Summary of The Article “The 97 Percent Solution” In his article “The 97 percent solution.”, Ian Tuttle provides the scientific doubts on the claim by the White House that, “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact.” Since the satellite measuring the temperature shows no significant warming change for the last 18 years, global warming alarmist called the situation “the pause”. On the other hand, 97% of scientists declare that the earth is warming up and it is mainly a result of human activity. Tuttle explains various scientific data in his article. John Cook, an Australian scientist who conducted the “97 percent” study in 2013, recognized that 97% of the papers that he examined agree on the …show more content…
From the 12000 abstracts that Cook examined, only 34% of the papers take no position in the consensus view while the 33% agreed with the view. Tuttle notes that after David Legates, a professor at the University of Delaware, recreated Cook’s study, it is known that only 1% of the 4014 expressing an opinion supported the Cook’s claim. According to a study conducted by PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, only three in ten respondents agree that human activity attributed to less than half of the global warming since 1951 or that they didn’t know what causes the global warming. Tuttle concluded by suggesting that the different scientific explanations for global warming create a confusion. He clarifies that no agreement is reached on the 97 percent approach by signifying the existence of a vital 3% minority voice. In the article “The 97 Percent Solution”, since Tuttle doesn’t provide ample evidence to doubt the scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of global warming, I agree with the White House
He includes references from scientists with different backgrounds and public statements from government officials to support the claims that he made. Not only that, Scranton is a doctoral candidate in English at Princeton University, and he has written for The New York Times, Boston Review, and Theory & Event. Also, Scranton has published a novel about the Iraq war. His achievements and academic background certainly increase his credibility. His scientific and political sources add to his credibility even more so. The examples included in the logos paragraph is only a representation of the evidence featured in his article hence the use of the plural version of scientists and government officials in this essay. Even though Dr. Scranton has credible sources, he does fail to consider a portion of UTA readers. He mentions that the “question is no longer whether global warming exists” but instead questions how we are going to deal with it (par. 9). As a result, Scranton ignores the readers that might not believe in global warming; he does not recognize this small audience in his article, and as a consequence, readers might find Scranton to be slightly arrogant. Despite the failure to acknowledge this alternate view, Scranton does have the public’s interests at heart. The purpose of the article is to convince readers to take action and help save humanity
Global warming has been an issue for quite some time now and only recently has it been adopted by a mass amount of people in their efforts to fight against it. However, there are people and organizations who claim that global warming does not exist or is not caused by human activities. After reading my text, Taking Sides, on the debate between members of UCS and members of the CEI, I wanted to do a little research of my own to see if the claims they were making were accurate. Even though members of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Competitive Enterprise Institution argue two opposite sides of the global warming issue, they have much in common within their tactics to win the debate. Both organizations have credible and discreditable backgrounds and pay enormous amounts of money to those in administration to gain their support as well as donating money to other organizations for their support. The UCS and CEI also use scientists to prove their positions to be correct, and they both provide scientific evidence on both sides.
The theory that Earth is headed for a new ice age has been a topic of discussion in the scientific community, but was not discussed by the public until the release of the movie The Day After Tomorrow, and since its release in 2006, it has been viewed by more than 30 million adults. The movie has some base of scientific facts with a dash of creative liberty added by the screenwriters. The National Science Foundation funded a study, performed by Anthony Leiserowitz of Decision Research, to explore the movies impact on public opinion in regards to climate change. The study conducted two nationwide surveys, one a week before, and one four weeks after the movie’s release. The resul...
Ever since the advent of weather observation and prediction technology in the past 150 years, science has created a consensus that the earth is getting warmer, and that human influence is to blame. Some even blame this change, known as global warming, for bouts of extreme weather including cyclonic storms, droughts, wildfires, and heat waves. These scientists (and much of the public) believe that our influence is the problem, as our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, the product of the usage of our fuels, are polluting the atmosphere and trapping energy from the sun within. However, a minority group, scientists and public skeptics alike, believe this warming trend is merely a coincidence with the earth’s naturally cyclical climate, and that the activists are overstating something they know little about. Many even agree that if the prospect of our influence were to be true, the effects are not at all that bad, unlike what it is hyped to be. Thus, global warming has become a debatable theory. Much like legislation that prevents schools from teaching evolution as anything more than a theory, now there are also laws that mandate that global warming be considered debatable, and to argue both sides of it (Jonas).
Alleged Global Warming has been a hot topic and been widely reported in the American media since the 1970s. In March 2014, TED, a nonprofit committed to expanding ideas with short talks, gave a powerful presentation of the alleged current consequences of Global Warming in Gavin Schmidt’s (2014) talk: The emergent patterns of climate change. His claims are stark and he implores his audience to take the grave predictions of Global Warming seriously and not just write it off as insignificant. While Google Trends (2014) shows (graph 1) that search terms for global warming in the United States (red) have decreased while worldwide (blue) interest (image 1) fluctuates with India showing the most curiosity. Yet, not everyone agrees that Global Warming is real just as not everyone agrees that cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health when scientific studies show otherwise. By defining Global Warming, giving the major arguments on both sides of the topic, and offering an overview of scientific studies, this paper will help one think critically and thoughtfully about Global Warming.
