In the last decade, global climate change has become a widely accepted social issue. Also referred to as global warming or the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, global climate change is an increase in the average global temperature seen resulting from greenhouse gas releases generated by human activities. This global threat awareness reinforced public concerns about environmental issues and environmental activists so that they are available, scientists and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection. Not surprisingly, opponents of this effort mobilized in recent years to mount intense opposition to calls for international action to prevent global warming such as agreements designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (Brown 1997; Gelbspan 1997). The purpose of this paper is to test this growing opposition, which has to date been relatively neglected.
In sociological studies existing on global warming from the orientation of social problems has resulted in an inadequate understanding of global warming controversy versy. Since most of the studies mentioned above ended in the early 1990s, concluded that global warming has completed the necessary stages of both public arena models and problem-solving cycles, they can not account for recent developments. Also, while research is done tracking claims about global warming through the media, they continue to fail to systematically overcome the historical context of the social actors involved in the process of defining the problem. In addition, studies only occasionally acknowledge the existence of counter-claims, while never actually dealing with content or sources of counter claims. This is a symptom of a more general asymmetric focus on the social development problematicity of this condition at the expense of ignoring what Freudenburg (2000) calls social construction a "non-problematicity." "Specifically, Freudenburg argues that business analysis tools define problems as non-problematic giving insight into the use of power by inant dom- ences (see also Schnaiberg 1994: 3942).
we think the scarcity of working on the social development of non-problematicity of global warming limits our sociological understanding of the role of power in the struggle to put global warming on the policy agenda. For example, Ungar (1998) recently stated that a major controversy over global warming is therefore not being as valuable as a more successfully defined problem of ozone depletion, while the study noted global warming claims of just running as a social problem and now competing with a more pressing issue for attention. Unfortunately, this account fails to acknowledge the effects of strong opposition that has emerged to challenge the legitimacy of global warming. Thus, following Freudenburg (2000), we believe that adequate account of the "career" of social issues should address efforts to build on its non-problematicity, as well as them to build its problematicity. To overcome the limitations of existing studies analyzing the development of global warming as a problem, we turn to social movement orientation and examine framing activities of countermovement that challenge the legitimacy of global warming problem status.
Social Issues and Social Movement
In the past, some sociologists sought to bridge the gap between the social issues of literature and social movement literature. Bash (1994, 1995) writes extensively on the differences between the two orientations. He argues that the sociology of the European continent adopts the orientation of social movements capable of accommodating both macro and micro-level focus on social processes. He believed that historicity and broad contextual analysis were inte- grated with this orientation. On the other hand, Bash (1994, p.257) sees the dominant thrust of sociology in the United States as having defined important concerns as a social problem that "appears to appear one by one and each, captured individually, pleading for a quick case by case resolution . "This leads to a relatively ahistorical approach that leads to situational micro-analysis levels.
1. Freudenburg (2000, p. 106) using the term problematicity means the status of this condition as a legitimate social problem.
Regardless of social issues and differences in these movements, orientation. several theories In the first attempt it has been great trying to bridge this synthesis socialally
2. In work, Spector and Kitsuse (1977) write the following: "The activity of making claims, complaints, or demands for change is at the core of what we call social problem activity. Definition of conditions as a social problem built mobilizing by members.Challenging Global Warming
Solutions or desires, are simultaneously limited and activated by structures that exist within a larger social environment. the theoretical legacy of the frame concept allows for a more in-depth analysis of external phenomena for this genuine social movement or claim-maker group. In particular, it allows for a more complete examination of the historical and social context in which movement activists mobilize. Williams (1998) discussion of frames in the examination of the role of power in social development of environmental issues is a promising example of how this concept helps address a narrow focus on definer social issues by facilitating consideration of their external environment.
Secondly, the concept of claims seems to require, or at least overemphasize, the bodies of individual actors. A quick metaphor of the literature of social problems indicates there is little recognition, or at least a little analysis, the defining constraints social problems face in making claims- (Loseke 1999). Indeed, claims are regularly interpreted as a direct product of a single entity-claim maker. On the other hand, the frame concept is suitable for businesses that take into account the structure, while still assuming some level of institution on the part of the social actors. Snow works and colleagues may best characterize these considerations of theoretical structures, as well as institutions. Benford and Snow (2000) emphasize that frames are developed, produced, and translated through an interactive and contested framing process involving multiple stakeholders. Snow, et al. (1986) identification of the process of bridging strategic alignment frames, amplifications, extensions, and transformations showing how activist movements are constrained and activated by the existing cultural frames. Furthermore, Snow and Benford (1992, p.127) argue that the master frame that transcends the different MOV-move is an integral part of the emergence and of course from the larger cycle of protest.
Finally, as has been used in the literature on social construction of social problems, the concept of claim is quite closely related to the first characterization, and sometimes secondly, the face of power (Luke 1974). That is, with claims-making, an explicit emphasis on observable behavior and a direct confrontation of competing interests. On the other hand, the concept of framing invokes the idea of ??the face of the three powers by determining the ideological process of naming the culture. Again, Williams' (1998) discussion of how frames of environmental problems often challenge the stock of cultural knowledge and, therefore, draws that attention to the hegemonic activity of the powerful is the latest example of the potential depth of theoretical framing concepts. Thus, the concept of framing gives more leverage to understand the underlying structural standing of power in which the social problem of discourse is embedded.
McCright, A.M., R.E. Dunlap (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of theconservativemovement'scounter-claims. SocialProblems 47 (4): 499-522.