of mankind's abuse of environmental

Current Event – Global Warming

Introduction Global warming is a problem caused by us, humans and is one of the main issues being discussed worldwide in all forums because the consequences could be catastrophic. We can define it as an increase of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. We really should be aware about this and be more

Impact of Global Warming on Polar Bears

The Polar bear also known as the ‘Sea Bear’ is believed by scientists to have evolved from the brown bear some two hundred thousand years ago.  Ursus Maritimus, as the polar bear is known scientifically, is very well adapted to extremely cold weather having made the Arctic it’s natural habitat.  The polar bear can be

Anti Global Warming

The controversial issue of global warming sparks intense debate, as some individuals argue that it is an unfounded worry built upon misinformation. It can be challenging to ascertain the veracity amidst differing viewpoints. Nevertheless, it is crucial to impartially assess the evidence. One counterpoint challenging the credibility of global warming asserts that data obtained from

Global Warming and Sea Level Change

Chemical Engineering

Environment

            Our planet is on a constant change. Every now and then we hear of new developments, new discoveries and a lot more. The information that we once knew may not be acceptable today, the places that we once visited as a child may be different after a very short period of time. Together with

Global Warming Effects

Greenhouse effect

Global Warming Global warming has been among the most talked about environmental issues today most especially when it has been linked to the devastating intensities of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Governments all over the world have also been engaging in talks and negotiations to adopt an international agreement that will address the problems posed by global

Electric Vehicles and Global Warming

Fossil fuel

Global warming continues to threaten the human population as its effects on the environment grow over time. Subtle changes in weathers and climates across the world bring destruction to humans and the environment as they make life here on Earth more difficult and worrisome. Air pollutants from vehicles cause respiratory ailments to people especially children,

Man Made Global Warming Vs Natural Climate Change

Climate Change

Outline THESIS:         Climate change have been a natural phenomenon which has been occurring for over millions of years involving periods of high temperature as well as cold periods  and  hence global warming is also a part of natural climate change with humans contributing  very little towards it. I.                   History of our world clearly shows that climate change

Global Warming Threat

Global warming is defined as the increase of the average temperature on earth. This increase in the earth’s temperatures is the cause of natural disasters like hurricanes, floods and droughts which are becoming increasingly frequent all over the world. The world is woefully unprepared to meet the crisis.Carbon dioxide, released by the use of chemicals

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Global Warming — Argumentative Essay On Global Warming

Argumentative Essay on Global Warming

• Categories: Climate Change Environmental Issues Global Warming

About this sample

Words: 879 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 879 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 745 words

3 pages / 1370 words

3 pages / 1276 words

1 pages / 493 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Global Warming

Global warming is a pressing issue that affects us all, yet many people still remain unaware of the severity of its consequences. Picture this: rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and dwindling wildlife populations. These [...]

In a world facing unprecedented environmental challenges, the search for sustainable energy sources has become more urgent than ever before. One promising solution that has gained significant attention in recent years is solar [...]

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, with far-reaching consequences for the environment, economies, and societies worldwide. As the global community grapples with the devastating impacts of a [...]

As the earth's temperature continues to rise, the intricate web of global warming's consequences extends far beyond environmental impacts, weaving its way into the economic, ethical, and societal fabric of our world. While the [...]

It is a melancholy object to those who have been unfortunate enough to inhabit this once great planet. These individuals, instead of searching for cooler, healthier planets, are forced to employ all of their resources and [...]

Preventing global warming requires a comprehensive and multifaceted approach. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, protecting and restoring natural [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Skip to Navigation ↓

The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.  

Search form

Initial analysis of the fcc’s 2024 open internet order.

By Barbara van Schewick on May 8, 2024 at 4:56 am

On Tuesday, the FCC released the final text of the 2024 Open Internet Order, which the commission voted to adopt on April 25.

Here’s my statement and initial analysis of key points:

“The FCC’s restoration of authority over the internet service providers (ISPs) we pay to get online and its restoration of federal net neutrality protections that ensure an open internet are big wins for the American people. The new order has brightline rules that prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, and it ensures that ISPs can’t use new tech capabilities to create unfair fast lanes that favor particular apps or kinds of apps. This is a win for competition, innovation, and free speech.”

