Living on the edge: shackies and campers

The different perspectives in regards to campers and “shackies” near the Ningaloo Reef, presented by Four Corners: Seachange are very insightful. I can empathise with the different parties and their point of views, as each made a valid point. The Aboriginal people believe they belong to the land, not vice versa, hence they practice taking only what they need, which is in sync with conservation ethics. And then we have the visitors– most likely regulars who've been “paying their pilgrimage” to the reef since they were little– the innocent Australian “cheap beach holiday”, for many generations. However, vehicle access, water usage, and sewage have to be “managed”. This is when the Conservation and Land Management comes into the picture. Hence, the pilot of the eco-tourism plan. But $400 per day for an eco-friendly resort?! I can understand why people would opt for the B.Y.O accommodations. And when the government mentioned “marina resort development” near Ningaloo, it wasn't a big hit with the people because most people, including me, associate Australian resorts with luxury and therefore pricey. I guess in the defence of the eco-tourist operator – as mentioned in the video– the cost of the “rooms” are justified by the cost of renewable energy usage, sewerage treatment, water supply and miscellaneous maintenance costs. But visitors of the reef would steer away from these eco-friendly accommodations knowing that the high costing upkeep would filter through to them. Catch 22. 

Restrictions need to be implemented to save the Ningaloo Reef from ourselves. Imagine– if the reef is not environmentally sustained, what sort of “inheritance” are we leaving our children and their children? So as to the question of whose coast it is and who's entitled to a place there? I say the coast belongs to all Australians and we are entitled to a place there but that doesn't mean we know and are doing what's best for it. That's why I'm leaving the land conservation part to the experts.

Writing Project- 3 hard news articles under the microscope

by huffting post.com

News often means “a broadcast or published report of news” (Oxford online dictionary) comprised of “information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television” (The Free Dictionary online). And the common notion of the news is that it is unbiased, objective and factual. However, as “language can never be completely neutral”, neither can the news. News is produced by journalists, within certain ideological contexts, therefore can never be completely unbiased. This comes through in the language, discourse and structure journalists use in news stories, despite news conventions that aim to make news reporting objective or as objective as possible. However, these ideologies are not necessarily consciously conceived, as they are more often than not embedded in the journalists' “unconscious consciousness”. As can be seen in the three media reports (discussed below) on the civil unrest in Libya by three different news networks and presented from different angles, there are many perspectives and presentational contexts– each of which relies on specific ideologies, and in some, mythologies.

by muppet wiki

News Report 1: Christians reach Libya, as civil unrest continues 

News report Christians reach Libya, as civil unrest continues by Mission Network News (MNN) online is a straight forward example of this, where the journalist's ideological orientation– especially in the context of religion– is made transparent and comes through strongly in the report. But first, to understand the journalist's ideological orientation, a brief look into the ideological context of Christianity is necessary. In Christianity, it is believed that people are God's servants, and “God loves all men and wishes they all could be saved”. And the imperial aspect of Christianity is “God’s free gift of eternal salvation can only be received by accepting His Son Jesus Christ” as the saviour, and through faith in Jesus Christ can they secure their salvation. 

The mentioned ideologies of Christianity have shaped the news frame, language and discourse seen in the news report. The angle and news values chosen for the presentation of the event, focus on the humanitarian work done by the group of Christian missionaries rather than the political aspect of the civil unrest. Even the discourses used in the report are mainly religious and humanitarian, instead of political. The ideology of spreading the word of Jesus Christ is reinforced in the news report through the use of religious and humanitarian discourses. However, the use of religious/those discourses in the news report is at the risk of excluding readers who do not know the historical context of Christianity. 

Besides through the discourses, Christian ideologies are also reinforced through the choice of language and quotes used in the report. For instance, the talk of the “opportunity” for Christians “to work in this challenging area of the world” to help alleviate the nation's “suffering” “as a testimony of the love of Christ”, exemplifies the Christian ideologies mentioned above where salvation is achieved upon accepting Jesus Christ as the saviour, and to secure that salvation is by keeping the Christianity faith. In another instance, the journalist emphasises the ideology of “Love thy neighbour” by quoting Vanderzalm, “Regardless of faith differences that we may have, we want you to know that we care for you”. This can be traced back to a Christian mythology taken from the Bible– the story of the Good Samaritan– where to “love your neighbor as yourself” is one of the pre-requisites to achieve eternal salvation. And neighbour is extended to everyone, regardless of “race or ethnic differences”, as also supported by Vanderzalm. As illustrated, the religious presentational context of this news report and the perspective on the Libyan civil unrest hint at the journalist's ideological orientation as a Christian.

