DiMento and Pamela’s intended audience for “Making Climate Change Understandable” was the general public. This leaves them to assume that a common person is interest in learning about climate change. However, in their defense they believe that a people would be more interested in climate change if the fully understood the consequences it could have on them. Secondly, the are not naive in thinking that climate change is an easy topic to comprehend. They accept and acknowledge that climate change will not be a facile concept to grasp. But ironically, their whole backbone of their claim is that climate change does not need to be as intricate as it is commonly presented to be. They make the claim that climate change is difficult to understand because of how it is presented. For evidence they describe how media feeds into the drama side of climate change rather than reporting the comprehensive coverage for environmental affairs. Media has the power to agenda-set by choosing which stories become pressing news placing it on the front cover. DiMento and Pamela point out that often times when climate change does reach the front page news, it frequently gets questioned for being hyperbolize. However, they do acknowledge that their are special cases where news companies are consistent and have built good credibility based on releasing accurate and balanced articles. In addition, to recognizing those companies efforts they do offer more insight on how other major newspapers like to pretend they are avoiding bias. This was an important statement because it helps readers to see through this false face front of media, and ultimately help them understand coverage of climate change better. Moreover, they make a subclaim that people are in denial of human contribution to climate change because of disagreements among scientist. They go further, to link this widespread perception to political leaders and provided a statement from a senator that illustrates how work from scientist gets easily manipulated. Consequently, it is these assertions of magnified uncertainties that get placed on the front page of newspaper. Arguably, the presentation of scientific findings for climate change becomes cloudier and more difficult to understand when people not qualified (lack of expertise on a topic) try to draw their own conclusions. Their second subclaim is that a common person or an amature person who is not trained in a scientific profession are not able to comprehend to the level needed to understand climate change. Their reasoning behind it is that interpretation of certain risks may not be communicated as intended by the scientist. Additionally, the used evidence from other scientific fields like psychology to ration out human behavior and why it is so difficult to understand the abstract concept of climate change. By providing background of where the evidence is from and who published the work it built credibility for their reasonings, strengthening their argument. Similarly, their third subclaim is that jargon for climate change and the policies it is associated with are complex. They support this claim with demonstrating the intense vocabulary and plentiful acronyms related to climate science. In response to this confusion, DiMento and Pamela strive to put these terms into ordinary terms. By providing relatable example, such as the conversion of Celsius to Fahrenheit it helps to visualize the realistic impact of climate change. Through including phrases the reader already understands into the climate change it helps to bridge the gap between the science behind it to the practical consequence. Allowing the reader to be more open to accept the author’s argument.