Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): More spin to add to the spin - where does it end? . I was disappointed by this book. It does not help me to understand the 'truth' about global warming. Patrick Michael's subjective ranting throughout the book can be labelled 'humour', and 'readability', but I have to say that, for me, the rhetorical devices just put me off. It's just sensationalising the subject.    I can understand that he may feel he has a point here, and he may have one, I don't know (still), but, as a scientist, I find it impossible to take what he says seriously when it is just littered with remarks that would be better placed in a tabloid newspaper.    He makes some good points about the links between science, media and funding - how organisations will link issues to the cute and furry animals and so on in order to get more support. But these have been made many years ago, and aren't news to me as a social scientist. Ditto for the difficulties for attributing causality (p.128).    What I find, as with Lomborg's book, is that these authors are so busy building a rebuttal to an argument that they themselves produce 'evidence' that is just as biased, if not more so, the other way, and this reduces their credibility to anyone who is not already convinced that they are right. Relying on the rhetoric of powerful soundbites to get those who agree with him is not going to convince those of us who are really trying to learn here.
Output (English): NEG