The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

97% of Climate Scientists Don't Actually Agree

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 335 times Debate No: 94585
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Just about every time a debate begins anywhere on the topic of climate change, you will hear the statistic "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused my human induced pollution". Well, that settles it right? There is no way that 97% of climate scientists could all be wrong? Using this, we should all be able to agree that it is time to focus on climate change and accept that it is our fault and we can stop it right? Well, no. I've started this debate to clarify that the 97% statistic is very misleading and used for the wrong purposes. Let it be known to my opponent and voters that this is not a general climate change debate, but simply a debate on this number alone. Please remain on this topic.

Now, let me start by talking about the primary topic of this debate, the 97% statistic. And you've probably heard this before, but what exactly do they agree on? If 97% of scientists said that The Earth is warming at an alarming and dangerous rate, then why question it, but my sources say that they say no more then point out a slight warming trend of about 0.8 degrees over the past century. So if this is the only statistic they all agree on, then how do you justify using this statistic to justify government funded organisations as big as the EPA or other environmental protection programs. you can't

It has also been proven that in most cases of any percentage of 90+ in cases of climate change are almost always do to poor studies. For instance John Cook came up with a study in 2012 that stated "97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming and human activity is the main cause" Well, it turns out that most of his papers never actually stated any such thing. He in fact created a category which he believed the prior statement was implied, but never stated, which we can all agree can be considered as malpractice. It also turns out that 3 scientists,Dr. Craig Idso, Dr. Nichola Scafetta, and Dr. Richard Tol, whose papers where included all said that there papers where never supposed to be used in any such way.

So, based on my arguments, I believe it is safe to say that until an accurate study is conducted stating that climate scientists agree that Climate change is real and that humans are the primary cause we can not use any such statistic to convince the public to take unnecessary actions to resolve a problem that we know little about the magnitude and possible consequences of, not to mention the fact that they haven't even confirmed that there is even something we can do to stop it.


All scientists agree that science is something worth dedication their professional life to.

Thus 100% of scientists agree.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SchinkBR 2 months ago
Sad really. As a meteorologist there's a lot that could be said on this topic for both sides.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 months ago
So it's just a debate on an appeal to population/authority?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even make any real arguments or present any sources. Pro wins by default.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 2 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lays out a logical case for his side that includes a popular media story concerning the 97% stat found by John Cook but shows with several examples why that study was not reliable. Con does nothing to refute this, and opts to make a humorous argument based on a particular interpretation of the title. While this is funny, it ignores the implied meaning of the debate. Pro carries his point through and wins the debate.