No Throttling Rule:

As part of the FCC proceeding, public interest groups, academics, and members of Congress worked to ensure that the new rules provided strong protections from misguided usage of new technology by ISPs, such as ISP-controlled 5G fast lanes for select apps or categories of apps that AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon have been testing.

The final Order ensures that ISPs cannot evade the no throttling rule with these kinds of fast lanes. The final order makes clear that the no throttling rule prohibits ISPs from speeding up as well as slowing down apps or categories of apps. That’s because treating some favored applications better than others has the same effect as slowing down disfavored apps - it makes it harder for the disfavored apps to compete. This violates a core net neutrality principle – that ISPs should not be allowed to pick winners and losers online.

Allowing ISPs to select which apps or categories go in a fast lane distorts competition and cements the market power of dominant apps. As we’ve seen in the past, the biggest apps will end up in all the fast lanes, while most others would be left out: startups, small businesses, sites serving marginalized communities or niche audiences, millions of other apps & sites in the long tail. 

The final Order says clearly, “We clarify that a BIAS provider’s decision to speed up “on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services” would “impair or degrade” other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment.” (para. 499)

That means an ISP can’t provide preferential treatment to select apps or categories of apps such as providing more bandwidth, reducing delay, or guaranteeing quality of service. 

That’s important because good performance is vital to almost everything on the internet, and ISPs shouldn’t be the ones deciding which apps get to work well and which do not.

This clarification replaced a new vague, case-by-case standard for speeding up in the draft order . That standard would have inevitably led to protracted, drawn out fights at the FCC over what kinds of 5G fast lanes would have been okay and would have made it hard for startups and small businesses to bring complaints. There was no way to predict which kinds of fast lanes the FCC might ultimately find to violate the no-throttling rule. This would have given ISPs cover to flood the market with various fast-lane offerings, arguing that their version does not violate the no-throttling rule and daring the FCC to enforce its rule. 

The final Order prevents this from happening. It restores the brightline nature of the no-throttling rule and clearly prohibits ISPs from limiting fast lanes to apps or categories of apps they select. Everyone knows what the rules are. As we have seen in the past, ISPs don’t violate brightline rules, so this keeps the cost of regulation low. 

Network Slicing:

A new 5G networking technology called “network slicing” (as well as some advancements in cable) makes it easy for ISPs to create special 5G fast lanes that treat internet traffic in the fast lane better than other traffic on the network. 

Mobile ISPs want to use that technology to create 5G fast lanes for certain applications such as online video conferencing, online video, and online gaming. In a coordinated push, mobile ISPs and their trade association had asked the FCC to create a blanket exemption for 5G fast lanes by labeling them “specialized services” to which the Open Internet rules don’t apply.

That would have allowed mobile ISPs to do an end run around the Open Internet rules by, e.g., charging gaming providers for a fast lane to the ISPs’ customers (circumventing the ban on paid prioritization) or by creating a low-delay lane only for video conferencing apps (evading the no-throttling rule). 

The FCC rightly declined to do so. Despite the fancy new jargon, 5G network slices are nothing new; they are just another way to give some apps special treatment, and the FCC’s net neutrality regime is nuanced enough to handle them.

ISPs remain largely free to offer special network slices to enterprise customers like farmers using remote-controlled tractors, a crowded stadium’s multi-camera video system, or autonomous car makers using mobile services for telemetry.

The Order makes clear that ISPs can’t use the specialized services label to create fast lanes for apps such as video conferencing that can function on the normal internet. That prevents ISPs from circumventing net neutrality. At the same time, it allows ISPs to create specialized services for applications such as remote surgery whose stringent requirements for reliability and delay cannot be met over the Open Internet.

Taken together, these protections will help ensure that the vital internet access we all rely on for work, school and entertainment remains open, while giving ISPs the ability to innovate with technologies such as 5G network slicing where appropriate.

Barbara van Schewick is a leading expert on net neutrality, a professor of Law and, by courtesy, Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, and the director of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society. She is the author of Internet Architecture and Innovation (MIT Press 2010). Parts of this text draw on her earlier writing on net neutrality.

Add new comment