CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I just had to start with this vacuous, absurd, nonsensical and appalling statement first: Humans are so tiny compared to theEarth that it is ridiculous to attribute anything to us.
Humans account for 80+% (and rising) of deforestation. It is a burden to spare fundamental details about how trees would reduce C02 emissions and help the environment, so I'll just assume you are relatively, ehh, knowledgeable and is one whom understands elementary botany.
We haven't seen massive weather events at a constant rate.
It's not so much frequent weather catastrophes, rather in the event a weather even happens, the effects are more catastrophic than it would have been if it were not for GCC (take hurricane Katrina, for example).
The global temperature isn't changing much.
If you knew any climatological science you'd know just how much a 1% change negatively effects the environment (esp. since 80% of the main regulator [forests] of the atmosphere has been, and is being, destroyed.
--
Scientists have made false predictions about what would happen.
This isn't relative to GCC being a fact and the empirical science that supports human emitted gases (co2), and deforestation being an essential factor.
2. The Earth fluctuates the amount of CO2 on it's own.
"On May 9, 2013, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide hit a new record high. Announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the levels of CO2 in the air on that day reached a daily average of 400 parts per million (ppm). This is the highest level of atmospheric CO2 in human history, and in fact the highest level for at least 800,000 years. It gets worse: the amount of CO2 in the air likely hasn’t been this high since the Pliocene Epoch, more than three million years ago."
3. The polar ice caps are melting on one side and reforming on the other
“Since 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has increased by a factor of about two, and the West Antarctic ice sheet by a factor of three,”
Source
4. There were emails about scientists faking data to make it look worse than it was.
Again, irrelative to GCC facts that can be backed by empirical evidence. This is like saying one person in NASA said we really didn't go to the moon, therefore it highly unlikely that we did. (Why was this even on your list of "good" reasons?)
---
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2012, CO2 accounted for about 82% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. [1]"
I never said that the things I wrote down were valid. I just answered the question.
Humans account for 80+% (and rising) of deforestation. It is a burden to spare fundamental details about how trees would reduce C02 emissions and help the environment, so I'll just assume you are relatively, ehh, knowledgeable and is one whom understands elementary botany.
We are also responsible for 100% of replanted trees.
It's not so much frequent weather catastrophes, rather in the event a weather even happens, the effects are more catastrophic than it would have been if it were not for GCC (take hurricane Katrina, for example).
This was on my list of bad examples because it is just plain wrong. Don't forget Sandy.
If you knew any climatological science you'd know just how much a 1% change negatively effects the environment (esp. since 80% of the main regulator [forests] of the atmosphere has been, and is being, destroyed.
Destroying 80% of forests leads to a 1% temperature change. Sounds like it is not a significant change if you want to deny GCC.
This isn't relative to GCC being a fact and the empirical science that supports human emitted gases (co2), and deforestation being an essential factor.
Yes, it is. The only reason you can claim it is a fact is because scientists did research on it. If they were wrong, maybe they still are.
"On May 9, 2013, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide hit a new record high. Announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the levels of CO2 in the air on that day reached a daily average of 400 parts per million (ppm). This is the highest level of atmospheric CO2 in human history, and in fact the highest level for at least 800,000 years. It gets worse: the amount of CO2 in the air likely hasn’t been this high since the Pliocene Epoch, more than three million years ago."
So, in other words, the Earth used to have more CO2 and is in control of it.
“Since 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has increased by a factor of about two, and the West Antarctic ice sheet by a factor of three,”
Unfortunately, a factor change in melting ice is worthless if you don't believe the caps are melting.
Again, irrelative to GCC facts that can be backed by empirical evidence. This is like saying one person in NASA said we really didn't go to the moon, therefore it highly unlikely that we did. (Why was this even on your list of "good" reasons?)
No, it can't since we can't be sure any data we receive from scientists is empirical. We can't trust the data if it is made up. Empirical evidence is only as good as the person who gives it to you. And, it is more like one person in NASA said we didn't go to the moon, so now I have something to point to if I am a moon landing denier.
