This paper compares two peer-reviewed articles on global warming published in Scientific American: Paul R. Epstein's 2000 piece projecting adverse health effects from rising temperatures, and Stephen Schneider's 2002 article urging caution in interpreting climate data. The analysis highlights how Epstein relies on speculative "what if" scenarios with limited citations, while Schneider grounds his argument in measurable scientific evidence and warns against unsupported predictions. The paper argues that public understanding of global warming is shaped more by the perceived credibility of experts than by the quality of the evidence they present, and cautions against costly policy reactions driven by alarmist claims.
Global warming is an issue at the center of extensive and intense debate and research, though some research is more reliable than others. This paper examines how research is used to drive reaction and support for or against global warming theories and, consequently, recommended actions such as the Kyoto Protocol — a controversial policy document drawing on contributions from specialists and scientists that, if ratified by world governments, would place certain environmental demands on those governments. Proponents of global warming and the Kyoto Protocol have issued studies, environmental impact forecasts, and health impact projections that are alarming, but these raise the question of whether such proponents are overreacting and acting as alarmists.
This study focuses on two reports. The first is by Paul R. Epstein (2000), published in the peer-reviewed journal Scientific American (pp. 50–57). Epstein's credentials are impressive: a medical doctor trained in tropical climate health, he is an associate director for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Epstein's report projects the health conditions and illnesses that would accompany global warming, prefacing his remarks by stating, "Disturbingly, these forecasts seem to be coming true" (p. 1).
The second paper is by Stephen Schneider, professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and senior fellow at International Studies at Stanford University, and editor of Climatic Change and the Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather. Like Epstein, Schneider is published in Scientific American; his more recent 2002 article discusses global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. Unlike Epstein, Schneider takes the position that people need to be cautious — even suspicious — of how they interpret and rely upon the vast wealth of information surrounding the global warming debate.
The first and most striking difference between the two experts is that Epstein is an alarmist, using the words "would" and "could" extensively throughout his article as he discusses projected adverse health effects resulting from global warming. Epstein's article uses scientific data as it is currently understood to project human responses and conditions under global warming through multiple levels of "what if" scenarios.
Epstein's article is noticeably absent of citations referencing existing studies and concurring scientists or physicians. He uses phrases such as, "Today few scientists doubt the atmosphere is warming. Most also agree…" (Epstein, 2000, p. 1), yet no names of studies or scientists are provided for readers to follow up on. Epstein does list four professional and peer-reviewed sources, but he does not invoke or cite those sources throughout his argument about global warming and its adverse health consequences — conditions he warns will increase as the planet warms.
The central problem with Epstein's article is that he offers no proof, or evidence-based support, that global warming will actually increase to the levels he cites as conditions under which disease and human suffering would result. While it is broadly accepted that global warming at extreme levels would no doubt create conditions for increased disease and even death, there is no sufficient data to suggest that warming will reach the levels Epstein implies. His article is alarmist in nature.
Schneider's (2002) article, in contrast to Epstein's, relies heavily on scientific data, pointing out that existing evidence is inconclusive as to the future trajectory of global warming (pp. 62–65). Schneider conveys the sense that he is resisting the temptation to be alarmist, holding firmly to the principles of science and maintaining that there is insufficient evidence from which to make the kind of predictions about future climate change discussed in the Kyoto Protocol. This is also Schneider's critique of non-scientific studies that have contributed to much of the published data about future weather and climate changes.
"Contrasting methodologies of Epstein and Schneider"
"Costly policies driven by unverified alarmist claims"
Schneider is advocating caution — caution in making unsubstantiated assertions about future weather conditions, and caution in how people react to and interpret the vast amounts of information being made public on global warming that are not supported by sound, scientific research. When comparing the two articles, Schneider's approach is the more methodologically sound and intellectually responsible one, and it offers a useful model for how both scientists and the public should engage with the ongoing global warming debate.
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.