Analysis of Stephen Schneider's Argument on the Subjective Prior

In modern America few problems prove to be as fundamentally problematic as the theory of human induced global warming. Its repeated coverage from within the media and political arena are influencing people worldwide, putting those who think differently in an outcast shadow. The truth of the matter is, to not believe in human induced global warming has become politically incorrect and unacceptable in the public eye. The theory of human induced global warming can be defined as the rise in temperature through human pollution of greenhouse gases resulting in catastrophic alterations in the earth 's environment. However, human pollution of greenhouse gases is so minor that it is not a contribution to the

In recent years, global climate change due to global warming has been largely researched. The paper, “Global Climate Change Triggered by Global Warming,” offers compelling evidence from various scientific papers that the process of Earth’s climate undergoing significant change has already begun and requires our attention due to the probability that human-generated greenhouse gases are the primary cause. Major focal points are shifting towards determining the causes to mitigate the effects rather than establishing the existence as sufficient amount of evidence has proven that global warming is indisputable. During the final decade of the 20th century, climatologists have concluded that the past millennium to be the warmest, especially in the year of 2005. Solutions towards the cause would require assistance from the population as a whole.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University, argues that everyone likes to prove themselves correct instead of being wrong. Scientists feel the same way, this is why a lot of scientists cite initial positive results even if they realize the results were disproven (463-464). Jonah also likes proving his arguments, but the problem with this author is the fact that he might not be correct. Jonah could be excluding the citations from his article because the real information from the sources could lead to a negative impact to Jonah’s

At this point, Patterson approaches the core of his argument, wherein he provides what he believes to be sufficient evidence that the idea global warming will soon cease to be a threat to the progress. He argues that the “fever is breaking, as more and more scientists come forward to admit their doubts about the global warming paradigm”. The use of a fever as a

“Lets get right to the point. There is no such thing as “global” warming.” This provocative statement presented by the author makes

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

There have been plenty of disputes regarding the infamous topic global warming, despite the fact that there is a unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. A history professor at UCSD, Naomi Oreskes, discusses this in her article, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. She begins her investigation by researching credible experts and environmental organizations, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, and several others. By utilizing these various sources as evidence it strengthens her argument about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. In this case, Oreskes audience consists of

Global warming is a topic which has been on the minds of many over the past decade. There have been political debates, scientific experiments, and scientific studies conducted that solely addressed global warming. Some say that global warming is not a major problem in the world and should not be a primary concern of today’s governments. Some even go so far as to say that global warming, which is also known as climate change, is a hoax. However, the documentary “Before the Flood” attempts to persuade its audience that the Earth is deteriorating due to the effects of global warming.

Global warming is one of the most controversial topics in the world today. Global warming describes a condition where the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans increase. Global warming is predicted to have significant harmful effects on life on earth. The controversy arises from conflicting evidence in the scientific community as to whether humans are contributing to global warming, whether it is a result of natural forces that are beyond the control of humans, or in some cases, whether it is even occurring at all. This research will examine credible evidence of global warming and will explore its causes and

The idea of climate change, for many, is an opinionated subject with much discussion of whether it is a real issue or just a natural phenomenon. However in recent years it is clear to see that trends in the Earth’s climate and surface temperature has spiked to levels never seen before. Despite all the evidence of the high levels of greenhouses gases and the rise in temperature, many still believe that

However, it is the argument that is against human activity being the primary cause of global warming that provides a superior explanation to this currently unknown global phenomena we call global warming. Despite the overbearing support against this argument, there is too much factual evidence about the complexity of the atmosphere and all of its elements that outweigh the predictions being made and then amplified significantly. Using supporting facts leads to a superior argument than using mathematic estimations, which consistently fail to meet their expected results. The changes in climate, including temperature change and rising sea levels, have all been happening for thousands of years providing historical evidence to show this change in climate as a natural occurrence. The most critical aspect of the argument is that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 do not necessarily cause global warming, which contradicts the core thesis of human-caused climate change as stated in a publication made on ProCon.org where the director of Greenpeace International Patrick Moore spoke on the relationship between the CO2 emissions from human activity and global temperature. He states that "there is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia” (ProCon.org). It is important to acknowledge that regardless what the actual

The case for attributing the recent global warming to human activities rests on the following undisputed scientific facts:

Throughout the expanse of this paper I will be utilizing terms and phrases that may be unfamiliar to some individuals. This particular potion of this essay will be dedicated to defining any foreign jargon before delving more deeply into the topic at hand. A prima facie wrong, a phrase already employed in this paper, is the notion that an action may look wrong at first glance, but upon further inspection, and in actuality, nothing may be wrong at all. A couple acronyms will also be stated during the course of this argument: AGCC, ICI, and GHGs. Anthropogenic global climate change can be broken down into the term AGCC, while GHGs are the shortened manner of saying greenhouse gas emissions. The most vital acronym of the three is most certainly ICI, which when elaborated means individual causal inefficacy. Individual casual inefficacy states that common individual actions are too causally insignificant to make any difference with regard to climate change . The definition and importance of these terms will play a role throughout the duration of this paper.

Global Warming is one of the most recent discussions within the scientific community and throughout its path towards acceptance scientist in agreeance with the model have to provide evidence of support for their claim. Kuhn’s process of discovery states that normal science is only thrown into a paradigm shift when a crisis emerges within the paradigm and the discoveries within the crisis lead to a revolution towards a new normal science. Within the scientific community of global warming, the discoveries were preceded by observations that are accurately described by Kuhn’s view of scientific revolution.

When one encounters the concept and idea of global warming, we inquire a wide range of opinions, facts, assumptions, and philosophies. As the general population of the world, the idea