Okay, anyone who is knowledgeable of botany, climatology, and physics can check the validity of the information themselves. There are machines that detect co2 levels, and you can measure the amount of co2 released by 1 factory, car, etc., and add up all of the factories, cars, etc., and come up with an average yourself. You can, in part, see if the statistics are at least reasonable.
But since you want to play this game - "everyone can be lying despite their reputation regarding their accountability and reliability - I will refrain form further debate.
Okay, anyone who is knowledgeable of botany, climatology, and physics can check the validity of the information themselves.
Not really. There is too much data regardless of your background. Plus, the people who are the subject of your debate aren't knowledgeable.
There are machines that detect co2 levels, and you can measure the amount of co2 released by 1 factory, car, etc., and add up all of the factories, cars, etc., and come up with an average yourself. You can, in part, see if the statistics are at least reasonable.
That doesn't help though. Aren't the changes causing the atmospheric CO2 to be absorbed into the ocean? Wouldn't that mean that there will be less CO2 than comes from cars? That would indicate the Earth is able to handle the extra CO2 from people.
But since you want to play this game - "everyone can be lying despite their reputation regarding their accountability and reliability - I will refrain form further debate.
I am not playing that game. GCC deniers are. And denying that there is a problem doesn't make it go away. You should know that. And, how can you argue that their reputation is so great? If someone tells you your experts have a poor reputation you can't claim that their reputation is fine without demonstrating any reason to believe they have a good reputation. You believing them isn't enough to constitute a good reputation.
Posting on both sides- and very poor form, Harvard, structuring a debate like this. You should know better.
The problem is that GCC isn't caused by man- rather, it is exacerbated by man. There is significant evidence that our planet naturally goes through cyclical climate changes, as well as significant evidence that human activity is exacerbating the issue, potentially to the point of instability.
We're dealing with both natural causes and the actions of man here, and while this is typically recognized by the scientific community, most people don't speak with scientists, either directly or indirectly. The media thrives on controversy, hence the spin put on it by various media outlets. Politicians take it up one way or another, which unfortunately serves to link individual stances on GCC to individual stances on things such as abortion, gay marriage, and welfare. Mankind has a tendency to see things as black and white or us vs. them, and the media and politicians on both sides of the spectrum exploit this for ratings, profits, and political gain.
(Title at time of posting is: "Why do people think GCC isn't attributable to man?")
(Sides at time of posting are: Left: "Because it's not." Right: "Because they're clueless")
Because you are presenting a binary answer to the question. Either "GCC is not attributable to man" or "GCC is attributable to man and those who believe otherwise are clueless."
Basically, anybody who posts on the righthand side is, in doing so, insulting everyone who posts on the lefthand side, regardless of their intent.
I would have used a perspectives debate rather than a for/against for this question. If I HAD to use a for/against, I would have avoided insulting the positions that others hold, even if such was warranted. I might have made the sides "Via reason" or "Via assumption" or something to that effect.
If you cannot debate without using insults, especially passive-aggressive indirect ones like your choice of the sides for the debate, you shouldn't debate at all.
I think it's pretty insulting to deny a global epidemic that effects mostly all of life despite coherent/obvious evidence.
It's like when creationist deny evolution... How can I, in a respectable manner, ask if anyone doesn't believe in evolution? Esp. when its obvious?? I don't respect people who intentionally don't use their heads just so they can keep living this façade of human innocence.
Don't dissemble. There is a key difference between disagreement on an issue and verbally attacking the opposition. This is doubly true when disagreement on the issue is enabled by numerous conflicting sources with varying objective credibility and further varying subjective credibility.
You should consider that many things that may be obvious to you are highly counter-intuitive to others. Insulting and belittling those who disagree with you is not debate- it's bullying.
This is the kind of thing that changes the perception in peoples minds of the other side being in disagreement and the other side being the enemy. You aren't educating anyone, and you aren't going to embarass anyone into 'seeing the light' either. Is it really worth perpetuating ignorance and further dividing the sides just so you can give yourself a pat on the back, because you're so smart and they're so dumb?
