Adams / CRITIQUING CLAIMS ABOUT GLOBAL
WARMING
BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 1999
Critiquing Claims About Global Warming From
the World Wide Web: A Comparison of High
School Students and Specialists
Stephen T. Adams
California State University, Long Beach
The ability to evaluate scientific claims made in
various media sources is a critical component of scien-
tific literacy. This study compares how a group of 12th
grade students and a group of specialists, including
scientists and policy analysts with expertise in global
warming, evaluated an editorial about global warm-
ing published by an oil company on the World Wide
Web. Participants were asked to read the editorial and
were asked a set of interview questions about it. Exam-
ples from the specialists interviews indicate the kinds
of responses that are possible with in-depth scientific
knowledge. In comparison, although some examples
from the studentsinterviews illustrate competent per-
formance for a nonexpert, other student responses il-
lustrate possible pitfalls. The approach of the present
study affords a constructive route for formulating
goals for scientific literacy. The approach permits
identifying examples of students evaluating scientific
claims in more or less competent waysclaims that
are in the context of an important socioscientific issue
and an actual media source.
Key words: High school students, expert-novice
studies, global warming, climate change, scientific
literacy, media literacy
A s the next millennium begins, human actions are,
in all likelihood, influencing global climate (Hough-
AUTHORS NOTE: This research was supported, in part, by the
National Science Foundation (Grant No. DGE-9554564). I am
grateful to Andrea diSessa, Michael Ranney, Mark Christensen,
and Jeffrey Friedman for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Versions of this article were presented at the 14th National STS
Meeting (Baltimore, MD, March 1999) and the International Stu-
dent Pugwash USA Conference, Science and Social Responsibil-
ity in the New Millennium (University of California, San Diego,
June 1999).
Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 19, No. 6, December 1999, 539-543
Copyright 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Downloaded from bst.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 26, 2015
ton et al., 1996). Climate change is one of the impor-
tant issues high school graduates should be prepared to
make informed judgments about. Indeed, decisions
made while students are in their youth may well have
reverberations throughout their lifetimes. To make
informed judgments about climate change, it is essen-
tial that nonexperts have the scientific literacy skills to
evaluate claims about it (Gore, 1998). Otherwise, they
may be susceptible to public relations ploys of special
interest groups. Oil and coal companies, for example,
may spin claims about the science of climate change
to suit their agendas (Helvarg, 1996). Thus, a key edu-
cational issue is having the background knowledge
and skills to evaluate scientific claims about climate
change, even if those claims are slanted.
As a step toward identifying what these skills would
include, this article compares how high school stu-
dents and specialists (scientists and policy analysts
with expertise in global warming) evaluated claims
about global warming. The claims were from an edito-
rial on the Web site of an oil company. Examples from
the specialists indicate the kinds of responses that are
possible with in-depth scientific knowledge. In com-
parison, although some examples from the students
responses illustrate competent performance for a non-
expert, other student responses illustrate possible pit-
falls.
Method
Participants
Ten students, all 17 years old and seniors from a San
Francisco Bay Area high school, participated in the
study. They were drawn from science classes having
students of mixed ability levels. Of the 10 students, 4
540 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 1999
were boys and 6 were girls, 2 were African Americans,
and 1 was Asian American. They were paid $5.75 per
hour.
In addition, 6 specialists participated in the study.
They included a postdoctoral researcher at a major uni-
versity working in the area of climate change, a staff
scientist working in the area of energy efficiency at a
national laboratory, a doctoral candidate from a major
university studying climate change, an engineer with
energy efficiency experience, and 2 policy analysts
with expertise in global warming and transportation
issues. The doctoral candidate was a woman, and the
other specialists were men. The ages of the specialists
ranged from 27 to 65. Except for the postdoctoral
researcher, the specialists all participated on a volun-
teer basis. The postdoctoral researcher, who partici-
pated in subsequent experimental activities, was paid
$12.50 per hour.