by sky news

News Report 2: Libya, Jordan and Yemen Hit By Renewed Unrest 

In the next news report Libya, Jordan and Yemen Hit By Renewed Unrest by Sky News online, the ideological features are less obvious. Unlike the news report presented above, this report adheres closely to the news conventions making it seems to be an objective reporting of the Libyan civil unrest. However, when dissected, there are evidences of ideological influence in the frame, language and discourses. The journalist's ideological orientation influences the ethical and political context of the news report. 

Political and moral ideologies are also reflected in the discourses used in the report. The journalist uses words such as “anti-government demonstration” and “protests” instead of riot, uprising or rebellion, to describe the event. The definition of protests is “an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid” (Dictionary.com). Unlike the negative connotations that surround the words riot, uprising or rebellion, the word protests has a purposeful, fierce yet subduable connotation, suggesting that their protests is merely to demonstrate their objection, not to create havoc. This hints at the journalist's ideological orientation in the context of politics– democracy and down with dictatorship.

The ideological influence can also be seen in the angle and the news values. The news report talks about how the civil unrest came about, but seems to highlight the civilian fatality rate by the hands of Libyan security forces. Most of the quotes used in the report are to emphasise the number of fatalities. The most influential quote in the report would be by the US President Obama where he “condemned the violence and urged the countries' governments to show restraint”. The moral ideology also comes through in the choice of videos and photos used in the report. One of the videos is of Libyan security forces shooting live rounds at the protesters. And another video of the protests in Libya, Yemen and Jordan, showing unarmed and cheering protesters. The pictures used in the report also say a thousand words. A picture of the protests used in the report shows no violence– the protesters look rather calm. And the caption reads, “Anti-government protesters attend prayers in Taz, Yemen.” The journalist uses the picture and caption to suggest that the protesters are religious and non-violent, as they can put their issues and dismay aside to respond to their call to prayer. The journalist uses the news value of human interest to provoke strong emotions from the readers, also interpellating the readers as the humanitarians who would want to see the fall of the Libyan dictator, Colonel Gaddafi, for authorising unethical shootings of Libyans who were merely standing up for their cause.

by bbc news

News Report 3: Libya protests: Oil prices rise as unrest continues  

The ideological features in the third news report Libya protests: Oil prices rise as unrest continues by BBC Business News is the hardest to detect compared to the other two news reports. Statistics makes up most of the content, and as statistics are regarded as pure facts, it seems that the news report are unlikely ideologically constructed and therefore unbiased. However, frame, language and discourse imply otherwise.

Like the other news reports, the angle used to present the story is a sign of ideological influence. Every time there is war or conflict in the Middle Eastern countries, speculations on the rise in oil prices have always become a newsworthy story. And this news report is no different. The angle used conforms to the ideology of oil business where a conflict in Middle East equals to the rise in oil price. This ideology of oil business also filters through to the syntagm of the news report. Even though, statistics are factual, the syntagm of the statistics and the quotes hints at ideological influence. For instance, the statistics illustrating risen oil prices are placed immediately after quotes that support them. Quotes such as “We expect that the violent outbreaks of civil unrest seen in Libya's...”, “The market is reacting to violence in Middle East” and “The market is very nervous over news of violence in Libya, and that's driving prices”, are used to support the statistics, while representing the negative aspect and outcome of the Libyan civil unrest. The statistics might not be ideologically constructed but the quotes were said and used by people with ideologies.

The language used by the journalist also defines his/her ideological orientation, in terms of business context– business is a specialised field, and hence the use of jargon and “business speak” is required. The use of economy, finance and business discourses exclude readers who do not speak the jargon. Again, this leads back to the ideology of business where it is not for everyone, and is exclusive to people of a certain calibre.

Though all three news reports present the Libyan civil unrest in a negative light, their perspectives and presentational contexts differ from each other. As illustrated above, this variation is due to the journalists' ideologies in the context of civil unrest, politics, economy, religion, humanitarian aid– just to name a few. In the news reports, it might not be mentioned or written the journalists' religion, or whether they're left wing or right wing, but the news reports are the blue print of the journalists' ideologies. Each journalist's ideologies, both consciously thought out and embedded, have influenced the language, discourse and structure they have used in presenting this event to the world. Therefore, media reports are not completely unbiased.