A better way to show off your smarts would be to use guiding questions to help others arrive at your conclusions themselves. This, of course, requires that they be open to discourse on the matter- very unlikely they'll be in that mindset when you're building an insult into the debate itself. You are likely acting under the assumption that such individuals cannot be educated- and you're wrong there. I have little doubt that your personal experience lends credence to that assumption, particularly if this is your usual tactic.
It's logically coherent to say if one doesn't know of GCC, then they're clueless. So the problem you're raising is your subjective interpretation of the feelings I had when typing clueless.
Clueless doesn't have to be negatively connoted. It's an obvious terminological fact, 'they either know or don't know (hence clueless) that GCC is attributable to man.' If they don't know, it follows, then, that they're clueless. Simple logic.
Don't play coy. You aren't really such a complete academic as to think that 'clueless' is used without a negative connotation with any kind of frequency, are you? You obviously have a broad vocabulary, and as you've noted there are other ways to note such. Your prior responses in this thread strongly suggest that the insult was intentional, as well.
When you write, you write for your audience. You aren't writing for a bunch of academics that only stick to the literal dictionary definition and completely eschew conventional usage of terms and their normal connotation. You're writing on a public debate website with posters representing numerous backgrounds.
If you are really convinced that usage of the word in this manner is at all appropriate, then I can say that you are definitely deficient in knowledge and understanding in this particular school.
Nevermind the fact that knowledge on the subject is hardly a binary thing anyway.
I didn't say it 'cannot be' negatively connoted, I said, literatim, 'doesn't have to be'. This implies that one need not necessarily interpret the meaning to be so negative. Now sure I've made strong suggestions that the opposition is unintelligible, but I let that be my written expression unincorporated with the structure of the debate (as you see I didn't put "because they're unintelligible").
I chose clueless (loosely) applying the term to people who refute GCC without warrant by refuting coherent science that they don't even understand (which should at least cause one to be speculative). They say its not true just because its not true...? They're clueless about co2; they're clueless about the greenhouse effect; they're clueless about... You get the point. And they are intentionally unknowing, or ill-informed about GCC thereby classifying them as something much more worse than clueless--so in a sense I was being charitable with that term.
Someone is stepping on your shoe and you tell them "hey man your stepping on my shoe," in which they look down see their foot on your shoe and they say, "nah man I'm not," then, I suppose, you would think "ah, he must not know he is stepping on my foot, I'll just wait till he has to move because it'll be wrong for me to just remove his foot since he'll think I'm touching him for no reason."
It is very easy for someone with an academic background to feel that many things are self-evident that really aren't, to the layman. Beyond that, you are saying here that you see them as being unknowing or ill-informed intentionally. Isn't it more likely that between working and raising a family (as the majority are), they have little free time available to even become informed on the subject? It's entirely understandable that they might use their limited free time to unwind and relax a bit- would you expect everybody who works full time and raises a family to also devote as much time to studies as an unattached individual attending university or graduate school?
Scientific knowledge is itself not without scandal. Recall Dr. Wakefields massaging and misrepresentation of data to suggest a link between childhood vaccination and autism? Thoroughly debunked, but despite that many persist in the belief. While doing so is somewhat inherently fallacious, many people now are extremely, even overly skeptical of the results of scientific research- particularly when what science claims is counter to what they can individually observe. You and I know why it happens, but good luck explaining to, say, an undereducated assembly line worker (that you've just called clueless), that the colder local temperatures and deeper snowfalls are the result of cascading changes linked to a rise in average temperature around the world. The same individual might be significantly more open to explanation if you hadn't opened with an insult, regardless of whether you intended it to be an insult or not. We can only view the world through our sensory perceptions, so to each of us perception is reality, or the only reality we know. You should know this already.
Your insulting demeanor towards ignorance is not going to lead to a modern Renaissance- it's just going to reinforce ignorance and further tarnish the reputation of science and academia in the eyes of the layman. Perhaps you don't care what the layman thinks, but history has borne out that you should.