Procedure1
Participants read a seven-paragraph editorial, Less
Heat, More Light on Climate Change, from the Web
site of Mobil Oil (www.mobil.com), dated July 18,
1996. This editorial was chosen because it represents
an authentic example of arguments about global
warming developed for lay persons. It was also
selected because it presents some scientific claims that
would likely be new to lay persons and which are
potentially misleading. In particular, the article states,
Naturally occurring greenhouse gasespredomi-
nantly water vaporaccount for 95 to 97 percent of
the current effect. Although this claim is true, it may
tend to obscure the significance of the human contribu-
tion. The editorial also claims that the concentration
of greenhouse gases is building up slowlyless than
0.5 percent annually for CO2and that gives us time to
implement effective mitigation measures. Focusing
on the seemingly small rate of increase of carbon diox-
ide may tend to obscure critical factors such as the
effects of the carbon dioxide on the climate system, the
amount of time required to reduce carbon dioxide lev-
els, and the amount of time required by humans to
make significant infrastructure changes to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Although acknowledging
that the company clearly has a stake in the outcome
of international negotiations about global warming,
the editorial states: We are presenting this editorial
series in the hope that it will help contribute to a
rational and productive discussion on global climate
change.
Downloaded from bst.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 26, 2015
After reading the editorial, the participants were
given a semistructured interview about it. The inter-
view questions are listed in the appendix.
Results
I cite responses from the specialists and high school
students to illustrate themes and examples judged to
illustrate higher and lower levels of scientific literacy.
A limitation of the analysis concerns the process of
selecting the excerpts. A different coder might have
selected different examples. However, the methods
were judged appropriate for the initial purposes of the
study. It is not useful to try to make generalizations
from this small set of examples about how all students
or specialists would handle a similar task. Space limi-
tations permit only a brief discussion; Adams (1999a)
gives a fuller treatment as well as a discussion of how
the participants critiqued other materials about global
warming found on the World Wide Web. Subjects
names are fictitious but preserve gender.
Specialists Responses
In evaluating the editorial, specialists noted the im-
pact of human contributions, rather than the relative
magnitude of the contribution of humans:
It is classic advertising logic . . . just sort of say-
ing, Its only 3-5% of the CO2 that is attributable
to mans activities, without saying that the only
thing we care about is the perturbation. It doesnt
matter if its a 1% or a 20% [change] . . . its the
impact of the perturbation, not that the change is
small. (Ron, scientist)
Rates of change were placed in the context of geologic
time scales:
I mean the other thing they dont say here is that a
3-5% change in 100 years has never happened in
the history of the planet. (Ron, scientist)
Also used was knowledge of lag times in the climate
system:
They actually say things like, The concentration
of greenhouse gases is building up slowly, less
than 0.5% annually, and that gives us time to
implement effective mitigation measures,
which is not true. I mean the CO2 lifetime is 40
years in the atmosphere. It doesnt matter if its
 Adams / CRITIQUING CLAIMS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
going up 0.5% annually, thats a long time, and
you cant, I mean if you make a change now, the
effects of the things you did last year are gonna
be felt for the next 40 years. Thats not time to
implement effective mitigation measures. (Ron,
scientist)
The concept of equilibrium was also used:
Whats the sensitivity of the environment to that
level of CO2? You know, is 0.5% a big change or a
small change? [If] something is balanced, you
know, two weights are balanced, then 0.5% may
be enough to topple the whole thing off and make
it fall. It all depends on whether 0.5% is insignifi-
cant noise or is enough to totally destabilize a
system. (Lee, policy analyst)
Specialists also demonstrated sensitivity to possible
rhetorical strategies of the editorial. The use of statis-
tics was identified as one such strategy. As you start to
throw around numbers . . . numbers are often used to
help build credibility (Mike, policy analyst). Another
strategy was identified as framing the editorial as a
public service:
They lay if out as if theyre just doing this as a
public service. Whereas actually . . . they are try-
ing to convince people that [global warming] is
not the problem that scientists are saying it is.