It is common for an individual to mentally categorize controversial topics, such as climate change, in order to efficiently form their opinions on the matter. Often, it is the case that controversial science becomes politicized and categorized into party affiliations. More than 85% of Americans agree that “even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by federal government” according to the National Science Board (2008). Ame...
In the article “Climate of Complete Certainty” by Bret Stephens, he argues upon the topic that politicians exaggerate scientific certitude to benefit themselves. Stephens uses Clinton’s campaign loss and the climatic debate as illustrations to show that scientific fact doesn’t always give the defining factor of gains or losses. As stated by Stephens, Brexit showed the Clinton campaign that the populist tide causes a major surprise factor when determining the end result. With this example in mind, Stephens conveys that the end result strayed away from absolute certainty. Another instance in which scientific certitude is altered is within the topic of climate change.
During an interview on Morning Edition with Ted Cruz and Steve Inskeep (host), the senator states that the “scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming…the satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever.” This was an interesting claim because typically scientists show that climate change is evident. Focusing on Cruz’s word choice of “no significant warming” is clever because when interpreting data, it depends on what is defined as insignificant. For example, data shows that the average global temperature has increased 6 degrees Celsius on average. This can be seen as insignificant because 6 is such a small number. However, this is actually a dramatic temperature as an average global temperature. In addition, an article from Washington Post discusses Ted Cruz’s claim that “many of the alarmists on global warming” does not have that evidence to back them up, and presents his evidence that in “the last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming”. Not only does he target those that believe in climate change as “alarmists”, which makes them seem as individuals overreacting to climate change, but he also exaggerates himself when he makes the claim that there is “no recorded warming”. However, the article proves Ted Cruz wrong when it quotes a scientist saying, “You can look at the data since 1980, and it’s pretty clear that there’s an ascending trend there. But if you look at any 15-year period, it’s a lot less clear that the trend line that you drive might actually mean something,” Mears
As referenced in Al Gores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ 97% of the peer reviewed scientific reports regarding global warming within the scientific community, determined that global warming is an undeniable fact. The majority of the world’s population is not exposed to this scientific evidence; only the media's interpretation and distortion of the facts based on the head of their organisations
Global climate change is a phenomenon widely accepted by the public in today’s society. A survey from Yale revealed that 63% of Americans believe that global warming is currently happening (Leiserowitz, 2013). And although the public has shown to misunderstand the scientific field, in the case of climate change, science supports their beliefs. Now, a majority of scientists accept that extreme changes are occurring in the world. Evidence is showing that worldwide climate change is real, and the consequences will cause adverse effects to all forms of life.
Climate change has been nothing, but controversial in the last fifty years. Climate change is a change in the average weather of a region or city. Scientists have opted to use the term "climate change" instead of global warming because as the Earth's average temperature changes, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, as well as warm others. There is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on the global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change. Ninety-seven percent of published scientific research concluded that climate change is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity. But what about the three percent that contradicts that?
Climate change and global warming is a highly debated subject. There are people on both side with strong opinions. People who believe in climate change are sometimes labeled as alarmists, while those who think that climate change is a hoax are referred to as deniers. Some people like to argue about existence of climate change with the help of scientific data, others respond to these data with skepticism and alternative science. At this point, topic of climate change has almost become like a football match with passionate supporters on both sides. Sometimes argument can be reasonable, other times it transcends into a slapfight. Hyperboles and exaggerations are often employed by both teams. Simon barnes in “We are heading towards a world without
The opposing party would like you to believe that the scientists are 90% certain that extreme heat periods will increase worldwide. They say that this is causing increased danger of wildfires, human deaths, and algal blooms. This of course is utterly false on many different levels. These scientists that the opposing party was actually paying a select group of scientists to testify for them meaning the “90% of Scientists” were actually lying because they were being paid off. The real majority agreed against these paid scientists, but they were not included in the vote for agreement in this statistic. These statistics are not nearly as dire as described because they won’t happen. This is because the CO2 emissions are no where near to where they are portrayed in the Al Gore video.
The controversial subject of global warming according to a large amount of scientists is not a prominent concern. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all. If so many scientists believe it is not a concern then why should we think any different? Well, a consensus shows that in reality 97% of all climate scientists agree that global warming is an issue and that it is most likely due to ...
Samenow, Jason (2013). 97 percent of scientific studies agree on manmade global warming, so what now? The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/