Your analogy doesn't work, because there is no direct personal observation that suggests the person is not stepping on your shoe. People don't look at conclusive evidence for human-caused GCC and then deny it. People draw from their exposure, however limited, to the phenomenon- which has scientists (even a minority there of) in opposition to it as well. Confirmation bias comes to play here as well.
A better analogy would be a dispute over a property line, when you have numerous maps that indicate where you feel the line should be, and your neighbor has a map that was given to him by his grandparents whom he inherited the property from that suggests the line should be elsewhere. The number and credibility of sources is the problem here, and that analogy fits it better. The shoe one isn't even a bad analogy- it's completely irrelevant.
I appreciate everything you're saying, but you aren't even being charitable to my case (unintentionally or otherwise). If you say someone doesn't have time to assess scientific information regarding their environment... Let me put in a deductive format:
1 - Someone is ill-informed on a particular subject (for whatever reasons)
2 - They know that they are ill-informed on that subject
3 - Also, they know that addressing the subject would be without warrant (hence their appreciation of their ill-informality)
4 - so, for them to contend the subject would be intentionally absurd
5 - But, nonetheless this absurdity is fully appreciated among their self given premise "2"
6 - Therefore they are intentionally being absurd by asserting their ignorance for reasons unwarranted (Unless psychological disorders and disabilities)
So therefore they deserve respect for refuting something that they know they don't know? I would contend emphatically that one deserves to assertively refute a case wherein his knowledge is entirely negligible no matter the reasons behind their negligibility, especially when they know they are not knowledgable of the matter.
I'm quite surprised why you agree with this nonsensical, illogical, irrational, unintelligible, and most certainty fallacious argument method.
How about this in making up for my previous bad analogy:
Bob leaves earth to mars knowing he has not a clue about mars; he gets there and night falls its cold and he tells Houston "there's a problem, it's cold! Mars isn't supposed to be cold!" - Houston explains why mars is so cold at night - and he proceeds to say, "that's just false there's obviously something wrong and you guys need to figure out what!!!"
According to you we should tolerate and understand this absurd man even though he won't even consider the factual information given to him. (Note: he knows nothing of mars, so to say "it shouldn't be cold" is absurd and irrational.)
With all due respect, I'm being quite charitable with your case. I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying you are wrong.
I am objecting to your usage of an insulting term to disparage the other side.
Now, regarding your deduction.
1- fine.
2- Faulty premise. An individual may well consider themselves well informed, but may disagree with you on the credibility of one source vs. another, for whatever reason.
3- Is reliant on the faulty premise in 2.
4- Is reliant upon the faulty premise in 2 and its extension in 3.
5- Are you seeing a pattern here?
6- Conclusion rejected due to faulty premises.
They deserve some measure of respect as an individual regardless of being misinformed, whether or not they know they are misinformed or how misinformed they are. Even if they were not worthy of respect whatsoever, that does not excuse insulting and disparaging them, particularly in what is supposed to be a debate. I can understand and to an extent condone getting frustrated with someone, slipping up, and insulting them- I do this myself more frequently than I care to admit. I cannot, however, condone insulting them pre-emptively before discourse has even begun, as you have done with this debate.
I do not agree with the argument method as you have structured it, nor do I agree with arguing from ignorance. I simply believe that being unnecessarily abrasive is no good for anyone.
Regarding your analogy- yes, we should tolerate the absurd man. No, we should not insult him. We should do our best to educate him, and if it proves fruitless, at the very least anyone else following the discussion or listening along is going to be significantly less inclined to listen to a reasoned factual argument when it opens with insults.
You've misconstrued my premise 2; when I say "they know" that is to mean in your particular supposition that one has no time to become informed of GCC, it would then follow that they know they are ill-informed (hence no time for study) unless they have some psychological disorder in which they unintentionally disassociate themselves from reality as they are fully aware of themselves not having time to assess GCC, they may not be 'cognizant' in the awareness of not assessing GCC, notwithstanding, they would know if they have assessed it or not.