It's that time again!

YES it is. Semester break! I have an abundance of time in my hand that I don't know what to do with it. So I reckon I will take on a writing project of my own to keep myself busy during this 5-week break. The project, I've decided, will involve critical analysis of random stuff, and maybe movies. I might start with media representation of some kind– the news maybe. Being a journo student, I've taken an unspoken pledge to be objective and unbiased when reporting hard news. That is also expected of every journalist. So it would be interesting (for me at least) to pick out the ones that don't comply, and present an analysis of why so.. hmmm.. Will be interesting indeed (thinking out loud). Ok, I'll be off on my little mission now and should be back soon with an analysis. 

Till next time.

Kitadol's Menophobia Message

Kitadol

When I say advertisement, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Product marketing? Product sales? It's a common understanding that an advert is merely putting the word out about a product, usually to increase product sales. However, this particular advert that I found is selling more than just a product. The Kitadol advert not only sells a medication to relieve menstrual period pain, but also reinforces particular socially constructed ideologies and social taboo that society can associate with as being the norm or “common sense”. Patriarchal ideology, in particular, is dominantly reinforced in the advert. Hinting that the targeted audience for this advert is men, though the product is for women. The reinforcement builds a bridge between the meaning of the advert and the targeted audience, so men can relate and empathise with the situation presented in it. The representation involves stigmas surrounding menstrual period, and connoting that women aren't themselves as they “morph” into undesirable beings when in menstrual-period-inflicted pain.

It used to be a taboo and distasteful, still is in some societies, to speak about menstrual periods in public. Feminism and menstrual activism, dating to the mid 1970s, are in an ongoing mission to change that. Though there are more and more products pertaining to menstrual periods advertised on the market, it remains a taboo to talk about what it really entails. For instance, the colour red is never used in adverts or even on product packagings to represent what menstrual periods are mainly about- BLOOD. Sanitary pad adverts use blue liquid to demonstrate the absorbency of the product. The Kitadol advertisement reinforces that taboo. Besides the words “Menstrual Period”, there's nothing in the advert to imply it's selling a product in affiliation with menstrual periods. It could've been an advertisement about a migraine medication or anything, really. This shows that advertising companies are still far from accepting and embracing the fact that menstrual period is a natural and normal cycle, and shouldn't be abashing or seen as disgusting. This stigma about menstrual period gets reproduced and circulated within the society, and it becomes a vicious cycle.

The other social stigma reproduced by the Kitadol advertisement is that women display erratic behaviour during “that time of the month” caused chiefly by premenstrual syndrome or commonly known as PMS. And as if “PMS” isn't “abnormal” enough, doctors then came up with a more severe prognosis called premenstrual dysphoric disorder, also known as PMDD, though the cause of this disorder hasn't been found. The stigma that women aren't themselves when they display symptoms can be traced back to when Dr Katharina Dalton, the doctor who coined the term premenstrual syndrome, presented her “PMS” theory in her testimonies in court to defend women who pleaded diminished responsibility because of premenstrual syndrome, resulting in the acquittal of two women, one charged with manslaughter and another charged with arson!! 

 

Moving on, the Kitadol advert boldly depicted the woman as a muscular-with-hostile-demeanour Muay Thai boxer. Muay Thai is a form of martial art that engages almost all parts of the body where the forehead, the fists, elbows, knees, and feet are often used as the weapons during the fight. The comparison of premenstrual syndrome to Muay Thai reproduces the view that women aren't themselves, thus have no control over “PMS”. Instead of accepting premenstrual syndrome as part of a natural and normal bodily cycle faced by most women, the message the advert is circulating is- “PMS” is a disease, so husbands and partners out there save your woman and “get her back”.

