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
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.
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
Team Colors: The red means they are ready to shed their blood for their church and the purple shows sorrow and suffering. History/Backstory: The Cardinals were a baseball team that was formed in 1891 after the original owners were bankrupt and had to sell the team to the Robinson's from the Browns. They played their first game at Sportsman Park. Name: The St.Louis Cardinals choose their name after they decided they didn't want their old name " The Perfectos" . This name was taken after the year 1900 and has been their name since. Also their old name "The Perfectos" was taken by an american team that played them for their name. Mascot/Logo : Cardinal called the Fredbird, this bird wears the team shirt and dances during the game. Loved by the
One author named Diana Abu-Jaber describes the difference between first and third person as “like the difference between looking at a person and looking through their eyes.” First person point of view draws readers into the perspective of others and their thoughts and feelings on life. Narrated by the female main character herself, “Eleven” written by Sandra Cisneros and “Marigolds” by Eugenia W. Collier open up readers to the mind of two young ladies. Readers travel with eleven-year-old Rachel and her captivating, youthful thoughts in “Eleven” on her birthday as her teacher forces her put on that “ugly sweater” (2) in front of her whole class. Intentionally, the author, Sandra Cisneros, uses second person at the beginning
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...
People use the word okay nearly every day. It is a word that everyone knows and uses due to its vast meanings. To be okay, is what Gary D. Schmidt’s novel Okay for Now really tries to get readers to understand. He poses the question: just what does “okay for now” mean? These answers are found through examining the characters in the store. While, okay can mean many different things, being okay means that the person is in a state where while things are not perfect, but they are tolerable and satisfactory and can improve.
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
Watts, Anthony. “Global Warming Theory has Failed All Tests, So Alarmists Return to the ‘97% Consensus’ Hoax” Wattsupwiththat. June 15 2013. Web. 15 March 2014.
Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic conditions. For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence of climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication.
So what is the big deal? The problem, and the reason why this concept instills fear directly into the core of scientists, is the rate at which, over the past 1,300 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen. This unnatural increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, due to the immense amount of anthropogenic burning of oil and coal, affects the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere, leading us to the phenomenon of global warming. 1). 61). The aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid aforesaid afore Moreover, it can also be seen “as presenting us with the largest collective action problem that humanity has ever faced, one that has both intra- and inter-generational dimensions” (Jamieson pg. 61).
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.
One of the most remarkable things about human existence is that there is a subject, an “I”, that experiences intellectual cognition of external things and is able to reflect on these experiences as a cognitive act in itself. How do things that exist outside of my mind come to exist inside of my mind so as to enable me to understand them? The goal of any theory of mind should be to answer questions such as this and, in evaluating the Gettier Problem as objectively as possible, we shall attempt to solve it to see whether it can withstand the single most piercing question we can ask of it: is it true that they are inescapable? In this essay I shall examine the paper of Gettier to answer the question of whether or not man can arrive at knowledge and, if so, how? I shall do this by recounting the problems posed by Gettier to the traditional understanding of knowledge as 'justified true belief', and then present critical responses to it to get to the truth of whether Gettier problems are inescapable, most notably by attempting to answer it with the 'Causal Theory', the 'Defeasibility Theory', and finally by considering knowledge as 'true belief with sufficient warrant'.
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 ...