The language in the carbon dioxide article makes the authors sound biased. The article uses negative language to dismiss the opposing point of view. This language includes words such as illogical and misperceptions and phrases such as "prophecies of doom" and "retrogressive policy." The authors also use excessively forceful language to support their conclusion. Some examples include "proven, beyond any doubt," "CO2 is the elixir of life," and "Don't mess with success!".
The language in the carbon dioxide article makes the authors sound biased. The article uses negative language to dismiss the opposing point of view. This language includes words such as illogical and misperceptions and phrases such as "prophecies of doom" and "retrogressive policy." The authors also use excessively forceful language to support their conclusion. Some examples include "proven, beyond any doubt," "CO2 is the elixir of life," and "Don't mess with success!".
I think the answer is: The narrator is dismissed by her superiors when she asks questions about an occurrence that my have been supernatural. I hope this helps.