Besides social taboo, the advert also reinforces socially constructed ideologies such as those seen in gender politics. O'Shaughnessy and Stadler stated that “gender involves issues of social power and equality: it is not simply a question of the social oppression of women by men, but a more complex situation in which men and women are constructed and oppressed by the patriarchal, competitive, and heterosexist values of society”. As seen in the advert, the man in the driver's seat is wearing blue which is a conventional colour for male and the colour of the tablet is pink, a conventional colour for female- gender colour schemes were of course socially constructed. The other signifier is the gender of the person behind the wheels- male. This advert reproduces society's “common sense” understanding that men are better drivers. Imagine the pressure put on men by the society, the expectation of having to be better drivers than women. “Behind the wheels” also symbolically signifies power of control, as stated by O'Shaughnessy and Stadler, men are seen in society as “a socially advantaged group” because they “have more social power and control than women, and there is still discrimination against women”. The connotation for control is also deployed by the slogan “Get her back”, which also reinforces the view that men are chivalrous.

Another example of ideologies deployed in the advert is on family and women's role in it. The Kitadol advert reinforces the conservative view that a family should consist of a mother, a father and child. The wedding band on the man's fourth finger implies that the man and woman are married, hence the presence of the child. This can be seen as an ideology of religion, where single-parent household, pre-marital sex, same-sex parent household are frowned upon. Again, this goes back to patriarchy where men and women have their own important roles to play in the family. Men's role is “to put food on the table” and women's is, as per the conventional society's understanding of everyday life, child bearer, nurturer and do-er of HOUSE CHORES. And this is reproduced by the advert by portraying the unshaved husband in a creased shirt, signifying that he has not been looked after and is under stress. The advert connotes that women's capability to look after their husbands is affected by premenstrual syndrome. It stops them from going about their “normal” wifely duties such as ironing. Again, inferring that premenstrual syndrome is abnormal and a disease that should be corrected.

This advert is one of its kind- a product for female targeting men audience. Although not all women get menstrual period symptoms, or do their partners' or husbands' ironing per se, the advertisement's managed to use ideologies and social taboo that most men can relate to as “common sense” understanding of reality, to reach its targeted audience. The Kitadol advert connotes that having menstrual period symptoms and not performing wifely “duties” are not normal. Men are made to see that they no longer have to “put up” with their partners' or wives' abnormal, erratic behaviour at “that time of the month”. Instead they should do what men “normally” do, that is to “take the wheel”, get in control of the situation and make it “right” again.

Stereotyping: Working Both Ends of the Spectrum

by www.adamsacks.com

Every society has different impressions and views on various ethnic minorities. When magnified, the discrimination or the tolerance of an ethnic minority in a particular society is traced back to the essentialist view of language, economic, culture or custom, and environment, resulting in stereotyping which is then circulated and reproduced by the media through their representations of the ethnic minorities. However, the term stereotyping need not be a negative discourse. The outcome of stereotyping can turn an ethnic minority in a particular society into social pariahs or, at the other end of the spectrum, turn another into a socially desirable group. To exemplify what I meant, I'll use a blog by a Singapore celebrity writer, Holly Aroozoo, to illustrate the reinforcement of an essentialist view of two ethnic minorities in Singapore, showing you how stereotyping can work at both ends of the spectrum.

So I've already mentioned that stereotyping can work to the advantage of some ethnic minorities but against other ethnic minorities. How?? For example, society generally gauges the education of an ethnic minority by the language they speak right? That means that society regard English speaking ethnic groups as more educated than non-English speaking groups, though technically that's erroneous. Society also generally gauges the social and cultural status of an ethnic minority by their ideologies, hence 'ranking' their social standing in comparison to the 'majority' group. Society judges the wealth of an ethnic minority by the economy of their motherland and their visible material possessions, again working to the advantage of some ethnic minorities and to the disadvantage of others. These traits can be seen in Holly's blog post titled Banglah Hits On ME ???!!!!, which basically narrates about an incident when a Bangladeshi who was interested in her sneakily took down her contact details as she was filling in a lucky draw form, and contacted her later. Holly makes it clear that she was annoyed and appalled by that act, not because of fear for her safety as she doesn't “think he's any danger”, but because a low socio-class Bangladeshi, presumably, a construction worker had the audacity to assume that he'd stand a chance with her. She adds that she was insulted by the attention she got from the Bangladeshi “who hardly speaks english, smells of 3 day old sweat, holds other Bangla men's hands.” In a sentence, Holly has judgementally represented an ethnic minority based on her essentialist view of their language, wealth and culture. In the post, she also comments that Bangladeshis “always have a knack for walking too close by, staring as if they've never seen women before or getting in your personal space”, negatively stereotyping Bangladeshis while ignoring the fact that this could easily describe any man wooing a woman or vice versa. 

