Original article:
In her 2004 essay “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate
Change,” author Naomi Oreskes presents clear evidence that the scientific community is in
agreement that climate change is real and is a serious issue. Oreskes begins the article by saying
that reporters, corporations, and policymakers often distrust climate science. This leads them to
make decisions that may positively affect them in the short term, but in the long run will be
dangerous for the environment.
Oreskes says that the scientific consensus on climate change is obvious in the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. As of 2004, the IPCC’s most recent study
effectively confirmed that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans. The
author goes on to say that all of the major scientific organizations in the United States have
issued reports supporting the statement that global warming is a human-caused occurrence.
These statements have all been peer reviewed, and in a study examining over 900 abstracts of
scientific papers about climate change, not one of the papers had a dissenting position towards
the concept of human-caused global warming. These reports show that the idea that there is
dissention and confusion over climate change in the scientific community has no basis in fact.
The author concludes by acknowledging that the consensus of the scientific community
has, on occasion, been wrong, and that there is the possibility that it may be incorrect now.
However, she says, if anthropogenic climate change is occurring as it obviously appears to be,
our descendants will suffer the consequences of our lack of action. While we do not fully
understand all of the inner workings of weather and climate, the evidence clearly points toward
the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The illusions of disagreement and unfounded claims
of scientific dissent are dangerous and ridiculous. It is time to listen to the scientific community
and act before it is too late (Oreskes).
Source 1:
Stephan Harrison’s 2010 essay “What Lessons Does the Past Have for Future Predictions
of Climate Change?” says that we can use data from the past to better predict the effects of
global warming in the future. He believes that since projections in the past have underestimated
changes in climate, it is probable that current global climate models underestimate change as
well. Since there is a general consensus in the scientific community that global warming is
happening and is caused by humans, we can use our greenhouse gas output to try to better predict
the climate in the future. However, the current global climate models are inconsistent because we
are not yet able to include and understand the impact of all of the factors that influence weather,
and while they can provide a good idea of what will probably happen, very accurate prediction is
difficult. Harrison concludes by saying that our current greenhouse gas output may be beyond
the Global Climate Model’s capacity to resolve, which makes it even more urgent that we make
the shift to a sustainable society (Harrison).
Harrison cited Naomi Oreskes’ essay early on in his paper, to cement his position on the
reality of global climate change and to try to quickly convince his readers that the scientific
community does not at all doubt anthropogenic climate change. He uses Oreskes’ paper briefly,
but cites her correctly and puts her point in context by using her research in his paragraph about
the reality of climate change. Harrison uses Oreskes’ paper the way it was intended to be used, to
remind readers that the idea that there is dissent in the scientific community about global
warming is not based in fact. By using the article quickly and effectively, he contributes to
Oreskes’ stance by implying that, because there is almost no real dispute, he does not need to
waste his time going into details about why climate change is a reality. He does not misinterpret
what the original article was saying at all.
Source 2:
In his 2005 essay “The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change,” author Dennis Bray
argues that while some sources may say that there is no dissent about the reality of climate
change, many scientists are actually unsure. He cites and centers his paper around Naomi
Oreskes’ article and says that it gives an incorrect view of the views of the scientific community.
A study done by Bray and a colleague found much more mixed results, with many of the
surveyed saying that they were unsure that anthropogenic climate change is indeed happening.
Because of this, the author says, we should not assume that global warming is as sure as some
may think it is, even though there is a rise in consensus. He ends the article by accusing Oreskes
of not being able to grasp the term ‘scientific consensus’ (Bray).
While Dennis Bray cites Naomi Oreskes’ article correctly, he fails to make a solid point
about its lack of reliability. The study he used that pointed to less consensus about global
warming was published before Oreskes’ article, and Bray says himself that since the study was
published the level of consensus has risen. The study was also conducted and published by Bray
himself, along with a colleague. He also says that Oreskes’ study indicated that only the majority
of scientists agreed with the International Panel on Climate Change’s reports’ when in fact
Oreskes’ article showed that all of the ones surveyed agreed. In addition, his article was
originally published on a website called heartland.org, which advertises its support for CPAC,
Conservative Political Action Congress, on the homepage of their website, opposed the Kyoto
protocol (Michaels), and outright admits to having a conservative agenda. This implies that
Bray’s paper may be biased and therefore unreliable. Overall, his argument that Oreskes’ study
did not point to a scientific consensus was totally without basis.