I might add that my this could also suggest that they are in fact delusional since they believe they know something, again, without warrant. To presume facts in a subject you haven't had the time to even assess (like you said due to work kids etc) is quite irrational unintelligible illogical and, again, to be assertive with an ill-deserved standpoint is quite fallacious (unless, you know, the whole 'delusional' thing).
My argument is valid and sound. So, please give the proper response followed with the same information [after premise six, or conclusion] so I can, in turn, give an accurate response, thanks.
You've misconstrued my premise 2; when I say "they know" that is to mean in your particular supposition that one has no time to become informed of GCC, it would then follow that they know they are ill-informed (hence no time for study) unless they have some psychological disorder in which they unintentionally disassociate themselves from reality as they are fully aware of themselves not having time to assess GCC, they may not be 'cognizant' in the awareness of not assessing GCC, notwithstanding, they would know if they have assessed it or not.
You've misconstrued what I was saying there. That was an example response to your earlier assertion of ignorance via negligence- NOT an assertion regarding the circumstances of any and all hypothetical individuals who may click into this debate. This does not represent everybody who might be targeted by your 'clueless' insult, which is the entire point of this exchange.
From what you've said here, I should assume that you are comfortable with insulting and mocking individuals with psychological disorders, then?
Here are two example cases where an individual may not "know" that they are ill-informed. These are hardly exhaustive, as there are numerous permutations of this phenomenon:
1) Limited exposure to sources, without being aware of how many other sources are available. Considers themselves well-read on the subject, and are simply underestimating the sum total of available information.
2) Full (or at least significant) exposure to sources, but unwittingly favoring some over others due to personal biases that aren't always apparent- like I noted much earlier with subjective credibility of sources.
Recall Plato's Apology, recounting the trial of Socrates. It is entirely possible to believe one knows almost everything about a subject, simply due to not being aware of how much there is that one still does not know.
Ignoring all that for a moment- even if you're pleading a special case for individuals who know that they are ill-informed, a pre-emptive insult is still not justified- your insult is delivered before any discussion has taken place that could potentially make an insult remotely appropriate. If we were discussing whether or not you should have insulted a specific individual, there would be value in examining that case. But we're not discussing any form of deserved insult, we're discussing a pre-emptive one.
1) Limited exposure to sources, without being aware of how many other sources are available. Considers themselves well-read on the subject, and are simply underestimating the sum total of available information..
What's problematic about this is when you inform someone they're ill-informed and the assertively refute you as if they are in fact not. Now I understand they can consider themselves well-read and therefore would be in their own right to disagree with your statement, but they most certainly realize the foreignness of the information you relay to them. (For example: You state a case on CPUs, and one refutes your position, so you tell them they are ill-informed: One may say, "I know everything about computers so don't tell me I'm ill-informed," to which you reply, "so what is a processor? what is the heart of the computer called?" They'll realize that they in fact don't know to much about computers but continue to refute your position on computer processers. Just like in the Apology- he showed them how much they didn't know but they were persistent on their view.)
So this example would still follow that they are intentionally refuting you (now) knowing they are ill-informed.
This [Because they're Clueless] logical assertion was directed toward those (like daver who knows better) who deny GCC as being attributable to man even when you show them that it is, and request their substantiation for contrary and that substance shows to be limited to biases or just plain untrue information.
Now if I were speaking to a child who thought they knew something and refuted me in the face of evidence, then sure, I would calmly explain to them, using a reductionist method, why either their view is not the case, or why my view is the case. However, I will not speak to an adult who should have a sensibility greater than a child's (in the sense of understanding that they may be wrong, unlike a child who might think that they're never wrong) like they are a child (and in their case they intentionally know they're ill-informed but continue to refute).
Why are you constantly offering justifications that assume specific things regarding an exchange that hasn't even taken place before the insult was delivered?
If there is ever an appropriate time to be insulting and dismissive towards the other party, it is AFTER you have made the attempt to show them that they are incorrect either in their assessment of their own exposure to the data, or in their assessment of the credibility of various sources, AND they refuse to consider they might be wrong. Even then, whether an insult is at all warranted depends largely on their demeanour.