(Lee, policy analyst)
Less Scientifically Literate Student Responses
Some students were swayed by the editorials statis-
tic indicating that the relative contribution of anthro-
pogenic sources is small:
I think there was one part which I was kinda
shocked by. That like, what is it, CO2 only pro-
duceswater vapor will account for 95-97% of
the current effect? The other 3-5% is attributable
or whatever to mans activities. . . . And if thats
true, what we do doesnt really matter. (Thomas)
This student, Thomas, got the idea that perhaps a big
dehumidifier (!) would be a way to ameliorate global
warming:
If that issue of 3-5% is true, then we should defi-
nitely be working on the 95-97% water vapor
Downloaded from bst.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 26, 2015
541
causes in the greenhouse effect. Thats what we
should be working on. Maybe we should put a
big dehumidifier somewhere, something like
that. See what that does. (Thomas)
Evidently, in making this imaginative suggestion,
Thomas overlooked such considerations as the scale of
the dehumidifier that might be required (or its energy
cost!).
Another pitfall was assuming that the editorial was
reliable because it contained statistics. Bonnie noted
she felt the editorial was reliable because of the infor-
mation and the statistics that it gives me. Students also
had difficulties identifying purposes or biases of the
editorial. Some students seemed to accept the editori-
als stated purpose at face value:
Well, as they say here, We were presenting this
editorial series in the hope that it will help con-
tribute to rational and productive discussion on
global climate change. I mean, I thought it was
pretty nonbiased. . . . I didnt feel like there was a
real opinion here. (Kyle)
I think it is for awareness . . . they want to educate
people on what global warming is, what it could
affect, what the greenhouse effect is. (Howard)
Another possibility was suspecting the possibility
of bias without being able to identify it. Thomas, the
student proposing the big dehumidifier, remarked,
[The company] of course is going for the idea
that gas doesnt do anything, because they want
their company to exist and [they want to] live in
their big houses and stuff. So I am sure some of
this data is kind of slanted toward them and their
beliefs. (Thomas)
More Scientifically Literate Student Responses
The responses from a student, Marie, illustrate a
higher level of scientific literacy. She felt that even if
the relative human contribution to warming is small, it
may still be significant:
I dont know about these numbers that they have,
that naturally occurring greenhouse gases
account for 97% of the current effect. I dont
know if those are true, they could be outright
lying. If it is true, I still think its kind of alarming
that 3-5% is attributable to humans. Even though
542 BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 1999
that seems like a small amount, theres so much
air in the atmosphere that thats actually a lot. (Marie)
She argued that a small annual contribution could ac-
cumulate into a large contribution, and she also evalu-
ated the rate of increase relative to geological time
scales:
Point five percent annually is a lot to me, I dont
know. It seems like a whole bunch, in 10 years
youd have, what, 5% of carbon dioxide. Thats
only 10 years, and thats nothing in the span of
the earths lifetime. (Marie)
She made another good point by comparing the rate of
change of carbon dioxide levels to the rate of change of
human responses:
And it doesnt seem like thatd be at all enough
time to implement measures to stop that from
happening. . . . I mean you have to make tests, and
you have to sort of try it out in certain places, and
then even once you get started in implementing it
all over the globe, its going to take a while for it
to be effective. (Marie)
She identified the purpose of the editorial as follows:
The purpose of the article I think is to sort of
defend oil corporations, foresting companies, the
other side of the argument, the nonenvironmen-
talists as it were. . . . I mean they have a point that
maybe should be expressed, and so I think that
this accomplishes it. (Marie)
Discussion
These case studies, although no means comprehen-
sive, paint a picture of student pitfalls and competen-
cies related to scientific literacy. The pitfalls included
focusing on a relative change rather than the magni-
tude of that change, exhibiting some difficulties with
issues of scale (recall Thomass big dehumidifier),
assuming that an editorial from a company with an
economic stake in an issue was purely a kind of public
service announcement, and exhibiting unquestioning
trust in statistics. On the other hand, Maries interview
shows that even a 17-year-old, without specialized
knowledge of climate change, can make competent
critiques. She productively considered issues of scale
Downloaded from bst.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 26, 2015
in her assessment that a 3%-5% anthropogenic contri-
bution is large, she productively considered rates of
change in noting that a buildup of carbon dioxide of
0.5% annually would accumulate into a larger amount
in 10 years, and she productively considered issues of
scale by noting that 10 years is small on geological
time scales. She even considered the lag times inherent
in human responses to global warming.