At the other end of the spectrum, Holly's blog posts titled Multi-national Couple Trend and White Men Can't Jump. Well, Neither Can I., portrayed a stereotype of another ethic minority in Singapore- the Caucasians, but this time in a positive light. The term Caucasian is used to replace specific Caucasian ethnic minority because a) the ethnicity of the men in the posts was not specified by the blogger, and b) the Caucasian race in Singapore per se, even with all the Caucasian ethnic minorities coalesced, is still a minority group. In Multi-national Couple Trend, she credits Caucasian men for being persistent when they are wooing Asian women as the author puts it, “pursue them left and right”, unlike Asian men who falter around women “they perceive as even remotely possibly maybe out of their league” and therefor it's comprehensible “that these women would date White men, because they’re not pursued by any promising candidates from the Asian race.” Holly also added that Asian women who have evolved out of their traditional culture, and become “less appealing to the typical Asian man”, will still be palatable to Caucasian men. These are very contradicting views of courtship to the one involving the Bangladeshi. She's presenting a favourable view on the persistence of Caucasian men yet was put off by the attention she got from the Bangladeshi.

by www.guardian.co.uk

 The two ethnic minorities have been stereotyped based on Holly's essentialist way of thinking. The essentialist view deployed in those posts suggests that the Bangladeshis' contemptible standing on the social ladder is justified by their lack of hygiene, occupation, incomprehensible culture (Bangladeshi men hold each other's hands as a sign of close-knit friendship and sticking together), and their incapability to speak good English, hence not suitable for successful and beautiful Asian women such as herself.

by www.nomad4ever.com

 On the other hand, Holly commented that most “white men” converse in English well, an indication that they're befitting companions of articulate Asian women. She also stated that Caucasian men have a “more imposing size” physically, are “different” “yet compatible”, are chivalrous, and “tend to be more experience” unlike their Asian counterpart who “tend to still be latched on and suckling on their mother's teat.” What we've seen so far are mere stereotypes of Bangladeshis and Caucasians portrayed through Holly's understanding of the socially constructed reality (and judging by the blog's high readership, that view is circulated and shared widely with the rest of the nation, or even the world). More importantly, the portrayal of stereotypes has worked differently for the two minority groups. And as we've seen, the stereotype of Bangladeshis has demean and de-value their social standing in the Singaporean society making them social pariahs, whereas the stereotype of Caucasians portrays an attractive embraceable ideology, making them a desirable social group in that society.

by www.guidemesingapore.com

Thus, stereotyping doesn't just surround unfavourable portrayals but it can also positively depict an ethnic minority. This reflects that stereotype need not be consented as a bad thing, as the term stereotype can be used as a neutral discourse. Regardless, how warped or pleasant the society's essentialist view of an ethnic minority is, stereotyping can work at both ends of the spectrum.

Slack much??

OMG what a slacker I am! It's been a while since my last post. Been tooo long. I will endeavor to not let that happen again 'cause there's just sooo much controversial issues to ruminate about and sooo little time. My next post will be looking at social stereotyping. Here comes the controversial part- we generally associate stereotyping with discrimination or prejudice, but stereotyping can also work positively for some, so stay tuned. Till next time.


P.S: I just realised that this is my first post for 2011. Slack!

The Truth About Global Warming? Natural or Anthropogenic?

by frontpagemag.com

SOME of you might agree with me that global warming is mentioned so much on TV that it’s become a more sensational and controversial news than Paris Hilton’s pre-party flashings. And unfortunate for the REST of you, this post is not about the latter. So what is global warming? It is a repeated occurrence where the Earth warmed and cooled, due to the greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere. Since it’s a repeated occurrence, what’s the fuss about then? The controversy lies in the WHO, not the What. The public frequently asked, “Is global warming anthropogenic or natural?” Most scientists would answer anthropogenic. Most scientists would argue that humanity is the chief culprit of global warming. They would explain that records today show that there is an unusually rapid increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century that is caused primarily by the increased level of HUMAN-MADE greenhouse gases. *Pause and think*

I accept that global warming and climate change is happening and humanity has, without a doubt, played a PART in it, but I believe that humanity’s role in global warming and climate change is minute compared to that of NATURE. Could scientists have blown the seriousness of the situation out of proportion? Do their claims have a financial motive behind them? YOU be the judge.