Again- your dismissive insult is applied before any discourse begins, and without any context provided regarding who it should apply to, despite all your arguing here.
You are still pre-emptively insulting individuals before they've even considered whether they will reply to this debate.
I'm done bickering over the specifics here, and I've made my point. You've made a valiant effort to reframe the debate and change the subject, but I'm not so easily distracted.
I issue you this challenge:
Justify pre-emptively insulting and dismissing a complete stranger with whom you have never spoken or had any communication with.
If you fail to reply, attempt to further conflate the issue, or attempt to deny that this is what you're doing, I will consider this exchange over, my point made, and you a sore loser.
If you wish to continue this discussion, you need to offer that justification. That is the only thing I will reply to further in this exchange.
Since the challange you issue is irrespective of the point I'm advancing; and you seem to not be able to acertain that I initiated this debate to ridicule those who deny GCC in the face of discernible and coherent evidence; and this debate was intended namely for the perspectives of individuals who also recognize the ridiculousness of the clueless deniers (hence the obvious debate title), then perhaps we are done here.
As a side note: I didn't name the debate "Why do you GCC deniers deny GCC?" as if I wanted a direct answer from them; I already know the answer, because they're clueless...
Furthermore, you have only emotively asserted your subjective perspective of a logical statement ("because they're clueless"). This debate wasn't meant for people to express views that are in conflict with rules of logic - to say I shouldn't say ones 'clueless' about the fact of the matter, even though every dictionary is in agreement of the definition which is grammatically coherent in the irrefutable statement "because they're clueless" that you, intrestingly, seem to refute (though rather unsuccessfully), is, in fact, illogical.
There is lots of evidence that the globe is warming slightly there is zero causal connection to man-made global warming. There is only correlation, not proven cause-and-effect.
I believe if an increase of C02 is the main cause for GCC and humans are the main cause for the increase in c02, then, I would say it is reasonable to conclude humans are a cause for GCC in respects to the increase of c02.
This happened and that happened, so this MUST have caused that. Not proven cause & effect.
I believe if an increase of C02 is the main cause for GCC and humans are the main cause for the increase in c02, then, I would say it is reasonable to conclude humans are a cause for GCC in respects to the increase of c02.
People can still debate the impact of humans compared to other causes, the relative weights of positive and negative feedbacks, what policies should be considered, etc., but facts are facts. People should probably look into what a greenhouse gas actually is - they don't just correlate to warming, they demonstrably CAUSE warming by trapping radiant energy that would otherwise escape into space.
Do you recognize that the main theorized cause of GCC is an increase in C02? If so, do you recognize that human activity is the main cause in increases of CO2?
Because your last post made it seem as if simply because it is a theory, that means it does not have credibility. It is just about as "proven" as it could possibly be given our limitations in technology at the moment.
Theories have proven wrong since the beginning of formal science. There is NO evidence, other than correlated facts, to links GCC to man. You my choose to accept these theories as scientific fact, by they are only guesses about an extreamly complex system that contains many overlapping cycles, each influencing others.
I believe we can classify these unempirical nonbelievers with the unintelligible--and I am being charitable with this term--groups who believe the earth is flat; or that muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.
Posting on both sides- and very poor form, Harvard, structuring a debate like this. You should know better.
The problem is that GCC isn't caused by man- rather, it is exacerbated by man. There is significant evidence that our planet naturally goes through cyclical climate changes, as well as significant evidence that human activity is exacerbating the issue, potentially to the point of instability.
We're dealing with both natural causes and the actions of man here, and while this is typically recognized by the scientific community, most people don't speak with scientists, either directly or indirectly. The media thrives on controversy, hence the spin put on it by various media outlets. Politicians take it up one way or another, which unfortunately serves to link individual stances on GCC to individual stances on things such as abortion, gay marriage, and welfare. Mankind has a tendency to see things as black and white or us vs. them, and the media and politicians on both sides of the spectrum exploit this for ratings, profits, and political gain.