Dealing with the implications of climate change is a
multifaceted problem requiring an educated citizenry.
In large measure, the competencies and pitfalls illus-
trated in this study are indicative of more general sci-
entific literacy skills, rather than specific knowledge of
climate change per se. Nonetheless, educational
activities based on critiquing materials about climate
change, like those of this study, could well be part of a
more general effort to improve scientific literacy
skills.
The overall approach of the present study, involving
study of how students and specialists read articles con-
taining scientific claims about socioscientific issues,
also points to a method for formulating goals for scien-
tific literacy. Recent documents written by the Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement of Science and
the National Research Council propose descriptions of
concepts that would define scientific literacy (Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement of Science,
1993; National Research Council, 1996; Rutherford &
Ahlgren, 1990). Further research, investigating how
students read articles with scientific claims, could
compare the kinds of competence that emerge from
this type of empirical study with the proposed national
standards and benchmarks recommended by these
groups. Such empirical study could either validate the
recommendations or suggest alternates, provide
images of expertise, identify the knowledge and
approaches of lay persons that arise, and suggest
instructional applications.
Appendix
Media Interview
What did you think of the editorial?
Are there parts of the article you agree with? Why?
Are there parts of the article you disagree with? Why?
After reading this article, do any questions come to mind
about things you would like to know more about?
What do you think the purpose of the editorial is?
On a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 is the least reliable and 6 is the
most reliable, how would you rate the editorial? Why is
that?
 Adams / CRITIQUING CLAIMS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
Note
1. This study was part of a larger dissertation study of how high
school students and specialists evaluated issues associated with
global warming (Adams, 1999a). Prior to the media interview dis-
cussed here, participants were given questionnaires about policy
options to ameliorate global warming, interviewed about their be-
liefs about the science of global warming, and interviewed about a
newspaper article describing a geoengineering strategy to fertilize
the ocean with iron to stimulate phytoplankton that would seques-
ter carbon dioxide. It is possible that these other experimental
activities influenced participantsresponses; however, the methods
were judged suitable for the exploratory purposes described here.
A related article (Adams, 1999b) from the same overall study dis-
cusses how high school students and specialists evaluated policies
affecting automobiles.
References
Adams, S. (1999a). What is good reasoning about global warm-
ing? A comparison of high school students and specialists
(Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,
1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(08), 2911.
Downloaded from bst.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 26, 2015
543
Adams, S. (1999b). Views of policies affecting automobiles: A
comparison of high school students and specialists. Bulletin of
Science, Technology, & Society, 19, 372-380.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).
Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Gore, A. (1998, November). The politics of scientific illiteracy. In
Global Change [On-line]. Available: www.globalchange.org.
Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development.
Helvarg, D. (1996, December 16). The greenhouse spin: Energy
companies try the tobacco approach to evidence of global
warming. The Nation, 263, 21-24.
Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N.,
Kattenberg, A., & Maskell, K. (1996). Climate change 1995:
The science of climate change. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Stephen Adams teaches in the College of Education at Cali-
fornia State University, Long Beach. His doctorate, from the
University of California, Berkeley, is in education in mathe-
matics, science, and technology. His areas of specialization
include education about issues involving energy and the en-
vironment, media literacy, and instructional technology.