Source 3:
A study done by a team, made up of Ariel Malka, Jon A. Krosnick, Matthew Debell,
Josh Pasek, and Daniel Schneide at Stanford University found that if a climate skeptic was
featured alongside a climate scientist in a news report about global warming, people were more
likely to be skeptical about climate change themselves. The study, titled “Featuring Skeptics in
News Media Stories About Global Warming Reduces Public Beliefs in the Seriousness of Global
Warming” polled a large group of students about their thoughts on global warming after
watching a newscast. One group watched a report with only a climate scientist who was talking
about the dangers of global warming, and one group watched a report with a climate skeptic
there as well. The equal air time for the scientist and the climate skeptic made it seem to viewers
as if there is dissent in the scientific community about climate change, when really there is
virtually none.
I thought that this study used the essay unusually because, normally, I would have
expected an article that cited Oreskes to use it as affirmation that climate change is a fact, and
then go into a report on the effects or causes of climate change, as did the majority of articles that
cited Oreskes’ paper. This essay cited the original essay well, by using it to show that scientists
who accept human-caused climate change vastly outnumber those who do not. It then used that
as a jumping off point for their reason for performing their study and then sharing their finding
that, although there is consensus in the scientific community, people are easily convinced
otherwise when the media gives equal interview time and credibility to a climate skeptic,
especially when, as is usually the case, they do not clarify to viewers that there really is a
scientific consensus about climate change.
Reflection:
When I started this essay, it was difficult for me to find an article topic. At first, I wanted
to find something astronomy- or astrophysics-related, because that is my main area of interest.
Unfortunately, most of the accessible articles I found while searching for those were either too
long, too technical, or had not been cited by essays that would fit with the rest of the assignment.
I decided to switch to climate change because I knew that it would be more fruitful ground for
what was required of this essay. Again, I had some trouble finding an article with enough
citations that I wanted to use, but it was not long before I found the right one. It was distressingly
easy to find an article that cited my main essay badly, but difficult to find one that used it
unusually (Debell et al.).
A problem that I often encountered was that when I found what looked like it would be a
good essay to use, I could not find it for free anywhere, and when it was free, many were not
cited by enough people. Many of the articles that I found for my original subject, astronomy,
were only published in specialized journals and were not available at my library. This was also
true of some of the climate change articles I found. It was also difficult to have to read many
papers that I ended up not using, and after that it was difficult to find correct citation information
for the articles. After a very long search, I found an article that was free, one page long, had over
400 citations and was easy for any audience to understand. The article had good reliability and
information, and was about a topic that many people write about, sometimes badly. I gained a lot
of experience in finding scientific articles, and I was also introduced to a new search engine,
Google Scholar, which I will be able to use in the future when I need to find reliable scientific
papers.
Works Cited
Bray, Dennis. "The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change." Heartland.org. 2005. Web.
Debell, Matthew, Jon A. Krosnick, Ariel Malka, John Pasek, and Daniel Schneide. "Featuring
Skeptics in News Media Stories About Global Warming Reduces Public Beliefs in the
Seriousness of Global Warming." Stanford University, June 2009. Web.
Harrison, Stephan. "What Lessons Does the Past Have for Future Predictions of Climate
Change?" 2010. Web.
Michaels, Patrick. "Kyoto’s Chilling Effects: Can the United Nations Dictate Scientific
Outcome?" Heartlander Magazine. Web. 13 Feb. 2012.
<http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2000/02/01/kyotos-chilling-effects-canunited-nations-dictate-scientific-outcome>.
Oreskes, Naomi. "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change."
2004. Web.