CARBON DIOXIDE is one of the human-made greenhouse gases that makes Earth liveable and sustainable but scientists are now involved with the idea that humans have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate by mainly burning FOSSIL FUEL, and by cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. But is it a serious enough plight? This is doubtful because despite the United States’ and the rest of the developing world’s accelerated rise of staunch economic growth with little emphasis on energy efficiency in the past 20 years, the rate at which carbon dioxide increased was small. The concentration of carbon dioxide was so small that in actual fact the atmosphere contained very little carbon dioxide- only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

by www2.mcdaniel.edu

The other human-made greenhouse gas claimed by most scientists to be a contributor to global warming is METHANE. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. Though more potent, it has a shorter lifetime of about eight years and according to some scientists there is less of it in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide; we have established earlier that carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is in fact very little. The impact methane has on the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas is not the issue. The issue here is that scientists often brush aside the fact that NATURALLY produced methane is as accountable, if not more, for global warming as human-made methane. A NATURALLY occurring source of methane that could cause a catastrophe if released into the atmosphere is thawing peat tundra. The peat tundra in Siberia covers about 1 million square miles, and as it thaws tons of methane could be released into the atmosphere. Similar occurrences can be found in the arctic tundra. THESE METHANE EMISSIONS ALONE WOULD OUTWEIGH THAT PRODUCED BY THE HUMAN INDUSTRY.

************************Interval***************************

That’s not too much to digest, is it? I’ve been told that my entries can be a bit overwhelming (long). Shall we continue?

by greenbristolblog.blogspot.com

Next. SULPHATE and BLACK CARBON AEROSOLS are asserted by NASA scientists to be one of the biggest human-made contributors to the increased average atmospheric temperature. Black carbon, which is a human-made aerosol, has an atmospheric lifetime between 4.6 to 7.3 days, meaning it does not stay in the atmosphere longer than 8 days. Compared to carbon dioxide, which has a long atmospheric lifetime, black carbon poses less threat to global warming in the long run. Although black carbon is known to absorb and therefore radiate more heat, it is not as significant as sulphate because the extent of black-carbon-induced warming is dependent on the concentration of sulphate (SO₂) and organic aerosols. Sulphate aerosol, however, is produced both naturally and by humankind, and close to three-quarters of all aerosols found in the Earth’s atmosphere come from natural sources. Yet most scientists asserted that to reduce the concentration of sulphate and black carbon aerosol from the atmosphere, an approach to cut down the burning of FOSSIL FUEL and BIOMASS should be taken. That theory is flawed and disagreeable. Most scientists tried to steer away from the fact that nature does play a larger part in this matter. Evidence that nature produces more aerosols than humankind is presented in a simple table drawn up by scientists Ramanathan, Crutzen, Kiehl and Rosenfeld. The table shows that the rate of aerosol produced naturally is higher than that produced by humankind. A recent scientific research also affirms that the natural environment is a major source of atmospheric aerosols and examples of the natural sources are sulphate from volcanic eruption, soil, desert dust, sea salt and marine sulphide emissions.

by thegeogblog.edublogs.org (2008)

by www.marinebuzz.com (2009)

by trivoxphoto.photoshelter.com (2010)

It seems that more scientists are blaming global warming on humanity than not. Those scientists presented similar “scenarios” and called for the same measure to be taken, and that is to reduce the burning of FOSSIL FUEL. Now, the million dollar question is, to maintain and power this advancing technology of ours, what are FOSSIL FUEL and BIOMASS going to be substituted with? Costly hydrogen-powered fuel cells, a technology funded and now used by NASA? Questionably reliable wind turbines that would cost millions of dollars and paid with tax payers’ money? Or nuclear power which waste disposal’s cost would be exuberant? It seems like certain parties have more to gain, financially, from this plight than others.

Financial gain or not, what is for certain is that the plight on global warming have been blown out of proportion, and scientists are persuading people that global warming and climate change is primarily driven by human-related activities. HUMAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES are NOT the main cause for global warming. In fact evidence shows that humanity’s part in this plight is miniscule compared to that of nature. NATURE plays a COLOSSAL role in global warming and climate change, but scientists, though they have acknowledged it, decline to accept it. Why? It could be due to poor judgements or miscalculations. Or simply because there is no financial gain in preaching to the wind.

In saying all this, I'm not implying that we shouldn't do anything about global warming. Regardless if we are the cause or not, it is still our responsibility to make this world a better place to live.